Under raise rule???

Scotty #

Can someone explain the under-raise rule to me properly?

Why wasn't suitty allowed to re-raise me here? He had limped, I raised, then an under-raise. Shouldn't he be given the opportunity to re-raise??


Single-Table Tournament
Table Name Hand ID Game Stakes
$15 - NL - 9 Seats 10321013-13 Holdem No Limit 30/60
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Hand Start.
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Seat 2 : jackthecad has $1,480
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Seat 4 : sjagmanuk has $360
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Seat 5 : suitty3281 has $1,870
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Seat 7 : DougDugDuce has $2,920
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Seat 8 : derecho has $2,180
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Seat 9 : ScottyAA has $9,190
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : ScottyAA is the dealer.
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : jackthecad posted small blind.
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : sjagmanuk posted big blind.
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Game [13] started with 6 players.
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Dealing Hole Cards.
[Jul 9 19:29:29] : Seat 9 : ScottyAA has 6c Ac
[Jul 9 19:29:32] : suitty3281 called 60
[Jul 9 19:29:36] : DougDugDuce called 60
[Jul 9 19:29:36] : derecho folded.
[Jul 9 19:29:39] : ScottyAA called 60 and raised 240
[Jul 9 19:29:43] : Stakes: 30/60 Current level: 2 Next level in: 5 min.
[Jul 9 19:29:55] : jackthecad folded.
[Jul 9 19:30:00] : sjagmanuk called 240 and raised 60 and is All-in
[Jul 9 19:30:00] : Under-Raise rules are now in effect.
[Jul 9 19:30:03] : Stakes: 30/60 Current level: 2 Next level in: 5 min.
[Jul 9 19:30:15] : suitty3281 : y cant a raise
[Jul 9 19:30:15] : suitty3281 has 10 seconds to respond.
[Jul 9 19:30:17] : suitty3281 : bss
[Jul 9 19:30:21] : suitty3281 folded.
[Jul 9 19:30:21] : DougDugDuce folded.
[Jul 9 19:30:22] : ScottyAA called 60
[Jul 9 19:30:22] : Showdown!
[Jul 9 19:30:22] : Seat 9 : ScottyAA has 6c Ac
[Jul 9 19:30:23] : Stakes: 30/60 Current level: 2 Next level in: 4 min.
[Jul 9 19:30:24] : Seat 4 : sjagmanuk has 9h Qd
[Jul 9 19:30:24] : Seat 9 : ScottyAA has 6c Ac
[Jul 9 19:30:33] : Board cards [5s Ts 6d 5c 5d]
[Jul 9 19:30:33] : Seat 4 : sjagmanuk has 9h Qd
[Jul 9 19:30:33] : sjagmanuk has 3 of a Kind: 5s
[Jul 9 19:30:33] : Seat 9 : ScottyAA has 6c Ac
[Jul 9 19:30:33] : ScottyAA has Full House : 5s full of 6s
[Jul 9 19:30:33] : ScottyAA wins 870 with Full House : 5s full of 6s
[Jul 9 19:30:43] : Stakes: 30/60 Current level: 2 Next level in: 4 min.
[Jul 9 19:30:43] : Hand is over.

(BTW I won the game in 38 hands:cool: :cool: )

ArmaniJeanss

I think he was spoofing you to be honest.
The underraise rule only applies to you at the moment, not to suitty.

Otherwise its a bug, but have played 1000+ STTs on tribeca, and never seen this.

Scotty #

I'm fairly certain he was not spoofing. He said after he had 99 and wanted to go all in. He went on about it for 5 mins.

I googled it and found that if the under raise is less than half the original raise then all betting is LOCKED!! If its more than half then betting can continue. I've never heard of this part of the rule before and can't find it in the tribeca rules.

I'd be interested to see what the TD's would say here??

NickyOD

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

I think he was spoofing you to be honest.
The underraise rule only applies to you at the moment, not to suitty.

