Action Only

[Stuart Murray]

This has been causing some debate locally:

NLHE
Player A limps for £10
Player B Raises to £20
Player C moves all-in for £24
Action is folded back to A

What are his options?
(please do not define your answer based on TDA or any circuit rules)

Regards
Stuart

[K-Lo]

Player A limps for 10
Player B Raises to 20
Player C moves all-in for 24
Action is folded back to A

Sorry, Stu - I had to remove the pound signs as they were confusing me. 

B had made a legal raise of 10.  C raised 4, but this is not a full-sized raise.

a) A can fold.
b) A can call 24.
c) A can raise.  Minimum raise is to a total of 34 (i.e. amount to call '24' + amount of last legal raise '10').

[Nick C]

Hello Stuart,

 I have to agree with K-Lo's excellent answer. The only addition I could make would be the minimum raise to at least 34 up to all-in.

[Stuart Murray]

Agree 100% with your answers, apparently the cardroom would only let player A call the £24, as they interpreted the TDA rule incorrectly! MADNESS!

Regards
Stu

[Nick C]

Stuart,
 After further review I know of other venues that will not calculate the short all-in as anything...so before you protest to loudly, the min raise would be a completion of the bet to 30. This is not for tournaments, but I think this is what you're looking for. They do not regard a raise of less than 100% (complete, legal or however you want to define it) as anything other than action. The difference between this and limit games is: In limit if the all-in raise is 50% or more, it is considered a raise and is counted in the 3 or 4 raise limit, but in no-limit whether the all-in is $1 more than the bet or $1 less than the full raise it will not reopen the betting to a player that is already in for all bets. I hope this makes sense.

 Stuart, remember the TDA rules are for tournaments only...so it can become very confusing. They are still wrong because in any form of poker Player A will always be allowed to raise the full bet of Player B. The question should be, how much?

[K-Lo]

Stuart,
 After further review I know of other venues that will not calculate the short all-in as anything...so before you protest to loudly, the min raise would be a completion of the bet to 30.

This is the situation that I actually come across more often:  players arguing that A can still raise, but that is should be to 30 as a completion of the last bet.  However, in response, I will tell them that there is no "complete" in NLH.  The concept of "complete" is only for limit poker.  It is funny because people who grew up playing limit poker often get confused, less often than the young guns who have only played Holdem in No-Limit form.

From Roberts' Rules:
COMPLETE THE BET:  To increase an all-in bet or forced bet to a full bet in limit poker.

[Nick C]

Stuart and K-Lo,
 Stuart and I have gone back and forth on the raise rules for no-limit in the past. I remember because after much deliberation I recall that we both agreed that rules for limit were easier to understand. The big issue with the original question from Stuart's post is: The decision they made was wrong because they are not allowing any raise at all. Forget limit or no-limit. They are not recognizing the full raise from Player B which will re-open the raise to Player A.

 I understand the difference between limit and no limit (according to the TDA), but there are casinos that do things different in cash games.

[Stuart Murray]

The decision they made was wrong because they are not allowing any raise at all. Forget limit or no-limit. They are not recognizing the full raise from Player B which will re-open the raise to Player A.

Precisely the point which is being made to (some) deaf ears

Regards
Stu

[K-Lo]

The decision they made was wrong because they are not allowing any raise at all. Forget limit or no-limit. They are not recognizing the full raise from Player B which will re-open the raise to Player A.

Precisely the point which is being made to (some) deaf ears

Regards
Stu

Yes, that is very strange indeed.  If C had not gone all-in, surely they could see that A could reraise;  the fact that C goes all-in for a bit more shouldn't change that.

[Spence]

This just happened at a house game that  some of our dealers play at. One of the people who said player A can't raise is, unfourtunately a supervisor on the crew. As well he said "Talk to Spence! I'm right! He'll back me up." I had to laugh when I heard the sitaution. Silly kids slanderizing my good name. When I pulled this person aside he already knew that he had made a mistake. I went over all the raising rules again with him so he was clear. Oddly enough this was a person who never learned limit poker nor played it much. I get the feeling that I'll need to have a supervisor meeting will all staff soon...