Under raise or not?

[totalise]

Which online site? I doubt that very much. B2B maybe but I can't think of any other site where you might be able to raise here.

stars/FTP/UB/Party just off the top of my head. I'm not even 100% certain, but im about 99% certain. I'm 100% certain of stars/Party, but not the other two.

[The_Diamond]

Which online site? I doubt that very much. B2B maybe but I can't think of any other site where you might be able to raise here.

stars/FTP/UB/Party just off the top of my head. I'm not even 100% certain, but im about 99% certain. I'm 100% certain of stars/Party, but not the other two.

Fair enough. The rules on their site don't mentiont he under-raise rule so I'll take it that the confusion in the thread is becauise these stes do it the other way. If tribecca does it the TDA way it doesn't make it wrong though.

Her's a hand I just played on Party Poker at 50/1. UTg mini raises to $2. Shorty calls. and I make it $10. Ut calls, and shoty goes goes all in for a total of $14. No that my initial raise was $8 and his all in is $4 more so its an underraise. Should I be allowed to reraise here?

[totalise]

Her's a hand I just played on Party Poker at 50/1. UTg mini raises to $2. Shorty calls. and I make it $10. Ut calls, and shoty goes goes all in for a total of $14. No that my initial raise was $8 and his all in is $4 more so its an underraise. Should I be allowed to reraise here?

no, you shouldn't, because no bet reopens the action.. but its party, so you prolly can do what you want, including take your bet back. However, his bet is 50% of the raise, so I donno if that reopens the betting or not. i think it does in limit, not sure about NL though. I am clueless as you can tell.

[The_Diamond]

Her's a hand I just played on Party Poker at 50/1. UTg mini raises to $2. Shorty calls. and I make it $10. Ut calls, and shoty goes goes all in for a total of $14. No that my initial raise was $8 and his all in is $4 more so its an underraise. Should I be allowed to reraise here?

no, you shouldn't, because no bet reopens the action.. but its party, so you prolly can do what you want, including take your bet back. However, his bet is 50% of the raise, so I donno if that reopens the betting or not. i think it does in limit, not sure about NL though. I am clueless as you can tell.

I was allowed to push all in which IMO can't be right. My initial raise is $8. His all in raise is only $4 more. I shouldn't be allowed to reraise here should i?

[doubleup]

[ If tribecca does it the TDA way it doesn't make it wrong though.

Diamond

As I stated previously, the first rulebook I came across on the net, specifically gave the example of the situation quoted by the original poster and clearly stated that the limper was allowed to reraise.

The TDA rule you quoted is also quite clear - and the limper would be alllowed to re-raise under it - because the betting has already been reopened for him by the first raiser. 

I actually don't think that programming the software correctly is that complicated.  It would just be a matter of applying some sort of red/green marker to each player.  Red can only call an under raise, green can raise.

Initially every player is green.  In the original scenario the limper gets a red when he limps, but as soon as the second player raises the limper reverts to green and the raiser now moves to red.  Any player flat calling or reraising after the under raise moves to red.

As far as sites are concerned, you shouldn't be able to reraise in the example you gave from Party - the betting was closed for you and an under raise does not re-open it .  Ladbrokes were also wrong for a long time and allowed re-raising of under raises, they may still be, I haven't  played cash there for a while.

[The_Diamond]

[ If tribecca does it the TDA way it doesn't make it wrong though.

Diamond

As I stated previously, the first rulebook I came across on the net, specifically gave the example of the situation quoted by the original poster and clearly stated that the limper was allowed to reraise.

The TDA rule you quoted is also quite clear - and the limper would be alllowed to re-raise under it - because the betting has already been reopened for him by the first raiser. 

I actually don't think that programming the software correctly is that complicated.  It would just be a matter of applying some sort of red/green marker to each player.  Red can only call an under raise, green can raise.

Initially every player is green.  In the original scenario the limper gets a red when he limps, but as soon as the second player raises the limper reverts to green and the raiser now moves to red.  Any player flat calling or reraising after the under raise moves to red.

As far as sites are concerned, you shouldn't be able to reraise in the example you gave from Party - the betting was closed for you and an under raise does not re-open it .  Ladbrokes were also wrong for a long time and allowed re-raising of under raises, they may still be, I haven't  played cash there for a while.

I understand what you're saying and it does make a lot of sense that this is the way it should be but I don't agree with your interpretation of the TDA rule. You are elaborating on it and making an assumption but the rule is crystal clear. If you have already acted and there is an underraise behind you then you cannot reraise. It doesn't matter if the betting was reopened in between. If that was the case then the TDA rule would state this. Tribecca have obviously taken this rule and appplied it literally as it has been written.

Here is a more complete explanation of the rule from Paddy Power which is a ribecca skin.