Otherwise its a bug, but have played 1000+ STTs on tribeca, and never seen this.

It does apply to suitty. It apllies to any player who has already acted. This would include checking if the action was postflop. You can only reraise after an underraise if you have not yet acted on that street of betting.

ArmaniJeanss

NickyOD wrote:

It does apply to suitty. It apllies to any player who has already acted. This would include checking if the action was postflop. You can only reraise after an underraise if you have not yet acted on that street of betting.

OK, So post flop I want to do a check raise. I check, Player B Bets, PlayerC underraises all-in, then I can only call. I'm stunned by this to be honest, but if thats the rules so be it.

ocallagh

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

OK, So post flop I want to do a check raise. I check, Player B Bets, PlayerC underraises all-in, then I can only call. I'm stunned by this to be honest, but if thats the rules so be it.

I agree, once a player after you bets or raises, it effectively resets your options. You can now fold call or raise.

why should an additional all in for less than half of the original raise affect this? doesn't make sense to me either!

Scotty #

paddypower jargon wrote:

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 ½ 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 ½ or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply.

It applies alright.

http://www.paddypowerpoker.com/ps_jargon.php

bohsman

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

OK, So post flop I want to do a check raise. I check, Player B Bets, PlayerC underraises all-in, then I can only call. I'm stunned by this to be honest, but if thats the rules so be it.

Certainly not the rules in the Fitz.

NickyOD

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

OK, So post flop I want to do a check raise. I check, Player B Bets, PlayerC underraises all-in, then I can only call. I'm stunned by this to be honest, but if thats the rules so be it.

That's correct. Those are the TDA rules and the rules of every poker site AFAIK

bohsman

NickyOD wrote:

That's correct. Those are the TDA rules and the rules of every poker site AFAIK

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Ste05

Can anyone explain the reasons behind the Under-raise rule, I understand what it states (i.e. what NickyOD says I'd have thought, certainly in any tournaments on-line I've played) but what is it there for, to prevent Collusion?? I just don't see why you can't re-raise to isolate the All-In'er??

cooker3

Surely when someone raises after it has been checked then that re-opens options, if opponant 3 hadn't re-raised all-in for 60 more then player A would have been entitled to raise.
That logic seems crazy to me.

bohsman

Ste05 wrote:

Can anyone explain the reasons behind the Under-raise rule, I understand what it states (i.e. what NickyOD says I'd have thought, certainly in any tournaments on-line I've played) but what is it there for, to prevent Collusion?? I just don't see why you can't re-raise to isolate the All-In'er??

Say someone bets 600 knowing a shortstack has 610 chips left, 3 people call the 610, its to stop the original bettor going all in for 10k or whatever as it hasnt been raised into him.

Ste05

bohsman wrote:

Say someone bets 600 knowing a shortstack has 610 chips left, 3 people call the 610, its to stop the original bettor going all in for 10k or whatever as it hasnt been raised into him.

But why can't he deliberately do this?? Is it to allow more people call the All-In to knock a player out??

I just don't see what's wrong with doing this, that would just seem like any other move to make to me...

Maybe I'm missing something but normally if you look into a Poker rule, there's a good reason behind the rule, (e.g. stringbetting, acting out of turn = binding, etc.) but for this one I just don't see what that reason would be...

EDIT: I see now, I missed the part where you said "can't re-re-raise as it hasn't been re-raised around to you", i.e. the raise has effectively been called in 4 places and noone has re-opened the betting??? Is that it?

Scotty #

Ste05 wrote:

EDIT: I see now, I missed the part where you said "can't re-re-raise as it hasn't been re-raised around to you", i.e. the raise has effectively been called in 4 places and noone has re-opened the betting??? Is that it?

Yes, that's the normal rule. But in this case there was 2 limpers, a 5x raise, and then an under raise. Its then back to the first limper. Who, under this "less than half" rule doesn't have the option to re-raise the proper raise. This doesn't seem fair.

