HELP - NL Under Raise Rule...

[SteveChamberlain]

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...

Help Please... much appreciated

[dwh103]

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.

Now I've had an argument about the same. Two situations:

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]

[Joe The Elegance Beevers]

[dwh103]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[Alex B]

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]

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]

[MadYank]

Bunch of words...


Joe is right.
_________________
"What A Country!"

[NevadaKaz]

[SteveChamberlain]