Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Underraise or not?

Options
  • 19-01-2010 3:36pm
    #1
    Welruc
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭


    Playing a tournie at the weekend the guy in seat 3 raises to 10,000
    im in seat 6 and make it 35,000, folded to seat 8 who goes ill in for 60,000.
    its then folded around to the original raiser who goes all in for about 200,000.
    At this point i fold my 99, they turn over kk vs aa and they kings get lucky.
    Shortly after the hand we go on break and a guy who had been watching said that seat 3 should have not been allowed to go all in as the guy in seat 8 min-raised even though he was all in. As it happened the raise got me out of the hand and saved me some chips, but i was wondering should he have been forced to just call the all in or was it ok to raise?
    Sorry if the explaination is not very clear.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Seat 3 can do what he likes, if seat 3 was to call the 60 then you could only call or fold.


  • Options
    #3
    Welruc
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Welruc


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    Seat 3 can do what he likes,

    Yeah thats what i thought but i was told i was wrong!!


  • Options
    #4
    Degag
    Registered Users Posts: 9,959 ✭✭✭Degag


    AFAIK, it depends what rules regaring raising were being used. The rule most commonly used in Ireland (again AFAIK) is that you must at least double the previous bet, therefore the raise by seat 8 deemed an underraise and seat 3 and yourself unable to re raise.

    There is a rule which i think is used more predominately in the States where a raise must be at least the diffence between the first two bet sizes. Therefore, Seat 3 would have been entitled to go all in, in your example.

    Seat 3: Raise 10000
    Seat 6: Raise 35000 (Difference 25000)
    Seat 8: Raise 60000 (Difference 25000)
    Seat 3: Free to reraise again.


  • Options
    #5
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    Seat 3 can do what he likes, if seat 3 was to call the 60 then you could only call or fold.

    This.

    Underraise rule doesn't apply if you haven't acted including forced bets/blinds.


  • Options
    #6
    Welruc
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Welruc


    tricky D wrote: »
    This.

    Underraise rule doesn't apply if you haven't acted including forced bets/blinds.

    seat 3 has acted, he raised originally under the gun


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Missed that. Thanks, I stand corrected.

    Still, he can do what he wants.


  • Options
    #8
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Degag wrote: »
    AFAIK, it depends what rules regaring raising were being used. The rule most commonly used in Ireland (again AFAIK) is that you must at least double the previous bet, therefore the raise by seat 8 deemed an underraise and seat 3 and yourself unable to re raise.

    There is a rule which i think is used more predominately in the States where a raise must be at least the diffence between the first two bet sizes. Therefore, Seat 3 would have been entitled to go all in, in your example.

    Seat 3: Raise 10000
    Seat 6: Raise 35000 (Difference 25000)
    Seat 8: Raise 60000 (Difference 25000)
    Seat 3: Free to reraise again.

    It doesn't matter what rule you use - for seat 3 - he can do anything, the different rule would only apply to you (seat 6)


  • Options
    #9
    gorrrr72
    Registered Users Posts: 539 ✭✭✭gorrrr72


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what rule you use - for seat 3 - he can do anything, the different rule would only apply to you (seat 6)

    Seat 3 has already acted by raising so if it was deemed an underaise then he can't re-raise an underaise.
    If he was in the blinds and hadn't acted already then he would have all actions open to him.


  • Options
    #10
    Icarus152
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Icarus152


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    Seat 3 can do what he likes, if seat 3 was to call the 60 then you could only call or fold.

    Correct.
    gorrrr72 wrote: »
    Seat 3 has already acted by raising so if it was deemed an underaise then he can't re-raise an underaise.
    If he was in the blinds and hadn't acted already then he would have all actions open to him.

    Incorrect.The betting for seat 3 is re-opened when seat 6 makes a legit raise to seat 3's bet.Seat 3 now has all options open to him.


  • Options
    #11
    Degag
    Registered Users Posts: 9,959 ✭✭✭Degag


    Icarus152 wrote: »



    Incorrect.The betting for seat 3 is re-opened when seat 6 makes a legit raise to seat 3's bet.Seat 3 now has all options open to him.

