HELP - NL Under Raise Rule...

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
SteveChamberlain
High Card

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 10

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:02 pm
I am having a heated debate with someone over the under raise rule... it followed a incident during a friendly home game... Some one please help me understand...

I believed the under raise rule was if a player made a all in move with less that 50% of the previous raise...

For example BB is 200... a player raises to 600 (so thats a raise of 400) two people flat call for the same 600... a player in late position raises all in for 750 (now as the raise to 600 from the original BB was 400, the minimum re raise would of been 1000... so the raise to 750 which is a raise of 150 is under the 50% needed)

When the player called all in I instructed the players this was a under raise... one of the players questioned the call... I explained the fact it had to be 50% or more not to be a under raise... he told me he was disapointed as he wanted to re raise (as he had pocket queens) I explained that those who had already acted couldnt raise only call or fold... and those still to act coudl still do as they pleased...

Now a big debate as insued... he now says he knew it was a under raise but he doesnt think it needs to be 50% or more... he says a under raise is any bet less than double the previous raise... ie if she had pushed all in for 999 (1 short of the 1000 needed) it would of still be a under raise...

Can someone confirm clearly in NL... what is a underraise ? Is it a all in bet of less that 50% or is it any bet not equal or greater than the previous raise ? Dont confuse the rules for limit poker which is what he thinks I am doing... this is the NL Under Raise rule...

dwh103
Full House

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 810
Location: Southampton, England

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:25 pm
As far as I'm aware an under raise is any raise that is below the minimum allowed, so in your situation an all-in for 999 would still be an under raise.

1) Blinds 100/200, 3 players limp, SB pushes all-in for 300. BB told it's an under raise and can't raise (ruling by the TD). As he hadn't acted I think that's a terrible call as he hasn't acted, but am not too sure of the rules around this tbh.

2) Blinds 100/200, players A, B, C all limp. Player D raises to 1200. Player E pushes all-in for 1375. Now all players A-D have acted - can they reraise. Two people I knew claimed A-C could reraise as they would be responding to D's raise (why not E's?) but that D couldn't reraise. Based on common logic, I would've gone with A-D cannot reraise, as they've already acted and had a chance to, but my friends disagreed as this would 'eliminate limping with big hands looking for someone to raise'.

Happy to accept I'm wrong though!
_________________
My blog: http://thepokerlifeofdave.blogspot.com/
SteveChamberlain
High Card

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 10

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:38 pm
dwh103 wrote:
As far as I'm aware an under raise is any raise that is below the minimum allowed, so in your situation an all-in for 999 would still be an under raise.

1) Blinds 100/200, 3 players limp, SB pushes all-in for 300. BB told it's an under raise and can't raise (ruling by the TD). As he hadn't acted I think that's a terrible call as he hasn't acted, but am not too sure of the rules around this tbh.

2) Blinds 100/200, players A, B, C all limp. Player D raises to 1200. Player E pushes all-in for 1375. Now all players A-D have acted - can they reraise. Two people I knew claimed A-C could reraise as they would be responding to D's raise (why not E's?) but that D couldn't reraise. Based on common logic, I would've gone with A-D cannot reraise, as they've already acted and had a chance to, but my friends disagreed as this would 'eliminate limping with big hands looking for someone to raise'.

Happy to accept I'm wrong though!

In situation 1... BB can raise as he has yet to act... everyone else who as acted can either call or fold...

Situation 2... all players including A-C cannot re raise, the under raise rule applies to them too... if there is anyone after E to act they can raise...

UNDER RAISE

This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise. They may only call or fold. However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling. If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.

I think the highlighted bit is key... less than half the expected raise... the expected raise in my scenario would be to a toal of 1000 (the same 400 raise that was made on top of 200 onto 600)... the raise was 750 so a raise of 150... a under raise as it's under half the expected raise...
Joe The Elegance Beevers
Mobster

Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 1935

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:41 pm
Quote:
As far as I'm aware an under raise is any raise that is below the minimum allowed, so in your situation an all-in for 999 would still be an under raise.

