Rule 44: clarifying language needed on short all-ins totalling a full min raise?

[Dave Miller]

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

• After Alice's 100 bet, the minimum full raise would be an additional 100, for a minimum total bet of 200.
• Bob's all-in raise to 125 failed to make a full raise of 200.
• Charlie only called the 125.  However, had he wanted to raise, it would need to be at least 100 on top of the 125.
• David's all-in raise to 200 was less than a full raise of 225. However, as shown, it does result in a full raise of 200 back to Alice.
• Erin only called the 200.  However, had she wanted to raise, it would need to be at least 200 more, for a bet totaling at least 400.

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. Or is it 200 plus the total combined raise of 125 for a total of 325? I totally don't get how it would be 400.

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?

[BillM16]

Sorry Dave, that was an error on my part.  Please see the above correction.  You were right, the minimum raise hasn't changed since Alice's bet.  Thanks again.

[BillM16]

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.

[Dave Miller]

Sorry Dave, that was an error on my part.  Please see the above correction.  You were right, the minimum raise hasn't changed since Alice's bet.  Thanks again.

No problem. Actually, I'm glad there was your error induced confusion. It helps point out how easy it is to screw this up. And glad to see I was correct about my min raise amounts.


For what it's worth, in the pub poker league where I deal, to keep things simple, a min raise is double the call amount regardless of how the call amount got there. But reopening the option still follows TDA rules.