blonde poker forum

Just wondered if a few people could give me their take on this ruling last night. It didn't have any significance on my game so there's no story to go with it, but I've now heard two different rulings on it and am not sure whats right.

This is what happened...

Ok, so blinds 150/300. One guy double the bet to 600. It passes round to the BB and he annouces raise.

What is the minimum he can raise?



I thought he had to double the total bet, which is 600, so his raise would be 600 with 600 for a 1200 bet in total.

However, it was ruled he could actually raise 300 on top, so it was 300 for him to call with 300 more on top for 900 bet in total.


Both players had plenty of chips by the way, so they weren't moving all-in.


Like I say, no huge argument to solve and there was no significance to this, but I'd like to see what the correct way of doing this is for future reference. (not that I can ever see a sitation where I want to go 600 with 300 but anyway...)

that's right - the minimum re-raise is the BB, i.e. 300 chips

what he said!

a raise = a called bet of 300 and raise of 300 so a re-raise would be a call of the initial call + the initial raise (= 600)  + a further raise of 300.

clear as mud!

So they could just keep raising each other in 300s until all their chips were in?

yes - but then if one of them were to change the amount of the raise (eg 500) then the betting would have to continue with minimums of 500.

Ok cool. cheers. Playing poker for 5+ years and didn't know that.   :-[

errr. -to call the re-raise it is 900, which is a raise of 600 so a third player would need to call the 900 and a riase of a further 600 (i think) thus making it 1500 to go.

The reraise is a call of 600 and raise of 300 isn't it?

BB is the reraiser so 300 is to call the raise and 600 is the min reraise........total 1200

 >:?

someone start again

 >:D

can a moderater please delete or lock this thread please? - i am finding it offensive (to my brain) - thanks! ???

nope

Sorry, I started something bad.

it's not hard, if someone raises 300 then u have to re-raise at least 300.

Forget the total bet.

What he said. A third person can also raise 300 behind the first two.

ahhh, finally some simplicity to this thread! -

so errr.... what he said!

I understand that - but what about a tacical raise I saw the other day which confounded me. The guy called my all in - which was an under raise by the way - and there was a ruling that the next guy to bet couldn't reraise on top of that as the first guy had just called an under raise.  Does that make sense?

Help!!!!

IF it was his first action then he should have been able to raise. If it was his 2nd action he can only call or fold

Seems like the right ruling to me i presume we are talking pre flop here. If player 1 makes it 600 to go,that is a call of 300 and a raise of 300 therefore the min raise is to call the 600 and put 300 more on top. Of course if it was post flop and player makes it 600 the min raise is then 600 with 600 more (1200 total) as this is a bet of 600 and no call is involved as the player has the option to check.
 
Dingdell if someone has gone all in and it is an under raise of the original raise then other players who haven't called the original raise can raise again. Anyone who has called the original raise can only call the all in as its under raise and therefore you are attempting to raise that under raise which is against the rules. That prob makes no sense but i tried.

Oh yeah as its your thread Phil, how did you end up getting on last night.

Guess.

Hmm your asking me to guess so i would say somewhere between 11th and 20th where the massive life changing payouts are. You should be able to buy me in next week if thats the case, with your new found wealth ;).

Spot on. 13th this week. And this week it was £40 from 16th-20th and £50 11th-15th so I made that extra £10 that actually put me in profit!  O0

and 14th for me

What great guys to swap a % with hey?

Sorry to open this up again Junior but---This under raise question causes lots of problems.

Say I am in first position with Aces --I slow play them and get a A Rag Rag flop with a big stack and a very short stack.
I might check big stack raise and then the small stack under raise all in--

Surely it should be reasonable for me to be allowed to rr the big stack -- because otherwise the existance of the shrt stack denies me the opportunity to check raise...

Thoughts??
Malc-m

Yeah brilliant Phil and Adam im going to be a rich man with you two bubbling together before the real money. Hmmm what should i buy a new car or maybe a deposit on a house. No seriously a good effort to get that far and it really is a case of winning a few all ins with marginal hands at that stage, all in the lap of the poker gods.

