Min bet post-flop: Why can you just call a short all-in post flop?

[MikeB]

The TDA received the following very interesting question regarding the poker convention that a short all-in wager can be smooth-called post flop. Your comments are encouraged.

**************** Inquiry below

I have a situation, where I would like some clarification, Blinds are 5,000 and 10,000.

[Pre-flop] First to act to folds, 2nd to act calls big blind, everyone else including dealer folds, little blind calls with 1,000 behind.

Flop comes and little blind goes all in for 1,000.

Does big blind have to call 10,000 (current big blind) or is the big blind able to just call the 1,000 that the little blind is all in for?
Please confirm how this should be handled, and where I can find this ruling in print?

Thanks
Name withheld

**************** Initial reply
As for where the gentleman can find the rule in print... see RRoP, Version 11, Section 14 No Limit and Pot Limit, Rule 2: "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." Mike Bishop

**************** Follow-up question
Thank you for getting back to me, on this issue. I am still unclear as to why the call is not that of the big blind, then a side pot will be created and the all in person will be able to win 33,000 and there would be a side pot of 18,000 k between the big blind and the player second to act.  A normal bet is that of the big blind, so why wouldn't the call be the same.

Thanks again, Name Withheld

[MikeB]

Great question. There are a few pertinent answers:

1: That's the way it's always been.

2: By being able to call a short all-in it keeps the betting odds even: You bet an amount, I call that same amount.

3: Pre-flop the blinds (and antes) are minimum bets to build the pot.

4: It's still a table-stakes game where whatever I have (even a short all-in) is a legitimate wager, if not a "full minimum bet".

5: Keep in mind that in NL and PL poker, every action is considered "complete". So post-flop the 25 all-in wager by the BB is autonomous. I can't "complete" it by making it 100 total. I would have to raise to at least 125 total if we insist on post-flop action being at least the size of the BB.

6: It eliminates the risk that if I have to put in at least the BB against a short all-in post flop, I'm overbetting the short all-in PLUS I'm re-opening bet / raise opportunities for people who have already acted. I have to do all that just to stay in the game when the guy makes his short all-in bet. Example: NLHE (50/100). 4 players called the BB, and 3 are in for the SB's raise to 300 total (so there's 1000 in the pot pre-flop).   SB is a notorious slow-player (check-raiser). Post-flop he checks, and I'm not wanting to bet here b/c I'm thinking he's slow-playing... then the BB goes all-in for his last 25 and it's on me. The BB is getting 25 to 1000 pot odds. If I have to make it at least 100 then I'm getting 100 to 1025 odds (not nearly as good as the all-in player) PLUS I'm re-opening the betting to the notorious check-raiser who raised pre-flop! I would have to do that even if the BB is all-in by just 1 dollar! By just smooth-calling 25 here I don't re-open the bet and I get approximately the same pot odds that the short all-in got.

At the end of the day, it comes back to "that's the way it's always been". There's definitely logic to this rule, but even if there wasn't a lot of logic, it's a standard that everyone agrees to. When we think of changing these conventions we have to ask if we are significantly improving the game, because there's a learning curve of re-training everyone when you change a convention and that causes confusion in the short run. For example, I think there's a real good case that a series of short all-in raises should total to the minimum raise amount for someone who isn't short-stacked. But under long-standing convention even someone with a deepstack only has to raise by the minimum raise even if there's been a series of short all-in raises before him that total much more than the minimum bet. While that could be changed, it would take a lot of re-training, would cause significant confusion in the process and would we really improve the game?

Thanks a lot for the great question!

[K-Lo]

Nice detailed post, Mike.

For me, the reason for allowing a call of a short all-in is quite simple - if a player has less than the "minimum bet" amount in chips, why should he be given an extra advantage of being able to keep others out of the pot?  This is simply penalizing others in the hand - but whose fault is it that the player is so short-stacked?  For example, if a player has only one chip left post-flop, but the minimum bet for the round is, say, 100000 chips, the all-in player would have a huge advantage if we forced others to "complete" to the minimum in order to "call". This doesn't seem that fair - it is not their fault the short stack has only one chip. 

In general, if you have only X chips left and are all-in, I should be able to call you for X. That is fair.

So where convention comes into play is when the BB is all-in for less than the minimum amount pre-flop.  Say the blinds are 50k/100k, but the BB only has 51k. One could argue that subsequent players should be able to simply call 51k, consistent with the principle above. But in this case, I.e. pre-flop, we have traditionally required subsequent players to come-in for at least the minimum, presumably to assist in driving the action.

[Nick C]

Mike and Ken,
Great posts by both.

 Could you consider the added protection the all-in player could get from his (colluding) partner, by forcing him to make the full BB bet and knocking potential short bet callers from contention? Hmm, I know it's a stretch but, we've all seen stranger scenarios.

