18 replies to this topic

[murmar]

Three way action in no-limit hold em, on the flop first to act checks, second bets 20, third goes all in for 25, first is not allowed to raise. Is this a rule everywhere, and why is it a rule? Is it the same if the third raises a full bet?

[supertouch]

first guy can't re-raise because third's all in was not a raise because it was only 5 more. for first to be able to re-raise the third's all in must be at least 40 in that particular situation.standard rule of poker.ignore my answer, i read it wrong

[murmar]

supertouch, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

first guy can't re-raise because third's all in was not a raise because it was only 5 more. for first to be able to re-raise the third's all in must be at least 40 in that particular situation.standard rule of poker.

Just to be sure you understand, it's three way action and the first guy hasn't acted on the initial bet of 20.

[ShakeZuma]

murmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:48 PM, said:

Just to be sure you understand, it's three way action and the first guy hasn't acted on the initial bet of 20.

he checked. that was his action. all he can do is call.edit: and what in God's name is in your avatar?

[LincolnK]

the rule was applied wrong.the first guy has the option to re-raise the 2nd player's bet because player 1 initially checked and then there was action after him. if player one just calls, player 2 can't reraise. the all in bet has to be a raise of at least half the initial bet for it to affect betting options.

[turd ferguson]

ShakeZuma, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

edit: and what in God's name is in your avatar?

I've wondered this for quite some time as well? Maybe it's a bean plant?

[chappy3]

murmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 8:40 PM, said:

Three way action in no-limit hold em, on the flop first to act checks, second bets 20, third goes all in for 25, first is not allowed to raise. Is this a rule everywhere, and why is it a rule? Is it the same if the third raises a full bet?

1st should be able to do anything he wants, call/raise/fold. This is because he has not acted yet. 2nd should not be able to raise, because he made the bet and did not get a "full raise"(over half the amount)I believe this is the way it should be, house probably got this rule mixed up a bit. Someone correct me if i'm wrong?

[murmar]

LincolnK, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

the rule was applied wrong.the first guy has the option to re-raise the 2nd player's bet because player 1 initially checked and then there was action after him. if player one just calls, player 2 can't reraise. the all in bet has to be a raise of at least half the initial bet for it to affect betting options.

That's what I thought, the second guy can't raise if the first guy just calls, but they ruled that the first guy couldn't raise. Nobody here has said why. My signature is your clue to my picture.

[ajs510]

turd ferguson, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:52 PM, said:

I've wondered this for quite some time as well? Maybe it's a bean plant?

Shit on a Stick, it's a Vancouver delicacy. You'll be hearing all about it during the 2010 Olympics.

[ShakeZuma]

ajs510, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:54 PM, said:

Shit on a Stick, it's a Vancouver delicacy. You'll be hearing all about it during the 2010 Olympics.

those damn canadians... BUY A HAMBURGER PEOPLE!

[turd ferguson]

murmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 10:53 AM, said:

That's what I thought, the second guy can't raise if the first guy just calls, but they ruled that the first guy couldn't raise. Nobody here has said why. My signature is your clue to my picture.

It's the egg of a head louse? Gross!

[sloshr]

wrong ruling. player 3's all-in is considered a call, since it is not a full raise, player 1 should be able to act accordingly. He checked, player 2, who is not all-in bet, of course he can raise. House rules can be anything you want, but this is simply a mistake by a floorman who doesn't understand what is going on.Had player 2 checked and player 3 bet all-in for less than the minimum bet, then player 1 could not raise, as nobobdy made an actual bet.Your ruling says that player 3 is protecting player 2 by being all-in. He cannot do that. Player 2 bet, so he is subject to being raised. If player 3 called or folded, clearly player 1 could raise. He still can.

[ajs510]

ShakeZuma, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:55 PM, said:

those damn canadians... BUY A HAMBURGER PEOPLE!

I'm told it's quite tasty, you coat the outside in caramel, and the little peanuts on the ins....oh never mind.

turd ferguson, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:56 PM, said:

It's the egg of a head louse? Gross!

That's officially the strangest avatar on FCP. I found the original picture, and that's exactly what it is...I'm sure there's a story, I'm just not sure I want to hear it.

[murmar]

sloshr, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:56 AM, said:

wrong ruling. player 3's all-in is considered a call, since it is not a full raise, player 1 should be able to act accordingly. He checked, player 2, who is not all-in bet, of course he can raise. House rules can be anything you want, but this is simply a mistake by a floorman who doesn't understand what is going on.Had player 2 checked and player 3 bet all-in for less than the minimum bet, then player 1 could not raise, as nobobdy made an actual bet.Your ruling says that player 3 is protecting player 2 by being all-in. He cannot do that. Player 2 bet, so he is subject to being raised. If player 3 called or folded, clearly player 1 could raise. He still can.

So you think the casino pit guy just made a mistake. I was so sure I was right (that player 1 can raise) but the dealer, pit, and one of the regulars (not in the hand) agreed that he can just call, so i let it go.

[ShakeZuma]

well that is deeeeeeesgusting

[murmar]

ajs510, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

I'm told it's quite tasty, you coat the outside in caramel, and the little peanuts on the ins....oh never mind.That's officially the strangest avatar on FCP. I found the original picture, and that's exactly what it is...I'm sure there's a story, I'm just not sure I want to hear it.

Daniel wrote an article called "Don't be such a nit" and I suck up to him by discouraging nitiness.

[turd ferguson]

murmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

Daniel wrote an article called "Don't be such a nit" and I suck up to him by discouraging nitiness.

Yeah, but now I'm curious about what a nit has to do with being a stingy poker player.

[_Great_Dane_]

murmar, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:40 PM, said:

Three way action in no-limit hold em, on the flop first to act checks, second bets 20, third goes all in for 25, first is not allowed to raise. Is this a rule everywhere, and why is it a rule? Is it the same if the third raises a full bet?

The rule is "In no-limit, less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted." In this case, the second player made the first bet of $20. The third player went all in for $25, which is not a full raise. But the first to act may raise the second player's $20 bet to $40 or more because he has not acted on this player's bet yet..This is the correct ruling.For a list of the Tournament Directors' Association Rules, go to http://www.harrahs.com/wsop/rules.html This rule is at the very bottom. It's important that everyone interprets the rules correctly, though.

[_Great_Dane_]

LincolnK, on Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 1:49 PM, said:

the rule was applied wrong.the first guy has the option to re-raise the 2nd player's bet because player 1 initially checked and then there was action after him. if player one just calls, player 2 can't reraise. the all in bet has to be a raise of at least half the initial bet for it to affect betting options.

Actually, "less than a full raise does not reopen the betting to a player who already has acted." You seemed to be confused with regard to the following rule: "If a player puts in a raise of 50 percent or more of the previous bet, he will be required to make a full raise. The raise will be exactly the minimum raise allowed." In this case, the player went all in without making a full raise.