Malc..

In this situation you can re-raise the big stack. However if you just call the raise and the underraise, the big stack cannot take advantage of the under-raise by raising again.

In effect, you are raising the original bet and not the under-raise.


Phil...

Nice to know you believed my ruling ido sometimes know what i'm doing you know :P

its as nightfly said

to put it simply you cannot raise a person that has already called your bet if another player has under raised you

i wanna know why on crytpo if a player in the big blind doesn't have enough to cover it the rest of the table only has to call what he has, deeply unfair.
i.e.
SB 150
BB 300 but only has 160
next players only have to call 160 to see a flop!!
It's wrong wrong wrong!!

poorly designed software

You can say that again,  I still can't play there.  Got money in there but might as well cash out.

Poorly designed software  ;D

"touch wood" its been working for me since i downloaded WH again last night

Was just double checking! I seem to have been playing it wrong in my home game for years, so from now on i'll take your rulings as gospel!  ;D Promise...

sorry, I'm probably being thick here.

example
blinds are 50/100
I raise to 500
are we saying minimum raise is +100 to 600?

or I make it 500, player 2 goes 1000 player 3 can go 1000 + 100 = 1100?

I know they're ridiculous bets but you get asked all sorts of daft questions dealing beginners nights.

re-reading the thread is it
50/100
I raise 400 to 500 total so minimum re-raise is 500+400 to 900 and re-re-raise 900+400 to 1300

and

I go 100+400 to 500, 2nd player 500+500 to 1000, 3rd player now has to go 1000+500 to 1500?

My understanding Adam is that if you make it 500 preflop, that raise is made up of a call of 100 and a raise of 400, 100 with 400. So the raise is 400.

Player 2 if he/she wants to raise they can make it a minimum of 900 (calling your 500 and then raising 400, doubling your raise)

Player 3 then can make it up to a minimum of 1300, 400 more on top of the 900.

This is preflop as in affect the first bet is the big blinds 100.

what about example 2 where player two chooses to go 500 + 500. whats player 3's raise

From what I understand I make Longy right.

Um yes example 2 looks fine Adam the 2nd player would have to make it up to 1500 total as the min raise is 500 as player 2 made it 500 with 500.

I think I have lost the will to live..!!!

Apart from the small blind, and an under raise. Whatever it is to call is the minimum raise. The small blinds minimum raise is a big blind after the blind has been made up. Is that complicated??

Right, my thoughts.......

Say blinds are 100/200.  Default minimum bet increment to begin with is the amount of the big blind, so 200 here.

1st player's minimum raise is 200 chips.  This remains the case until the bet increment is increased by a player, at which point this becomes the new minimum bet increment for subsequent betting on that round.

e.g  UTG makes it 400 to go (the min-raise), next player now chooses to make it 800 to play.  The minimum bet increment has now increased to 400, so the next player to act would then have to make it 1200 to go as a min-raise.

After the betting round is complete the default bet on the next round would then revert to the amount of the big blind initially, until the action of a player on that round caused this to increase.

As for under-raises......

In no-limit poker, nothing but a full bet can be re-raised (NB: the rule is different in limit poker) so to set up Malc M's example:

100/200 blinds.  Player 1 (UTG) limps with AA, player 2 makes it 500 to go (bet increment now 300), player 3 goes all-in for 550.  All fold to Player 1.  The impact of the all-in under-raise of 50 on player 1 is irrelevant.  Player 1 can re-raise any amount subject to the minimum increment of 300 (as defined by the valid, complete bet from player 2).

Amending the situation slightly, UTG limps for 200, player 2 now just calls, player 3 goes all-in for 250 (a raise of 50 compared to the minimum increment of 200).  Neither player 1 nor 2 can re-raise here.  However, some online sites will allow this to happen due to limitations in the software.

That's my understanding anyway.  Its easy to see why there are many variations of this though!

Sheriff

Edit: Line amended following Ironside's post, which I believe was a  mis-interpretation of the original wording.

