Confusion re: Applying Min-Raise vs. Reopening the betting vs. Under-raise rules

[W0lfster]

Hello everyone,

Just wondering, I thought I had the under raise rules understood until I got was presented with a problem the other day playing poker with my friends. Here's what happened:

NL Hold'em. Blinds are 10/20. 3 players
Flop is dealt and the SB checks and the BB (me) bets the minimum (20) the button goes all in for 30 which is an under raise of 10. The action is now the SB. Can he raise here? I ask because he already acted on his hand prior to the under raise but then he was facing a full bet from me for 20. I'm not sure.

Also an example I saw online and I didn't agree with seat

seat 1 is SB and bets 100.
seat 2 BB raises to 210 (so 110 more).
seat 3 goes all in 250.
seat 4 goes all in 300.
seat 5 goes all in 350.
seat 6 goes all in 400.

They mentioned that seat 7 could min raise 190 to 590 total.
I thought it would've been 140 on top of the 400 to make it 540?

Any help would be great! 

[EDITOR NOTE: Changing title of this thread to include the 3 topics discussed: Min-raises, re-opening the betting, and under-raises. Please also see sticky thread on the re-opening topic. Mike B.]

[BillM16]

Flop is dealt and the SB checks and the BB (me) bets the minimum (20) the button goes all in for 30 which is an under raise of 10. The action is now the SB. Can he raise here? I ask because he already acted on his hand prior to the under raise but then he was facing a full bet from me for 20. I'm not sure.

• Flop is dealt
• SB checks
• BB bets 20
• Button all-in for 30
• Action on SB

The SB is facing a wager of 30.  They can call fold, call 30 or raise.  The largest prior bet or raise was 20, so the SB can raise to 50 or more.

Also an example I saw online and I didn't agree with seat

seat 1 is SB and bets 100.
seat 2 BB raises to 210 (so 110 more).
seat 3 goes all in 250.
seat 4 goes all in 300.
seat 5 goes all in 350.
seat 6 goes all in 400.

They mentioned that seat 7 could min raise 190 to 590 total.
I thought it would've been 140 on top of the 400 to make it 540?

Seat 7 is facing a wager of 400.  The largest prior bet or raise was 110.  So, seat 7 can fold, call 400, or raise to 510 or more.

[W0lfster]

Hi Bill, thanks for your reply, I am confused at to why it's 110 more and not 140 to equal 540?

I ask because surely 100 then 210 is 110 raise and then 250 which is an underraise by 70 and then 300 which is now an under raise of 20 and then 350 which is a full raise of 110 + 30 = 140. 350 to 400 is an under raise by 90 so therefore seat 7's minimum raise would be 140 on top of that which would equal 540 no?

[BillM16]

100 bets 100
210 raises 110
250 raises 40
300 raises 50
350 raises 50
400 raises 50

Largest bet or raise is 110.

[W0lfster]

I see where you're coming from but can you see where I'm coming from also? Why is my understanding incorrect?

[BillM16]

I see where you’re coming from but can you see where I’m coming from also? Why is my understanding incorrect?

Hi Bill, thanks for your reply, I am confused at to why it’s 110 more and not 140 to equal 540?

I ask because surely 100 then 210 is 110 raise and then 250 which is an underraise by 70 and then 300 which is now an under raise of 20 and then 350 which is a full raise of 110 + 30 = 140. 350 to 400 is an under raise by 90 so therefore seat 7’s minimum raise would be 140 on top of that which would equal 540 no?

Here is where you are correct:
- 210 is a full raise of 110
- 250 is not a full raise (it is 70 short of the 110 full raise amount)
- 300 is not a full raise

Here is where you are incorrect:
- 300 is not an under raise of 20.  It is a raise of 50, which is 60 short of the 110 full raise amount.
- 350 is not a full raise.  It is a raise of 50 which is 60 short of the 110 full raise amount.
- 400 is not an under raise by 90.  It is a raise of 50 which is 60 short of the 110 full raise amount.
- seat 7 needs to raise to at least 510 for a full raise (400 plus 110).  Not 540. 

