All-in and subsequent betting

[Tim Zellers]

Our league owner has requested that I investigate whether one of our house rules should be changed.  I'd appreciate any guidance or rule references that you might offer.  

Situation:  NL Hold'em...A player's (let's say UTG) first action in this hand is to bet all-in but less than a full raise.  The current house rule allows the players following to just call the all-in if they want or if they have not yet had the opportunity to act in this hand, they may make a legitimate raise or go all-in themselves.  The league owner returned from playing in a tournament where he was told that he could not just call the all-in in this type of situation, but instead he had to "complete the raise" if he wanted to stay in the hand.  I'm not clear on whether this was a house rule or some other sort of rule.

I can't find anything in TDA or Robert's Rules that specifically answers this question.  Maybe I've overlooked a rule reference so I'd appreciate your help if there is one.  If not, I believe that house rules would take care of this.  How is this being handled in your games?

Thanks...Tim

[Nick C]

Tim,
 I'm sure we will be able to help you out, but first you will have to clarify the situation. If the all-in takes place pre-flop, of course the other players will have to at least call the big blind. Example: blinds 100/200, UTG goes all-in for 150, remaining players must call at least the BB and there will be a side pot. If the all-in player raises all-in with less than a full raise then it will depend on the house rule for raises. I don't know of a rule that will not allow a player to call the short raise of an all-in player. If the game were limit, then there is a 50% raise rule, but even that rule allows players to just call the all-in. I'm sure I am missing something here. Would it be possible for you to send us the rule the way it is written? I think that there are other members that will be able to offer the answer you need.

[Stuart Murray]

Hi there,

From what you have described I would say we do need some clarification of your current rule as Nick has already said, TDA rule 31 as follows:

31.   Raises  A raise must be at least the size of the largest previous bet or raise of the current betting round.  If a player puts in a raise of 50% or more of the previous bet but less than the minimum raise, he or she must make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed (see exception for multiple same-denomination chips Rule 33). In no-limit and pot limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted.

In a round of betting the BB (The forced BET) amount is in force irrelevant of how much a player is all-in for, to clarify this I will now give some examples (all are NLHE):

400/800 - Pre-flop BB is all-in for 700, players must call at least 800 or raise to 1,600 to enter the hand

200/400 UTG Pre-flop opens for 350 All-in, other players must still call the BB of 400 or raise a minimum of 400

300/600 Pre-flop a player opens for an all-in of 800, the bet faced now is 800, and players may either call it or raise to a minimum of 1,400 total

300/600 Post-Flop 4 players, 1 checks; 2 bets 1,000; 3 shoves for 1,800 total; 4 folds; 1 calls 1,800 (all options available); 2 can either complete 800 more or fold - he cannot raise as he has already acted and player 3's all-in is not a complete bet, but if for example 4 raised to 2,800 total (min) that would re-open betting to 2.

400/800 post-flop, 3 players; 1 checks; 2 checks; 3 shoves for 700, this can only be called by 1 & 2 or fold as it is not a complete bet.

400/800 post-flop First to act shoves for 600, following players may either call 600 or raise to 1,400 total (min)

From what you have described you are correct with what you already have, players in your situation are permitted to call the all-in wager, raise or fold, there is no requirement to complete to a full-raise even though it is not a full raise itself.  Everything Nick has already stated I agree fully with - I am also not aware of any rule out there that would not let the player not call the all-in wager in your situation

Hope this helps,
Stuart

[Nick C]

Stuart,
 I'm glad you responded. You are always very thorough with your answers. I want you to take a look at the example that begins with 300/600 Post Flop 4 players, 1 checks; 2 bets 1000: 3 shoves for 1800 total etc. The only option you didn't mention was the option to player 1 who checked first. This is what I don't like about TDA Rule #31, which states: In no-limit and pot-limit, an all-in wager of less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who has already acted. This is not correct the way it is written because in the example above, player 1 did act by checking first, but he is certainly allowed to raise the bet of Player 2. I do not fully understand some of the raise rules that are used in pot-limit and no-limit. Limit games are much easier for me to grasp. I will not debate, or dispute a rule that is in print, whether it is  the TDA or RROP, I would just like some clarification and an explanation that makes sense, like the 50% rule in limit poker.

[Tim Zellers]

Thanks for taking the time fellas.  I just found out some more details on the situation that I mentioned earlier. 