UTG has called 200 and raised 200 the next players can now call the 400 and raise 200 making it 600 to go and the players after can call the 600 and raise to 800

basically its the same as limit unless someone raises more than the bb


the rest of your post is correcct

I was trying to demonstrate the impact of someone increasing the bet increment, so the 800 bet was (deliberately) not a min-raise in this example.  The point was the impact of this bet on the next player's action.

Original post edited to hopefully clarify this.

Sheriff

that makes better reading sherriff

button
player 1  bets 400
player 2  400 to call therefore minimum raise 400    800 total
player 3  800 to call therefore minimum raise 800   1600 total
player 4 feels lucky raises to 4000

player 1 He cant beleive people are betting into his quads and wants to reraise it is 3600 to call therefore minimum raise is 3600  7200 total

and so on.

Are you playing limit??

THIS IS CORRECT

is it me or does this sound wrong???

is this the same?

player 1 bets 400
player2 reraises to 800 total (400 with the minimum 400) as you cant call and raise it impossible you do one or the other
player 3 rereraises to 1200 (400 with 400 with the minimum 400)
player 4 rerere raises to 2000 total (400 with 400 with 400 with 800)

there fore any further raises must be at least 800 ie player 1 would need to go 4 with 4 with 4 with 8 with 8 surely???

sorry boss hope this aint made you look wrong hehehe


oh and after chattin with the ever pleasant malc-m (who is now my favourite player as he said i'm wise hehehe) about the check raising issue i agree he should have the right to be able to reraise the big stack unfortunately some clubs will not allow this as nightfly states they can in Notts

No, I just disagree with your interpretation.

I stand by my post.

Sheriff

OK, now I'm confused, dik9.  Phil's post is consistent with mine, which you said was incorrect.  I disagreed with your alternative example.

The ruling as applied above is consistent with what I said, and is different to your example, so basically you're now agreeing with me.

Sheriff

The minimum raise here is not 400, its 200.  The first player bet 400, which was a raise of 200 above the big blind.  The minimum bet for the next player is 600 to go.  However, in my example he chooses to make it 800, thus changing the size of the minimum bet increment for that round.

Sheriff

ahahaha mr Fatman in my example i made no comment about a BB being included did i? my situation was player a bets 400 not 200 with 200, so thus making the minimum raise 400 does it not?

the minimum raise must always be EITHER the ammount of the BB OR an ammount equal to the last raise made in that betting round

But unless this is some weird game, there will be a small blind and big blind already in the pot.  Therefore a bet of 400 here represents a raise of only 200.  You have to consider the blinds in the hand.

To put it another way, if this player wanted to limp, it would cost him 200 to do so.  Consequently a bet of 400 represents a raise of only 200.  Therefore, the next player could then make it 600 to go as the last raise made in the round is still only 200.


This is entirely consistent with what I said in my original post.

Sheriff

well not really  a weird kinda game at all maybe all the action in my stated situation occurs after the flop??? maybe i should have stated that i was just using it as an example instead of commenting on the actions previously described n this very confusimng post

My assumption was that this was a pre-flop betting round as dik9's original post referred to my example which did include blinds.  It would have made more sense if you'd stated that you were talking about post-flop rounds as my example clearly was not.

If this was a subsequent betting round then you're exactly right.  The first bet of 400, if made post-flop, is then the minimum raise for subsequent action on that round.  However, the player making that bet did not have to bring it in for 400.  He would still have been able to bet 200 if he'd wanted to.

As far as I can see, we understand the rules to be the same here.

Sheriff

LOL Is this what I not said?

The start of the thread asked what was the minimum raise for the big blind after an already made minimum raise.

As you said Bluewolf, somewhere along the thread it seemed the first round of betting got lost, hence my example. How else would he have quads  ;D

Bluewolf, in your post you said:


For player 2 to reraise, then there must have been an original bet, then a raise. Therefore Player 1's 400 must have been a raise, which suggests this was pre-flop with blinds in play.

I think the last few posts have muddied the waters again in this thread, after I thought I'd made a (vaguely, at least) clear post with a correct interpretion.  Consequently, I think we need a new example across a full hand to combine what both I and BlueWolf were saying.

