... I have no clue what you are trying to 'splain to me about 3 $25 chips instead of 2 $25 chips. Now that you mentioned it, that is why I like the suggestion that Thomas McGee made about increasing it to 51%.
If you want to discuss that, I'm ready.
Hi NickC, I think you misunderstood the post previous to yours quoted here. The bit about 3 $25 dollar chips was actually part of the quote from Mcgee that I used in my post to agree with the change of (the now) rule #30 and the "more than 50%" statement.
The part I was trying to "'splain" (and I was not trying to be a smarta&& there at all..) was the all-in players bets and how they effect the action for the raise.
Chet is right,
... I am still waiting for an explanation of how multiple all-ins reopen betting, or qualify as a raise in no-limit and pot-limit?
Let's set up our players: A,B,C,D. Let's say that this is post flop play so we don't have to mess with chips already in the pot. Let's say the blinds are 50/100. This would mean a minimum bet for this round is 100
Player A: Checks
Player B: bets 100
Player C: all-in 125
Player D: all-in 175
Now the action is back to player A. (I will reserve the "check is action" discussion for another time) Player A has the customary choices: fold, call or raise.
Call: How much does he have to put in to call? $175 because that is the largest bet back to him is 175 from the all-in player D
Raise: How much does he have to put in the pot to raise? He has to match the 175 but he only has to raise another 100 because there have been no legal raises (full raises? ok, we'll leave that till later too

) so 275 goes in.
Is that correct? Clear? - the minimum raise is only 100 because there has not been a full raise in front of him.
So with those choices (and a hypothetical all-in for player A of some amount) what would the action do for player B?
Call: 175 would be the required call for player A so Player B CANNOT RE-raise as the 175 is not a full raise back to him
Raise: 275 goes in and then the bet back to Player B is obviously a raise to Player B in that player A actually had enough chips to make the minimum raise ABOVE the minimum bet of 175. And that, I think, may be the sticky point for some. It's easy to see here that Player B gets to reraise because player A actually put in a raise.
All-in for 225: Here is what it means when the rule says multiple all-ins reopen betting to a player that has already acted (bet, whatever). An all-in here for 225 is not a "FULL" raise in this scenario. Just as the 175 all-in for player D was not a full raise of the 125 all-in bet of player C which was not a full raise of the minimum 100 bet by player B, Though they were all "raises" of the minimum bet. So they are all-in bets that, in and of themselves, individually, do not constitute a full raise against the previous bet, that last one did AMOUNT to a full raise as far as Player B is concerned and that player can now reraise.
So, Nick, I know that you stated earlier in the thread that you don't see why the all-ins matter and I suppose for the purposes of player B they don't need to be considered because, if they weren't there, player A would have obviously raised player B with his 225 bet. The key to the rule is that the all-in bets DO INCREASE THE MINIMUM BET to subsequent players but DO NOT INCREASE THE MINIMUM RAISE to subsequent players.
Does that help any?