[Tristan]

6: It eliminates the risk that if I have to put in at least the BB against a short all-in post flop, I'm overbetting the short all-in PLUS I'm re-opening bet / raise opportunities for people who have already acted. I have to do all that just to stay in the game when the guy makes his short all-in bet. Example: NLHE (50/100). 4 players called the BB, and 3 are in for the SB's raise to 300 total (so there's 1000 in the pot pre-flop).   SB is a notorious slow-player (check-raiser). Post-flop he checks, BB goes all-in for his last 25 and it's on me. The BB is getting 25 to 1000 pot odds. If I have to make it at least 100 then I'm getting 100 to 1025 odds (not nearly as good as the all-in player) PLUS I'm re-opening the betting to the notorious check-raiser who raised pre-flop! I would have to do that even if the BB is all-in by just 1 dollar! By just smooth-calling 25 here I don't re-open the bet and I get approximately the same pot odds that the short all-in got.

Great point!

Making it be 10,000 at that point would change the whole game.  If that was the case, how could it possibly stop there?  If it was 5k/10k blinds and UTG raises all-in to 11k, why shouldn't the UTG+1 have to make it 20k if they want to call if we use the same standard of "A normal bet is that of the big blind"?

Mostly though it is the thought that each person should only get the weight of their bet.  If they are only risking 1,000 (even if it also includes their tournament life), it is not right to make anyone else have to risk more in order for them to play. 

Fast typers!  I was busy at work and see two more posts while I was writing this one... 

[Tristan]

Say the blinds are 50k/100k, but the BB only has 51k. One could argue that subsequent players should be able to simply call 51k, consistent with the principle above. But in this case, I.e. pre-flop, we have traditionally required subsequent players to come-in for at least the minimum, presumably to assist in driving the action.

I suppose this is because all players went in to the hand knowing that it would be at least 100k to play the hand.  Good point though.

[Nick C]

One observation from the original post: I know the game in question was no-limit, therefore, the response from Robert's Rules Version 11, sec. 14 explains the minimum required raise as a full size bet above the all-in amount.  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."

To point out the difference between no-limit and limit, I look to Robert's Rules BETTING AND RAISING #7 (in part) a player facing an all-in wager of less than half a bet, may fold, call, or complete the wager. So, in limit play, with a minimum bet requirement of 100, and a player opens the betting with a $20 all-in on the flop the next player may fold, call the 20, or complete the wager to 100...they can not increase the bet to 120. In fact, they can not raise at all, they can only complete the bet.

Thought this would be a good time to explain the difference. Funny how we always assume the game is no-limit.

[WSOPMcGee]

I know its been a while.... like 2 yrs since the topic was started, but I just happened upon it because I've been so busy here lately. 

Aside from all the great points that everyone raised, I got the straight and concise answer from none other than our new board member Johnny Grooms many moons ago (2009 to be exact).

The reason is because Pre-flop the BB is the minimum bet and more importantly, it's a FORCED bet. Post Flop, all bets are Voluntary. Simple. Concise. Easy.

[Spence]

I know its been a while.... like 2 yrs since the topic was started, but I just happened upon it because I've been so busy here lately. 
Aside from all the great points that everyone raised, I got the straight and concise answer from none other than our new board member Johnny Grooms many moons ago (2009 to be exact).
The reason is because Pre-flop the BB is the minimum bet and more importantly, it's a FORCED bet. Post Flop, all bets are Voluntary. Simple. Concise. Easy.

I think this reason is good but after the flop the minimum full bet is still at least the amount of the big blind is it not?  On a 1000-2000 round after the flop is the minimum bet not 2000?

[WSOPMcGee]

I know its been a while.... like 2 yrs since the topic was started, but I just happened upon it because I've been so busy here lately. 
Aside from all the great points that everyone raised, I got the straight and concise answer from none other than our new board member Johnny Grooms many moons ago (2009 to be exact).
The reason is because Pre-flop the BB is the minimum bet and more importantly, it's a FORCED bet. Post Flop, all bets are Voluntary. Simple. Concise. Easy.

I think this reason is good but after the flop the minimum full bet is still at least the amount of the big blind is it not?  On a 1000-2000 round after the flop is the minimum bet not 2000?

Yes. But it's a voluntary bet, not mandatory.

Let's put it this way.

Pre-flop there is a mandatory minimum bet. Blinds are posted and every player that wishes to see the flop is facing action from the BB. In this case, 1000-2000. It's 2000 to see the flop or all fold and the BB wins the pot.
Post-flop all bets are voluntary. You have the option to check and see a free card if you want. Pre-flop that option is not available. Thus if someone has less than the minimum bet and bets in front of you, that is all the action that you are facing.

Hope that makes sense.

[Spence]

I get that the blind is a mandatory bet and that's why you have to make a full bet pre-flop but what I'm saying is that logic doesn't hold up after the flop.  All bets are voluntary after the blinds yet the amount you are legally allowed to bet in a no limit game does have a strict minimum.
I understand we do this but the logic doesn't follow for me.  We can force blinds and we can force minimum raise amounts but unless you are facing a bet, shouldn't you be allowed to bet whatever you like?  1000-2000 game facing no action on the flop I'd be able to bet 475 if I wanted.  I simply think this falls to - We've just always done it that way.