"Under-raise:   This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so.  If the player under-raising à going all-in to raise à has less than ¢ of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked.  The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise.  They may only call or fold.  However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling.  If the under-raise is ¢ or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply."

http://www.paddypowerpoker.com/poker-academy/poker-jargon.php

[doubleup]

I understand what you're saying and it does make a lot of sense that this is the way it should be but I don't agree with your interpretation of the TDA rule. You are elaborating on it and making an assumption but the rule is crystal clear. If you have already acted and there is an underraise behind you then you cannot reraise.

The TDA rule (from the ept website) states" Less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted"

The key word is "re-open" - this implies that action is closed.  In the original post scenario action has not been closed for the limper. 

However, you have established where the error originates and this is from Paady/Power Tribeca.  When I see language like "expected raise" in reference to nl betting I am satsfied that the document has been drafted by an idiot.

[The_Diamond]

I understand what you're saying and it does make a lot of sense that this is the way it should be but I don't agree with your interpretation of the TDA rule. You are elaborating on it and making an assumption but the rule is crystal clear. If you have already acted and there is an underraise behind you then you cannot reraise.

The TDA rule (from the ept website) states" Less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted"

The key word is "re-open" - this implies that action is closed.  In the original post scenario action has not been closed for the limper. 

However, you have established where the error originates and this is from Paady/Power Tribeca.  When I see language like "expected raise" in reference to nl betting I am satsfied that the document has been drafted by an idiot.

It's not the first time the TDA rules have come under criticism for being too vague. The under raise rule is not something that can be explained in a one liner. In fairness to tribecca they have made a rule and explained it pretty clearly. unlike other sites who have no explanation of their under raise rule (if they even have one). It was fantastically exploitable on Ladbrokes.

ep raises to 4 and has 12 left
some callers
your in late pos with KK and reraise to 15
ep goes all in for 1 more
more callers
you shove trapping a wealth of dead money, and are loving it if you get called

[The_Diamond]

I sent Party an email about that hand.

"Thank you for contacting us.

Under brick and mortar poker rules, you are right, your options should have only been, call or fold.

However, we have escalated this issue to our poker room manager for clarification.   Please allow us some time to look into this issue and provide a response."

[Royal Flush]

and to say that there is a bug in the software is just ridiulous.

It is a bug in the software, it came in during the last major upgrade. So whoever said it was a bug is quite correct.

The under raise rule is very simple really, if you are allowed to raise BEFORE someone under-raises then you still can. If not then you can't, it is treated as a call.

I have played under lots of different rule's in different country's and i have never seen the under-raise rule's handled any other way but this. This includes TDA rules.

This is one of the situations that i feel does NOT need a standard rule set as everyone running a card room seems to have this one under control!

[JungleCat03]

http://www.vcpoker.com/content/Glossary/UnderRaise.html

Glossary - Under-raise

Under-raise: This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so.  If the player under-raising … going all-in to raise … has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise.  They may only call or fold.  However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling.  If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.

From VC's own glossary, according exactly with the wording on paddy power quoted by nicky earlier.

If it is a bug in the system, then it is one that they substantiate in their own explanation!

I think everyone agrees though that the limper should always be able to re-act to a legitimate raise. This is just logical. It also shows that a set of standardised, coherent and well-expressed rules, not just the ambiguous mutterings of the TDA and various poker sites would stop these stupid semantic debates dead and free up time so we can discuss whether min riasing is a valid tournament strategy.

[Royal Flush]

However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet)

As in they limp and then someone raises, the betting has yet to reach them.......

A legitimate raise re-starts the betting round. It has to go 'around' the table.

[doubleup]

JungleCat

"If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply."

This is from a glossary written by an idiot and not a rule book written by someone who understands the rules of poker.

[JungleCat03]

I'm not saying I think the rule makes sense. In fact every post I've said quite explicitly that it is logical that the limper should be allowed to react to a legitimate raise, irrespective of any underraise succeeding it!

But it's no use us poker players saying "Oh they should do it like this" "Oh this is how I interpret the rules" "Oh they've always done it like this in my local casino" "Oh look how this website have defined it." Ask 100 different poker players to interpret a particular situation you'll get 50 different responses in a lot of cases.

There should be a set of standardised rules to refer to, put together by poker players with good communicative skills, that explicitly deal with situations like this and this should be an industry standard. Then all the boring semantic discussions like this one wouldn't exist. Someone could just quote rule 4.5 or whatever and we'd all sleep sound in our beds knowing we could limp reraise UTG if jones in seat 7 decides to underraise flushy's min raise.

I think the TDA are going some way to accomplish this but before this happens they need to tighten up their definitions which are a bit woolly in various areas and their rulebook needs to be accepted as an industry standard.