Correct

Quote:

1) Blinds 100/200, 3 players limp, SB pushes all-in for 300. BB told it's an under raise and can't raise (ruling by the TD). As he hadn't acted I think that's a terrible call as he hasn't acted, but am not too sure of the rules around this tbh.

Big blind hasn't acted yet and of course he can raise. The easiest way to think about it is to mentally 'remove' the under raise. In this case take the extra 100 out of the equation. The 100 does of course get action and you can then add it back in. So the 300 all in is in effect treated as a call. If the player had called could the BB then raise? Of course he could.

Quote:
2) Blinds 100/200, players A, B, C all limp. Player D raises to 1200. Player E pushes all-in for 1375. Now all players A-D have acted - can they reraise. Two people I knew claimed A-C could reraise as they would be responding to D's raise (why not E's?) but that D couldn't reraise. Based on common logic, I would've gone with A-D cannot reraise, as they've already acted and had a chance to, but my friends disagreed as this would 'eliminate limping with big hands looking for someone to raise'.

As i said above take the under raise out for the reckoning and then add it back in after.

Quote:
2) Blinds 100/200, players A, B, C all limp. Player D raises to 1200. Player E CALLS FOR THE 1200. Now all players A-D have acted - can they reraise. OF COURSE THEY CAN, THE ACTION WAS REOPENED BY PLAYER D'S RAISE, A B and C can ReRAISE Two people I knew claimed A-C could reraise as they would be responding to D's raise (why not E's?) but that D couldn't reraise. THAT IS CORRECT Based on common logic, I would've gone with A-D cannot reraise, as they've already acted THEY MAY HAVE ALREADY ACTED BUT EVEN IF YOU HAVE ALREADY ACTED YOU CAN RERAISE IF SOMEONE RAISES and had a chance to, but my friends disagreed as this would 'eliminate limping with big hands looking for someone to raise'.

These two threads may help as well:

http://www.thehendonmob.com/forum/vie...hlight=underraise

http://www.thehendonmob.com/forum/vie...67&highlight=
dwh103
Full House

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 810
Location: Southampton, England

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:52 pm
Cheers Joe - I bet those thread links have been stored somewhere in preparation for this query to pop up again!
_________________
My blog: http://thepokerlifeofdave.blogspot.com/
SteveChamberlain
High Card

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 10

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Can you comment on this comment I see on a lot of sites under their rulings...

"This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked"

What is "has less than half the expected raise" ??? that suggests that if the raise is more than half then it isnt a under raise...

ie if the raise is 50% or more it's not a under raise... I have had this called on me in the Luton G Casino and the Westin and both times I was told it was because the raise all in was less than 50% of the previous raise... resulting in a under raise and those who had acted being frozen out from re raising...

Really confusing me this one... even though I am sure it rarely occurs...
masterjackblack
One Pair

Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Location: Ireland

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:56 pm
An under raise that exceeds 50% of the previous raise re-opens the betting in fixed limit games only. In pot limit and no limit a full raise is required to re-open the betting for players who have already had the chance to raise. I wouldn't have thought Luton would make this mistake, pretty basic.
Alex B
Straight Flush

Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2856
Location: London

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:02 am
In fixed limit an underaise is usually a raise of less than 50% of the fixed bet amount (some casinos it could still be 100%).

In no limit, any raise less than 100% of the minimum is an underraise.

Also, because this may come up at some point...

The best way to calculate the minimum reraise AFTER an underraise is to add the underraise to what the minimum would have been without it. So, A bets 100, B All-in for 120, the minimum reraise for other players would now be 100 more to 220.
zakalwe
One Pair

Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 34

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:58 am
Alex B wrote:
In fixed limit an underaise is usually a raise of less than 50% of the fixed bet amount (some casinos it could still be 100%).

In no limit, any raise less than 100% of the minimum is an underraise.