It is incorrect to determine a full raise amount by accumulation of multiple incomplete raises (i.e., short all-ins).  The full raise amount is always equal to the largest prior bet or raise.

[W0lfster]

It is incorrect to determine a full raise amount by accumulation of multiple incomplete raises (i.e., short all-ins).

Arrr this is where I've been going wrong, that makes sense now.

So let's say seat 7 is the cut off and seat 8 is the button. If both the cut off and button call the 400, can seat 1 the SB raise? I ask because he's already acted on his hand and nobody after him has made a raise to 110 or more.

[BillM16]

It is incorrect to determine a full raise amount by accumulation of multiple incomplete raises (i.e., short all-ins).

Arrr this is where I’ve been going wrong, that makes sense now.

So let’s say seat 7 is the cut off and seat 8 is the button. If both the cut off and button call the 400, can seat 1 the SB raise? I ask because he’s already acted on his hand and nobody after him has made a raise to 110 or more.

The SB previously bet 100.  Seat 6 made it 400, 7 and 8 called, so the SB can:

• fold
• call by adding 300 to the previous 100
• raise to at least 510 (100 opener + 300 call amount + 110 full raise amount = 510)

Now that you fully understand this, let me point out another situation that with which many others still have trouble.  Lets change your scenario such that the BB doesn't make a full raise. 

For example:

#1 SB bets 100
#2 BB all-in 175
#3 all-in 250
#4 all-in 300
#5 all-in 350
#6 all-in 400
#7 calls 400
#8 calls 400
#1 SB can fold, call, or raise to at least 500

In this scenario, none of the players made a full raise over the bet faced.  When they went all-in, they didn't have enough chips to complete a full raise over their calling amount.  When action returns to the SB, they can call, fold, or raise even though nobody else made a full raise.  This is the subject of Rule #44: Re-Opening the Bet and the corresponding Illustrations.

IMO: Rule #44 wording is confusing given it's over emphasis on the multiple short all-ins scenario and the use of the double negative "(does not reopen betting ... and is not facing at least a full raise)."  Rule #44 would be more clear by rewording it to something like: 

In no-limit or pot-limit, when action returns to a player who previously acted, the betting has reopened if the player is facing a raise equal or more than a full raise amount. 

The rare occurrence of multiple short all-ins accumulating to create a raise equal to or more than a full-raise amount could be described as an Illustration without adding confusion of the rule.

[Nick C]

Here we go again...The dreaded raise rule. Wolfster...in your first scenario I think it would be helpful if you look at the SB as raising the BB...forget the short all-in. It is a bet that must be matched in order to continue playing but when it comes to raising...to me it is almost irrelevant. The SB is allowed to check-raise, right? Because the game is no limit the 50% raise rule will not apply as it would in limit. The min-raise to the SB is 20 more for a total of 50.

I believe that the second situation opens up the whole can of worms that have confused us all for at least 10 years. I do not agree with Bills answer about the "short" raises. First of all, they are only possible when a player is all-in, and every single time an example is written it is always started with the smallest all-in and then it goes to a crescendo from lowest to highest? Forget the short all-in's...they are not raises...they are action only. I also believe that the min-raise to seat 7 is to 590...not 540.

Sounds like we need Mike.

[W0lfster]

Hello Bill and Nick thanks for your replies!

Arrr ok, I got it until you put the doubt in my head Nick arrrgh! I agree, Mike where are you when we need you?!

[Nick C]

W0lfster...I'm not trying to add to your confusion. Let's take Bill's example with a little twist.

For example: This is what Bill wrote.                                 
For example:

#1 SB bets 100
#2 BB all-in 175
#3 all-in 250
#4 all-in 300
#5 all-in 350
#6 all-in 400
#7 calls 400
#8 calls 400
#1 SB can fold, call, or raise to at least 500

#1 SB bets 100
#2 BB all-in 175
#3 all-in 400
#4 all-in 300
#5 all-in 350
#6 all-in 250
#7 calls 400
#8 calls 400
#1 SB can fold, call, or minraise to ?

