It is incorrect to determine a full raise amount by accumulation of multiple incomplete raises (i.e., short all-ins).
Arrr this is where I’ve been going wrong, that makes sense now.
So let’s say seat 7 is the cut off and seat 8 is the button. If both the cut off and button call the 400, can seat 1 the SB raise? I ask because he’s already acted on his hand and nobody after him has made a raise to 110 or more.
The SB previously bet 100. Seat 6 made it 400, 7 and 8 called, so the SB can:
- fold
- call by adding 300 to the previous 100
- raise to at least 510 (100 opener + 300 call amount + 110 full raise amount = 510)
Now that you fully understand this, let me point out another situation that with which many others still have trouble. Lets change your scenario such that the BB doesn't make a full raise.
For example:
#1 SB bets 100
#2 BB all-in 175
#3 all-in 250
#4 all-in 300
#5 all-in 350
#6 all-in 400
#7 calls 400
#8 calls 400
#1 SB can fold, call, or raise to at least 500
In this scenario, none of the players made a full raise over the bet faced. When they went all-in, they didn't have enough chips to complete a full raise over their calling amount. When action returns to the SB, they can call, fold, or raise even though nobody else made a full raise. This is the subject of
Rule #44: Re-Opening the Bet and the corresponding Illustrations.
IMO: Rule #44 wording is confusing given it's over emphasis on the multiple short all-ins scenario and the use of the double negative "(does not reopen betting ... and is not facing at least a full raise)." Rule #44 would be more clear by rewording it to something like:
In no-limit or pot-limit, when action returns to a player who previously acted, the betting has reopened if the player is facing a raise equal or more than a full raise amount. The rare occurrence of multiple short all-ins accumulating to create a raise equal to or more than a full-raise amount could be described as an
Illustration without adding confusion of the rule.