NickyOD

From the TDA rules.

"38. In No Limit, Pot Limit, less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted."

I know there is web page somewhere that goes into this ruling in more detail but I can't find it at the moment.

Basically if you have already acted and (this includes checking) you can only call an underraise.

However (and somebody correct me if this is wrong) lets say you are first to act and check, Player A bets 200, player B underraises all in for 250. Player C who has not yet acted can raise to a minimum of 400. i.e. he is not raising the all in player he is raising Player A's bet. Now its back to you and you can reraise because the betting has been reopened but if Player C had just called then that's all you and Player A could have done also.

I don't know what the reasoning is behind not being allowed to check raise after an underraise but I'm sure there is one.

Scotty #

NickyOD wrote:

From the TDA rules.

"38. In No Limit, Pot Limit, less than a full raise does not re-open the betting to a player who has already acted."

Does this go into more detail??

In the case above there was a full raise to the player who had already acted. Its just that, unfortuanatly for him, there was an under-raise before it got back to him.

Have you ever heard of this "less than half" rule before Nicky?

connie147

However (and somebody correct me if this is wrong) lets say you are first to act and check, Player A bets 200, player B underraises all in for 250. Player C who has not yet acted can raise to a minimum of 400. i.e. he is not raising the all in player he is raising Player A's bet. Now its back to you and you can reraise because the betting has been reopened but if Player C had just called then that's all you and Player A could have done also.

I don't know what the reasoning is behind not being allowed to check raise after an underraise but I'm sure there is one.[/QUOTE]
Hi Nicky
AFAIK, the situation outlined above is still governed by the underraise rule,ie:you had your chance to raise it the pot,you didnt take it so now you are caught by the under-raise rule.Like yourself,I'm not sure either but thats the rule we enforce.Im looking forward to somebody with the knowledge to give us an exact ruling.Before I understood about the underraise,I thought it was a good play to raise just less than what the shortstack had and then reraise all in when he went all in over the callers.Like Ste,I dont see why this play isnt allowed,but i suppose theres a good reason somewhere for it!

NickyOD

Scotty # wrote:

Does this go into more detail??

In the case above there was a full raise to the player who had already acted. Its just that, unfortuanatly for him, there was an under-raise before it got back to him.

Have you ever heard of this "less than half" rule before Nicky?

Never heard of the less than half rule. It might be a made up club rule somewhere. As you all probably know if someone puts in 50% of a raise he must be forced to make one full minimum raise. For exaple I bet 100 and my oponent throws in 150. He must make it 200. But if he put in 145 he is only allowed to call and must take back 45. This doesn't really apply to a shortstack because he has no more chips so even if he puts in 99% of a minimum raise you cannot call it a raise.

NickyOD

connie147 wrote:

AFAIK, the situation outlined above is still governed by the underraise rule,ie:you had your chance to raise it the pot,you didnt take it so now you are caught by the under-raise rule.Like yourself,I'm not sure either but thats the rule we enforce.Im looking forward to somebody with the knowledge to give us an exact ruling.Before I understood about the underraise,I thought it was a good play to raise just less than what the shortstack had and then reraise all in when he went all in over the callers.Like Ste,I dont see why this play isnt allowed,but i suppose theres a good reason somewhere for it!

Actually youm could be right there connie. You might still only be alloud to call even though the betting has been re-opened after an underraise.

bohsman

NickyOD wrote:

Never heard of the less than half rule. It might be a made up club rule somewhere. As you all probably know if someone puts in 50% of a raise he must be forced to make one full minimum raise. For exaple I bet 100 and my oponent throws in 150. He must make it 200. But if he put in 145 he is only allowed to call and must take back 45. This doesn't really apply to a shortstack because he has no more chips so even if he puts in 99% of a minimum raise you cannot call it a raise.

AFAIK the 50% thing is a limit rule.