In the hand below, I've described the action showing what the minimum bet is and then describing what the player actually does.  To keep things simple this hand has only 4 players at the table.

Blinds 100/200.

Player 1 posts SB of 100
Player 2 posts BB of 200.
Minimum bet increment is initially equal to the BB of 200.
Action on Player 3: Min-raise would be a raise of 200, making it 400 to go.  Player 3 opts to min-raise.  Minimum bet increment remains 200.
Action on Player 4: Min-raise would be a raise of 200, making it 600 to go.  Instead, Player 4 opts to make it 1000 to go, being a raise of 600.  The minimum bet increment is now 600 for subsequent action.

Action on Player 1: Min-raise would be a raise of 600, making it 1600 to go.  Instead, Player 1 calls the 1000 bet, putting in an additional 900 to do so.
Action on Player 2: Min-raise would be a raise of 600, making it 1600 to go.  Instead, Player 2 calls the 1000 bet, putting in an additional 800 to do so.
Action on Player 3: Min-raise would be a raise of 600, making it 1600 to go.  Instead, Player 3 calls the 1000 bet, putting in an additional 600 to do so, thus ending the round.

A flop is dealt.  Every player is so focused on their betting that they don't even notice the cards.  The pot is 4,000.

The initial minimum bet increment reverts back to the size of the big blind, 200.
Action on Player 1: Min-bet would be the size of the big blind, 200.  Instead, Player 1 bets 400.  Minimum bet increment is now 400 for this round.
Action on Player 2: Min-raise would be a raise of 400, making it 800 to go.  Player 2 min-raises to 800.  Minimum bet increment is still 400.
Action on Player 3: Min-raise would be a raise of 400, making it 1200 to go.  Instead, Player 3 opts to make it 2000 to go, being a raise of 1200.  Minimum bet increment is now 1200 for this round.

Action on Player 4: Min-raise would be a raise of 1200, making it 3200 to go.  Instead, Player 4 calls the 2000.
Action on Player 1: Min-raise would be a raise of 1200, making it 3200 to go.  Instead, Player 1 calls the 2000, putting in 1600 to do so.
Action on Player 2: Min-raise would be a raise of 1200, making it 3200 to go.  Instead, Player 2 calls the 2000, putting in 1200 to do so, thus ending the round.

A turn card is dealt.  Each player is so busy calculating the min-raise that no-ones spots that its the 2nd Ace of Diamonds to be put onto the board!  The pot is now 12,000.

Action on Player 1: The minimum bet would again be the big blind of 200 so its the same scenario as on the flop.

Everyone checks (to keep it simple).  The scenario on the river is exactly the same.

Hopefully this breaks it down enough to explain everything.  Sorry its repetitive but I think its required here.

Sheriff

This is where I am confused, If player 4 just wants to call its 400 right?

So shouldn't his minimum raise be 400? making it 800 total

player one (sb) to call needs to make it 700 to call

player 2 (bb) needs to call 600 if the bb wants to minimum reraise then its a total of 1200 to him.

But the 400 to call in this case is the result of 2 separate 'bets' (one of which is the initial big blind).  Consequently the size of the bet hasn't changed on this round yet.

Using your interpretation, which looks at the pot size rather than the last bet made, player 4 would be unfairly penalised for the fact that he's had to act after 2 players.  No-one has yet increased the minimum bet size, so why should he have to at this stage?


In my example, player 1 has so far put a small blind of 100 into the pot when the action returns to him.  He's now facing the raise of player 4 who made it 1000 to go.  Consequently, to call he has to put in 900 chips as stated.

Similarly, player 200 already has 200 invested.  So it costs him 800 more to match player 4's bet.  Player 4's bet of 1000 was a raise of 600 from the previous bet.  Consequently, neither player 1 or 2 can now make a raise of less than this amount.  Consequently, they would need to match the 1000 bet and put in at least 600 more.

Sheriff

Sheriff, I have got to go to work but I have just read your example again, and its completely done me in!!!