This has always been my understanding too - It's explicit in Caro's "rules of poker" which for some reason I can't find on the internet anywhere at the moment..

Here's an interesting variation for you:

4 players (post flop)

A: 10,000
B: 10,000
C: 1,100
D: 1,700

Action:

Player A bets 800
Player B calls 800
Player C under-raises all in to 1,100
Player D under-re-raises all in to 1,700

Can Player A now raise?

The difference here is that he's facing a bet that to him isn't the size of an under raise - ie if player C didn't exist and Player D had gone all-in for 1,700 he would be able to raise.

I've never seen this situation come up, and I believe a strict interpretation of the rules would say no, but I wonder if anyone else has come across it?

Jeremy
Alex B
Straight Flush

Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2856
Location: London

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:07 pm
Simple, "A" can of course reraise because a bet of effectively 800 has been raised to 1700 - a valid raise.

The second raise is NOT an underraise because the first underraise was not a valid raise, the extra 300 is just a mystical amount that the others players still do have to match to continue.
SteveChamberlain
High Card

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 10

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:41 pm
Well I guess you all must be right However this paragraph on most links I found still confuses the hell out of me...

"This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked"

It still says has half of the expected raise... why does it say "half" ??? less than half is less than 50%, no ?

Is the under raise rule the same in the USA as it is in the UK for no limit... a very confusing paragraph, why doesnt it say equal to the previous bet, why say less than half ???
Joe The Elegance Beevers
Mobster

Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 1935

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:11 pm
SteveChamberlain wrote:
Well I guess you all must be right However this paragraph on most links I found still confuses the hell out of me...

"This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked"

It still says has half of the expected raise... why does it say "half" ??? less than half is less than 50%, no ?

Is the under raise rule the same in the USA as it is in the UK for no limit... a very confusing paragraph, why doesnt it say equal to the previous bet, why say less than half ???

Does 'locked' mean there is no more betting? This quote you have found makes no sense at all. What do you mean by 'most links'?

Joined: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 1697
Location: Babies Poop and Cry a LOT!

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:13 pm
Bunch of words...

Joe is right.
_________________
"What A Country!"
Full House

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 809

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:18 pm
SteveChamberlain wrote:

"This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked"

Yes the betting is locked or to be more clear, the betting is NOT reopened because the all in raise was less than a full raise.

e.g

A bets 600
B calls 600
C goes all in for 601-1199

'A' can not raise as he is not facing a raise, same is true for 'B'

The half raise rule ONLY applies to fixed limit games. if you are playing in a room that misapplies fl rules to nl/pl games you had better check that a flush beats a straight, as they might have some other wacky rules.
SteveChamberlain
High Card

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 10

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:52 pm
Joe The Elegance Beevers wrote:
SteveChamberlain wrote:
Well I guess you all must be right However this paragraph on most links I found still confuses the hell out of me...

"This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising - going all-in to raise - has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked"

It still says has half of the expected raise... why does it say "half" ??? less than half is less than 50%, no ?

Is the under raise rule the same in the USA as it is in the UK for no limit... a very confusing paragraph, why doesnt it say equal to the previous bet, why say less than half ???

Does 'locked' mean there is no more betting? This quote you have found makes no sense at all. What do you mean by 'most links'?

Hey Joe... I went to google and typed in NL Under Raise Rule... the phrase above come up on a lot of sites... I thought this meant that if the re raise all in was less than half the expected bet... ie less than 50% then those who already acted couldnt re raise...

But hey I am sure we're wasting too much time on this I think you guys are right... just confused over the phrase thats all...
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 All times are GMTGoto page 1, 2, 3  Next Page 1 of 3

 Jump to: Select a forum Forums----------------Mob Poker ForumHand AnalysisNon-Poker General ForumSports and BettingLive Cardroom News and Promotions Online Poker Rooms Official Forums----------------POKERSTARSFULL TILT POKEREVEREST POKERREDBETCORAL POKERWINAMAXPARTY POKER
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum