blonde poker forum

I overheard a ruling made in a tournament I was playing in the other day which I've not heard before. Pre-flop (I think, it was another table, but I assume it makes no difference) a player raised, 2 players called, then the next player tried to re-raise. The TD said he couldn't because once 2 or more players have called a raise no-one can then re-raise.

Is this true? I don't think it is but I can't find anywhere online that proves or disproves it. If it's not true could someone post a link to show that please?

(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/56294258.jpg)

We're missing a detail here somewhere, as that can't be right.

Player A raises
Player B calls
Player C calls
Player D tries to re-raise but is told he can't

Unless Player A and Player D are the same person, D is allowed to raise. Did it myself once.

[  ] ended well.

Either, player D limped in initially and then player A raised all in and that was an under raise.

Or this was a pub game

So far we have one answer saying TD was correct, one saying he wasn't, and one I think is saying he wasn't...!

So can anyone post a link proving either side correct?

You need to be more precise as to the information.

Did one of the raisers raise all-in? That's key.

If they did not, & assuming you did not mis-hear or misunderstand, the ruling was wrong. I can't imagine ANY TD getting this one wrong, unless someone was all-in, so I suspect some info is missing.

Where did this take place?

Cheers tikay. I don't think anyone was all in but it was another table so can't be certain on that I'm afraid.

So if the first player had gone all in, then the next 2 players called, the next player cannot raise? I didn't know that. If that is the case then I must have missed the first raiser actually being all in, or the TD was wrong.

It took place during my local Redtooth Poker league game.

Womble

who TD's these league games? Redtooth (or other branded pub league) provides a TD? or the publican does it? or there is an organiser?

which set of rules deo they use and are they available for players to see?

It depends if there was an Under-Raise.

Tighty, the TD is the head chef. As far as I've seen he knows his stuff though. The rules are on the Redtooth site at www.redtoothcreativesolutions.com/downloads/Poker_Rules_1.4.pdf

Tikay, can you explain the under raise bit please? You can under raise without going all in?

No, but if you do not have enough for the full minimum raise, & you go all-in, that is an under-raise.

Of course, have re-read what you said now. So if the first raiser had gone all-in, but with an under raise, then after the 2 calls the next player could not raise, but had the all-in been a proper raise he could?

chef likes to see a flop

Have a butchers at this, though you'll probably end up even more confused!


http://www.pokernetwork.com/forums/main-noticeboard/22657-poker-ruling-can-you-re-raise-under-raised-all.html

Not at all, I think that's got it covered tikay!

In the context of my original post I assume I must have missed an under raise all in. However, I'm pretty sure the TD specified that the reason no raise was allowed is that 2 players had called, and this statement was wrong in any of the scenarios mentioned. I'll remember this for if it ever happens again - thanks all.

Any player that has yet to act in a pot has all options open to them regardless of action before under raises or not.

If the TD is the head chef then the correct course of action is to call the floor then order some food.

Specifically one of these bad boys

(http://i4.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article8085578.ece/alternates/s615/JS50569953.jpg)

I'm actually crying. Wp pinchop.



I hope the chef handles the pots in the kitchen, better than he does in the poker.

I think this is the missing piece in this discussion.

Think its been solved now, so wont go into paragraphs about the different rules that could have been correct/incorrect (this makes me sad :()