WHATEVER IT IS TO CALL APART FROM THE SMALL BLIND IS THE MINIMUM YOU CAN RAISE OR RERAISE!!
when the dealer tells you how much you have to put in the pot, that is the minimum raise.

If not apart from under raising and small blinds.....I resign......Bluewolf I feel a promotiom already!!

The above is from Bob Ciaffone's "Robert's Rules Of Poker" which, as far as I'm aware is as close to a 'standardised' version of the rules as there is.  (You can google for this info from loads of different sites so I don't think I'm breaching any forum rules here by quoting it).

The example at the bottom is consistent with my view rather than dik9's, which is why I'm so adamant its correct.

I'd love to reach a conclusive view on this matter as I'm now in a situation where, were I to be in dik9's cardroom, I would have a fundamental disagreement with the decision of one of the staff.  This is not to imply any criticism of dik9, but one of us is wrong at the end of the day and I'd like to know who it is for my own understanding.

I can appreciate that there are a number of issues where local rules can vary but surely something as fundamental as bet size should be a black and white area.  It'd be nice if we could establish a conclusive opinion on this at the end of the day, even if that happens to be different to the one I currently hold.

Sheriff

hehehehhehehe i give up too lol i wouldnt look good in a tux

I'm bumping this because I think it's important.

For what it's worth, I'm with Sherriff  - if the minraise (or 'increment') is 200, then a series of min raises would be in increments of 200 i.e. total bets of 200, then 400, then 600, then 800, etc. The third player in my example would not be forced to raise the call amount of 400 by a further 400.

Oh dear....I may have made things worse......

Sheriff...

Your examples are all spot on.

Where raising and re-raising have been going on the CALL amount is always equal to the sum of its parts. It does not become the minimum re-raise.

Post Flop  Player 1 makes a BET
Player 2 Calls BET and Raises RAISE (RAISE must be equal to or greater than BET)

So player 3 must CALL the combined amount (BET + RAISE)

If player 3 wishes to RE-RAISE then RE-RAISE must be equal to or greater than RAISE

If he does so then CALL for player 4 becomes BET + RAISE + RE-RAISE

If player 4 wishes to RE-RE-RAISE then he must CALL(BET + RAISE + RE-RAISE)  and RE-RE-RAISE an amount equal or greater than RE-RAISE


and so on

Hope the colour coding helps


nightfly

WOW WHAT A CAN OF WORMS....I have just finished a 12 hour shift at the casino and whilst doing this I have been on the phone to loads of people, Pros, TDs,EPT dealers, dealers from across the globe.

Apparently this debate has been going on for years, and a conclusion never agreed upon. (first I have heard). The thing is, it is so rare for this to happen that no one has come across the actual situation on the table (three people minimum raising). In the example of "roberts rules of poker " it is an example of a different ruling. Also in the TDA rules a similar example is also under a different ruling. Ironically the closest rule is Caro and Cooks (which is the basics to my rules) but it is interpreted either way (but on reading leans towards the Sheriffs and Nightfly's response).

The answers I got from all asked, was 11 out of 15 said in their experience the minimum raise is the amount of the CALL, 2 people said in their experience the minimum raise is the amount of the last RAISE. 3 people said it depends whereabout in the world you play. In America (the home of poker) it is the amount of the RAISE, but in Europe it is the amount of the CALL. One of the girls that owns her own private poker club and who deals for the EPT is on the case and waiting for a response off Thomas Kremser as she is under the same illusion as me. As it was put to me, this is just trivial the situation never happens.....I NEED TO KNOW this IS important as their is so much diversity in the answers. This situation is in my rules under the heading under raising, as I wrote it, it states : .In No limit games a raise must be at least the same size as the call, unless you do not have the chips to cover it. You can under raise all-in. However players that have already had the opportunity to raise may not come over the top in that round, unless a player after the under raise has made a full raise. Therefore it is in my House Rules.

