Sorry for adding to the confusion with my mistake.

Did you edit this final part? I don't remember reading the amounts needed for a raise before.

Yes, I added it per your suggestion.

Erin's raise option has me scratching my head. And it helps me illustrate why I said in

my prior post that it can be confusing.

I get how if David had more chips then a min raise would be the 125 call plus the previous bet of 100 for a total of 225.

But what about Erin's raise option? I'm thinking 200 for the call plus 100 which is the previous biggest bet/raise, for a total of 300.

You are correct. The minimum raise is still 100.

Or is it 200 plus the total combined raise of 125 for a total of 325?

No, the largest bet or raise is still Alice's 100. Bob's raise is only 25 over Alice's initial 100 bet. So Bob's raise doesn't affect the minimum.

I totally don't get how it would be 400.

The 400 was incorrect due to an error on my part.

Let's say David had chips enough to make that full raise to 225. Wouldn't Erin's raise option be 225 plus the full 125 raise that David's bet represents, for a total of 350?

No, in this case Erin's raise option would be 225 plus another 100 for 325. The minimum raise still hasn't changed.

Where Rule 43 says:

*A raise must be at least equal to the largest prior bet or raise of the current betting round.* The confusion might come from the

**largest prior bet or raise** phrase.

It means that a raise in the current betting round must be at least equal to the

**largest** of either:

a) the amount of the initial bet in the round

b) the largest amount raised in any of the previous raises made in the round

It does not mean

*the largest bet made in the round*, unless it happens to be the initial bet. It never means

*the largest total bet created by a raise*.