NLHE WSOP qualifying tournament in a casino (not one of our league tournaments) - blinds are at 500/1000 - pre-flop.  My league owner is UTG and calls BB of 1000.  Other players around table either fold or call BB of 1000.  BB started hand with a total of 1500, so when pre-flop action gets back to him with no raises, he shoves his last 500.  UTG calls the all-in of the 500 additional chips, but is told by dealer that he has to complete the raise to 1000.  After he follows the dealer's instructions, another player then raises to 2000 and another raises that as well and the hand progresses on to a natural resolution.

Question is about UTG being forced to complete the raise instead of being allowed to just call the extra 500 chip all-in by the BB.  UTG didn't question the dealer about the rule, he just followed his instructions to complete the raise which in turn opened things so the other players could raise. 

Question #1...was dealer correct in forcing UTG to bet 1000 instead of just callilng the 500 chip all-in of the BB.  I'm thinking that the dealer made an error here and that "completing the bet" is for limit games only.

Question #2...looking at Rule 31, since BB's pre-flop all-in was less than full raise then other players who originally just called BB would not be able to raise and can only call the extra 500 all-in.

Question #3...assume BB checked pre-flop then shoved his 500 post-flop.  My interpretation of RROP is that players following can simply call the 500 if they want or they may raise if they haven't yet acted in that round.

Our house rules mirror TDA and RROP, so I don't think they need to be changed, but the league owner wants to be sure that we're using the correct interpretation since this situation happened to him at a non-league WSOP tournament. 




 

[Nick C]

Tim,
 Your description is perfect. I think your League owner had a right to challenge the call made by the dealer. I have not heard of a rule for a N0-limit game that doesn't call for a full raise to reopen the betting. I have always used 100% to define a full raise, I just think it is easier to explain. To answer your questions; #1 In my opinion the dealer made a mistake because the 50% rule does not apply in that situation. You are correct in your assesment of question #2, the only thing I would change is your calling the 500 a raise (because the raise is incomplete, it is considered action only). Question #3 is a little trickier because in the situation you describe, the all-in bet of 500 does not qualify as the minimum for that game (minimum being the size of the big blind, 1000). Therefore, any player following the initial all-in wager of the BB can call the 500 or bet any amount with a minimum of 1000 (size of big blind) or a maximum of all of their chips.

I hope this helps.

[Stuart Murray]

Tim,

your interpretation is correct on all counts, so no need for me to write any more!

Stuart

[MikeB]

Question #1...was dealer correct in forcing UTG to bet 1000 instead of just callilng the 500 chip all-in of the BB.  I'm thinking that the dealer made an error here and that "completing the bet" is for limit games only.

Right, in no-limit every bet is considered a "complete" action. In NL, If you want to raise it (even a partial all-in) you have to make a full raise.

Question #2...looking at Rule 31, since BB's pre-flop all-in was less than full raise then other players who originally just called BB would not be able to raise and can only call the extra 500 all-in.

Right, if a player has already acted on that betting round of the table, if it comes back to him via a raise from a player on the same bet round the table and it's not fully raised, he can only call the partial.

Question #3...assume BB checked pre-flop then shoved his 500 post-flop.  My interpretation of RROP is that players following can simply call the 500 if they want or they may raise if they haven't yet acted in that round.

Right, there's no forced BB on the flop turn or river, only pre-flop. Post flop if a player opens all-in for a partial all-in wager you can just smooth call it. BUT, if it's no limit and you want to raise, you can't "complete" it, you have to make at least a full raise on top of it. So in this case, If I want to raise the 500 "all-in wager" I have to add at least 1000 for a minimum total of 1500.

[Nick C]

Mike,
 The answer that you gave Tim contradicts my answer. I would like some clarification on your statement regarding question #3. Are you saying that in a NL with blinds of 500/1000 that a player going all-in for 500 can not be raised to 1000? If not, why not? the bring-in or minimum bet for the game is 1000, right? What if, post flop the all-in only had 200, would the next player not be able to make it 1000? I don't know why we don't use the 50% rule in NL. It is so much easier to understand.
 While I'm on the subject. I don't agree with your quote regarding question #2 either. You make reference to a player who has already acted, not being able to raise a short all-in raise. First of all in order to raise, an opposing player must bet first, therefore the player that checked prior to the initial bettor will always have a reraise option open when the bet returns to them. I really thought that the answers I gave were perfect for the situations described. That is, until I heard from you. Let's sort this out,okay. You've got me totally confused on this one.