Could Yogi, Dani V or any Supervisor/manager please respond as to what they do. All of the dealers that have come to the Broadway from Gala, Rainbow, and junction 10 are under the same impression as me. One of my 6 supervisors said that he agrees with Sheriff and did so at his last place -Stanleys-. The staff that work at our casino were not part of the fifteen quoted as asking. I seeked independant advice. As this is a poker forum could all you pro's give your 2 cents worth. Now this is why I love Blonde, I have no problems admitting I am wrong as I am always willing to learn. But as I am the one expected to know when the situation arises (if it ever does...I am sure it will now) I would like to be confident that the right decision would be made, as at the moment I am not confident!!

Tourny Directors meeting QUICK!!!!!

Bluewolf will represent me as I just realised I resigned....might take it back errrrm........

Nightfly is a cardroom manager/supervisor. :)

I know and value his rulings as I know he is extremely respected and clued up, but would like to hear any other views, be them similar or different. I really NEED to clear this up. So I can justify it if it ever happens. I NEED to know whether to change my rules!!

its simple treat it like limit you can raise the same as the last person raised ecept there is no 4 bet cap

Thats the problem...it is not liimit, when i first read Sheriffs post I thought he was giving a strange example of limit, thats why i questioned it. The American rules (which are the most prolific) are mainly geared towards limit. Limit games are rarely seen in Europe, this is why I think the diversity seems to occur. I just keep visualising a table of piss takers going 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 with 100 etc and am sure they will now somewhere just to do a dealers head in? The essence of no limit poker goes if this happens. Lets say a ten handed table get wise in the bubble situation and all have two minutes to act (i know this would never happen, but in theory) Average stacks of 20,000 for 4000 chips doing this you could waste 1 hour 20 on the same hand preflop. Pretty radical example, but isnt this why limit is capped?

Dik,

I'm 100% sure Sheriff and Nightfly are correct. If you go to online sites even they will show this to be true.

thats why you go hand for hand on the bubble

I am not saying they are wrong, the issue was raised on this forum and the initial post was correct, I think we all agreed on that. As the thread went on It diversed to a different matter (which happens to be rare) I questionned it as the posts were different to my understanding. I have caused world war 3 amongst some players simply by asking them their thoughts on this matter. Experienced and well known players may i say. As I said, on reading the rules again I do lean against the side of minimum raise = previous raise not the call. I am big enough to admit I am wrong, however, the debate goes on and it is recognized in the main, around my region that Min raise is Min call and this is what the cross section of players and staff asked, believe. I am not new to the game, I have been running card rooms for 17 years. This has never really cropped up. But now it has I am looking for answers. I do not wish to be blazed for asking the question. My head is done in because I am in the majority of people I have spoke too, but the minority on here.

To go off topic for one moment, The chief super intendent in the Isle of Man did not know it was legal to kill a Scotsman on Douglas Beach on Christmas day, it IS a by law and never been used in his lifetime, so why should he know, and does this make it right to be allowed to kill one??

No Offence Ironside ~:

So the blinds have gone up 3 times whilst waiting for the other hand to finish, hardly fair to the short stack

No blazing intended mon ami. Just saying what happens in the online arena. In terms of what the big sites say on this matter is pretty much gospel to me. I doubt they'd have it "wrong". :)

I think dik9 deserves a lot of credit for looking into this so extensively.  It looks like there is a genuine discrepancy in the rules used in various places so its easy to see why there's so much diversity of opinion.

I guess our dead cert 'black and white' issue turned out to have the greyest of grey tones after all!

Ultimately, I think we should all 'celebrate' by turning up at Broadway one night for a specially arrange Blonde event.  We can then spend a fun night consistently min-raising and requesting rulings especially for him and BlueWolf!  ;)

Sheriff

Wow, this has got a bit interesting now. I only posted this to clear up two different rulings I'd had. Looks like its quite a grey area when you look into it further. Good work.

so just to clear up, at the broadway the minium reraise would be an ammount equal to what it would be to call??? i really should know this lol

think we defintaley need to lock horns sometime soon lol

At the moment , you are correct Bluewolf.  :'(

I would like to hear views from Hero members and moderators please aswell.

what a bloody topic lol never read so many different rules sets as i have today. Yet another reason for Uniformity to be introduced across the board i think