Under raise - underbet

[W0lfster]

Hi everyone,

just want to clear things up a bit with regards to underbetting. Here it goes:  No limit hold em  blind $5/10 3 players A B and C. Player A first to act (SB) on the flop checks and player B bets $3 all in when the minimum bet is $10 (BB). Player C calls $3 action now goes back to player A - can he raise/call or fold or just call/fold? I ask this because it is diffrent than an under raise as this scenraio is an underbet or are the rules governing underbets the same?

Thanks

[Luca P.]

Read rule n. 38: Raises
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.
So we assume a bet or a raise (all-in wager)

[Nick C]

Wolfster,
That's a real good question. I would say Player A can only call or fold, he can not raise. I just read Linker_split's answer and I don't think Rule #38 applies. The rule only mentions a raise and not a bet. I understand the similarity and I agree. The idea is to protect other players from being trapped into a situation that would be unfair. In this case, I would consider the short all-in not enough to re-open the betting to the player that already checked.

[Luca P.]

Wolfster,
That's a real good question. I would say Player A can only call or fold, he can not raise. I just read Linker_split's answer and I don't think Rule #38 applies. The rule only mentions a raise and not a bet. I understand the similarity and I agree. The idea is to protect other players from being trapped into a situation that would be unfair. In this case, I would consider the short all-in not enough to re-open the betting to the player that already checked.

Nick C,
well yes, rule 38 is about raises, and I was taking it as example on what could be done in this situation.
Still rule 38 is clear in his title (raises) but in the statement it says "an all-in wager" which I interpreted as either raise or bet, that's why I suppose players still in game can only call.
Also, the rule says "to a player who has already acted".What if nobody has already acted?

So let's say that rule 38 could help us ruling this situation, but we can't appeal to it

[Nick C]

Linker_split and Wofster,

I have always had a problem with the way that rule is written, it used to be TDA rule #31 (now #38). I don't agree with the last line of the rule and I think that is where the confusion comes from. A raise is not the same as a bet...and an all-in that does not meet the requirerments of a full bet will not re-open the betting to a player that has already acted. So in order for a player to raise, a full bet must have been made during that round of betting. If you can follow this, you will understand the problem that I've always had with this rule: Example; Player A checks (acted), Player B goes all-in with a short amount if no other player makes a full bet Player A can fold or call only. The way the rule is written, Player A would not be allowed to raise even if an all-in player made a short raise? the only way a player can raise is if a full bet is made at some time during that round, so why would Player A not be allowed to raise? He acted by checking but, he must be allowed to check-raise, right? I have beat this to death already on earlier posts. If you're interested go back to about a year ago on the Discussion Forum and look for rule #31.

[JasperToo]

Well, we have bantered about the semantics of what action is and how it relates to a check, but I believe that when these rules and RROP refers to action they are always referring to a bet or raise.  And in this case it is a straightforward check by player A who has the option of a check raise when the action gets back to him. The fact that the all-in and subsequent call are short is meaningless to that players options.  If there is a player who called and that still has more chips, player A can raise the pot.  Now, player A has to raise it by the minimum bet so in this case he would have to raise it to at least $13.

Rule #38 only concerns itself with raises and therefore does not apply to the scenario that has been presented.  In fact there is no rule that addresses this in TDA so you go back to RROP and Section 14:2 addresses this exactly:  "...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 then 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."

[Nick C]

Jasper,
We have gone back and forth on this before, all I can tell you is I think you are wrong about Player A (after checking) being able to raise a short all-in. Maybe Mike can help us out with this one.

[DCJ001]

Jasper is right.

Everything in his post makes sense, and he has supported his ruling with the correct section of RROP that specifically applies to this example.

Unfortunately, some people are confusing this with another rule that applies to all ins that are not complete raises.

[Nick C]

DCJ001,

If Player A checks after the flop and Player B goes all-in for less than the BB, and 3 players call the short bet. Are you telling me that Player A is allowed to raise? Try to answer the question in your own words...yes or no. I am well aware of how you feel about everything I post but just give me a straight answer without your sarcastic remarks.

[JasperToo]

Maybe I shouldn't jump in here, but my read of DC's post does not sound sarcastic in this instance.  He is simply agreeing with my reasoning and documentation and stating the fact that is evident it earlier posts: some people are trying to use the wrong rule to arbitrate a short all-in bet (that is not a raise).

I'll step over to the other corner now.

[DCJ001]

DCJ001,

If Player A checks after the flop and Player B goes all-in for less than the BB, and 3 players call the short bet. Are you telling me that Player A is allowed to raise? Try to answer the question in your own words...yes or no. I am well aware of how you feel about everything I post but just give me a straight answer without your sarcastic remarks.

Yes.

To my knowledge, there is no TDA rule that specifically applies in this case.

If you need help finding it in RROP:

http://cl.ly/3j3u0K043n2m3x1e032z

[Nick C]

DCJ001,
I say the answer is no. You can do the research.

[JasperToo]

Nick, i would be interested in knowing how you have come to the conclusion that player A cannot raise when action comes back around to him?  What rule, either RROP or TDA, do you rely on to tell you that?

[Nick C]

Jasper,

Tournament poker- Blinds 200/400 : Player A checks, Player B checks, Player C goes all-in for 100, Player D calls, Player E calls, Player F calls. Action returns to Player A...He can call the all-in or fold, he can not raise.

[DCJ001]

Nick. Did you read the example in RROP that Jasper and I brought to everyone's attention?

Evidently, Nick likes to ignore common sense and the rules with which he disagrees or does not understand.