[MikeB]

Are you saying that in a NL with blinds of 500/1000 that a player going all-in for 500 can not be raised to 1000? If not, why not?

In no limit, it's a convention that each action is a complete action, not subject to being "completed" as in a limit game. So, if blinds are 500/1000, and a player opens for an "all-in wager" of 500, then you cannot "complete" it to 1000. You have to either smooth call it, or put in a full raise of at least 1000 more for a total of 1500. Background on this convention can be found at:  http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm#SECTION_14_-_NO_LIMIT_AND_POT-LIMIT There are several paragraphs on the topic. See para 5 'Completing the bet" and Para 2 which has a good example using 50/100 blinds where a player goes all in for 20.

I don't know why we don't use the 50% rule in NL. It is so much easier to understand.

As it stands now the 50% rule is for a player who puts out a non-verbal set of mixed denomination chips that is less than the full required amount. If it's above 50% then he's got to make it a full raise, if not, it's just a call. As of the last summit, non-verbal overbets were sorted out so that: a) a single overchip is a call; b) multiple chips of same denomination go to the multiple chip rule 33; c) multiple chips of mixed denominations go to the 50% rule. See TDA rules 32 and 33.

the player that checked prior to the initial bettor will always have a reraise option open when the bet returns to them.

The betting around the table starts with a particular player, in board games with a blind it's the first live player to the left of the button. If that player checks, they've acted for this round, a check is considered action. Let's say the next live player goes all-in for less than the full minimum, any player to his left who hasn't yet acted can either smooth call it or raise it (with a full raise, not a completion), but any player to his right who's already acted can only smooth call because the underbet doesn't re-open the betting for players who've already acted.

[Nick C]

Mike,

 I don't know about the smooth call. I'm refering to a situation that I have explained many times without a convincing answer. After the flop, Player A checks, and a Player B bets the minimum and Player C goes all-in for less than a full raise. According to Rule #31, Player A can only call because he has already acted by checking, correct? He has to be allowed a re-raise because he is raising the original bettor, not the all-in. I understand what the rule is trying to say, however, the way it is written, it is incorrect.

[Nick C]

Mike and Tim
 I looked at Roberts Rules and I will list that section so all of the members can follow what we are discussing;
NO-LIMIT RULES
1. The number of raises in any betting round is unlimited.

2. The minimum bet size is the amount of the minimum bring-in, unless the player is going all-in. The minimum bring-in is the size of the big blind unless the structure of the game is preset by the house to some other amount (such as double the big blind). The minimum bet remains the same amount on all betting rounds. If the big blind does not have sufficient chips to post the required amount, a player who enters the pot on the initial betting round is still required to enter for at least the minimum bet (unless going all-in for a lesser sum) and a preflop raiser must at least double the size of the big blind. At all other times, when someone goes all-in for less than the minimum bet, a player has the option of just calling the all-in amount. If a player goes all-in for an amount that is less than the minimum bet, a player who wishes to raise must raise at least the amount of the minimum bet. For example, if the minimum bet is $100, and a player goes all-in on the flop for $20, a player may fold, call $20, or raise to at least a total of $120.
You were correct and I WAS WRONG. I want to apologize to Tim for the answer I gave him for his question #3. According to RROP in order to raise an all-in player that bets less than the minimum, theraise options to remaining players must be at least the minimum plus the size of the all-in. Example; post flop, blinds 500/1000, Player A goes all-in for 500, options to next player are; fold, call 500 or raise AT LEAST the full bring-in amount of 1000 total to 1500. I am still having a bit of a problem with some of the wording in RROP in the last sentence, when it makes reference to a player going all-in on the flop. I'm assuming they mean after the flop. It would be more clear if they worded it that way, so there is no wondering if it refers to pre-flop instead.

[NiclasG]

I cant se how this can be correct , or even a problem in this situation?

"Example; post flop, blinds 500/1000, Player A goes all-in for 500, options to next player are; fold, call 500 or raise AT LEAST the full bring-in amount of 1000 total to 1500."

If player A moves allin with an amount less then full bet,the options for the next player must be, following the rules of making fullbets , unless your allin, so next player can Call ,that means minimum of BigBlind i.e 1000 (there will be a sidepot,if another player also calls) or raise, and the raise must be also minimum the full raise to 2000, or fold. whatever happends when the players act after the allin player doesnt really matter cause the betting cant be opened again by the allin player anyhow.