[BillM16]

W0lfster...I'm not trying to add to your confusion. Let's take Bill's example with a little twist.

For example: This is what Bill wrote.                                 
For example:

#1 SB bets 100
#2 BB all-in 175
#3 all-in 250
#4 all-in 300
#5 all-in 350
#6 all-in 400
#7 calls 400
#8 calls 400
#1 SB can fold, call, or raise to at least 500

#1 SB bets 100
#2 BB all-in 175
#3 all-in 400
#4 all-in 300
#5 all-in 350
#6 all-in 250
#7 calls 400
#8 calls 400
#1 SB can fold, call, or minraise to ?

When action returns to the SB in seat #1, there are two questions:

1) Is the SB facing a full raise?

• Yes. In both scenario's above, the SB is facing a bet of 400 which is a full raise over the SB's opening bet of 100.

According to Rule #44, betting is reopened. So question #2 becomes:

2) What is the largest bet or raise that has occurred on this street?

• a) In the first scenario, the SB's opening bet of 100 is larger than each of the short all-in raises that followed.  So, a minimum full raise by the SB would be 500.  (100 opener, 300 to call 400, 100 min full raise = 500)


• b) In the second scenario, seat #3's raise to a total of 400 was a full raise of 225. (It was more than minimum full raise of 100 over the 175 faced.)  So, a minimum full raise by the SB would be to a total bet of 625. (100 opener, 300 to call 400, 225 min full raise = 625)

Here we go again...The dreaded raise rule. Wolfster...in your first scenario I think it would be helpful if you look at the SB as raising the BB...forget the short all-in. It is a bet that must be matched in order to continue playing but when it comes to raising...to me it is almost irrelevant. The SB is allowed to check-raise, right? Because the game is no limit the 50% raise rule will not apply as it would in limit. The min-raise to the SB is 20 more for a total of 50.

I believe that the second situation opens up the whole can of worms that have confused us all for at least 10 years. I do not agree with Bills answer about the "short" raises. First of all, they are only possible when a player is all-in, and every single time an example is written it is always started with the smallest all-in and then it goes to a crescendo from lowest to highest? Forget the short all-in's...they are not raises...they are action only. I also believe that the min-raise to seat 7 is to 590...not 540.

Sounds like we need Mike.

Notice how the short all-ins ALWAYS affect the total size of the bet faced but NEVER affect the size of the minimum raise.  This ought to be obvious as a short all-in ALWAYS adds chips to the pot and is NEVER a full raise.

Multiple short all-in raises reopen the betting if:

• A full raise hasn't already reopened betting, and
• the total bet faced amounts to a full raise.

Clearly, when a full raise has already reopened the betting, the short all-ins still affect to total bet faced.  Also, without a full raise having been made, the only way to reopen the betting is for MULTIPLE short all-in raises to amount to a full raise.  If the total bet faced does not amount to a full raise, betting has not reopened in no limit and pot limit games.

[EDITORS NOTE: Editing title to be same as the OP title].

[MikeB]

This thread is actually much more focused on Min-Raises and Re-Opening the Bet than on Under-Raises. Since inception the TDA has probably received more questions about re-opening the bet than any other single subject. Please also see the sticky thread on these topics:

https://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=823.0

One thing is 100% clear: these subjects need illustrations because regardless of how you write the rule, there will be questions about specific scenarios. Hence the Illustration Addendum to the TDA Rules.

[BROOKS]

I have been training dealers and managers on all of this for the past 5 months.
The easiest way I have been able to explain is:

A player that has already acted and wants to raise needs to be facing a full bet/raise.
The minimum raise is determined by the last legal/valid bet/raise.

So in a scenerio where someone checks, they just need to be facing a full bet when it gets back to them. If blinds are 100/200, it needs to be at least 200 when it gets back to the player that checked, and the betting has been reopened, they can raise.

[Nick C]

Brooks,
I agree 100%.