    Are you sure? I thought that betting was closed to all players who had already acted, not in the blinds.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Icarus152
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Icarus152


    Say seat 8 folds,seat 3 can re-raise,right? so why should we penalise seat 3 for seat 8's action?

    I've seen this come up before,live,and it's caused confusion alright but this is my understanding.


  • Options
    #13
    GKidd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 427 ✭✭GKidd


    gorrrr72 wrote: »
    Seat 3 has already acted by raising so if it was deemed an underaise then he can't re-raise an underaise.
    If he was in the blinds and hadn't acted already then he would have all actions open to him.
    .


  • Options
    #14
    bp_me
    Registered Users Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭bp_me


    Degag wrote: »
    Are you sure? I thought that betting was closed to all players who had already acted, not in the blinds.

    Icarus is right... even if he does need to give up the drink.

    Seat 6's action has reopened all options to any player acting before seat 6.


  • Options
    #15
    Icarus152
    Registered Users Posts: 634 ✭✭✭Icarus152


    bp_me wrote: »
    Icarus is right... even if he does need to give up the drink.

    Seat 6's action has reopened all options to any player acting before seat 6.

    KITN.


  • Options
    #16
    Welruc
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Welruc


    bp_me wrote: »
    Seat 6's action has reopened all options to any player acting before seat 6.

    Thats what i thought but apparently there was a ruling earlier in the tournament where it was deemed a undre-raise and the players could only call. I didn't see this and im not sure if it actually happened, this was at the cpt event in ballina, which was well run with good dealers at all the tables.


  • Options
    #17
    bp_me
    Registered Users Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭bp_me


    deuceswild wrote: »
    Thats what i thought but apparently there was a ruling earlier in the tournament where it was deemed a undre-raise and the players could only call. I didn't see this and im not sure if it actually happened, this was at the cpt event in ballina, which was well run with good dealers at all the tables.

    Can't really comment without knowing how the action played out on the other table.


  • Options
    #18
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,850 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    In this example, seat 3 should have all options available to him. Any other ruling would be wrong.


  • Options
    #19
    span
    Registered Users Posts: 321 ✭✭span


    People get confused with this because of the wording of the rule.

    I this situation seat three has acted, ie by originally raising BUT they have not acted on seat 6's reraise so they have all options open to them.


    The easiest way to work this out (for me anyway) is.

    If a player hasn't done any action yet then they have all options open to them.

    If a player has acted but when the action gets back to them the amout to call is greater than or equal to what they have put in already (seat 3 in this example) then they have all options open.

    If when the action gets back to a player and the amount to call is less than what they have put in already then it is an under raise and that player my only call or fold. (seat 6 if seat 3 only calls the all in)

    What needs to be remembered here is that an under raise doesn't always apply to every player at the table.

    In this case seat 3 has all options open but seat 6 would not if seat 3 flat calls.


  • Options
    #20
    Welruc
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Welruc


    span wrote: »
    People get confused with this because of the wording of the rule.

    I this situation seat three has acted, ie by originally raising BUT they have not acted on seat 6's reraise so they have all options open to them.


    The easiest way to work this out (for me anyway) is.

    If a player hasn't done any action yet then they have all options open to them.

    If a player has acted but when the action gets back to them the amout to call is greater than or equal to what they have put in already (seat 3 in this example) then they have all options open.

    If when the action gets back to a player and the amount to call is less than what they have put in already then it is an under raise and that player my only call or fold. (seat 6 if seat 3 only calls the all in)

    What needs to be remembered here is that an under raise doesn't always apply to every player at the table.

    In this case seat 3 has all options open but seat 6 would not if seat 3 flat calls.


    Thanks span, thats what i thought


  • Options
    #21
    aceswild
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭aceswild


    Degag wrote: »
    Are you sure? I thought that betting was closed to all players who had already acted, not in the blinds.
    lol,im a dealer and i thought that aswell ontill i called the floor over for a ruling one day,its hazy and not very well understood,in this case seat 3 can do as he wishes because he has not acted on the initial re raise,if seat 3 flat calls then seat 6's only options are to fold or call.he cannot re raise,if seat 3 were to re raise then seat 6 can do as he wishes,i can understand people getting confused because up ontill a short time ago i thought the only people who could re raise an under raise were the blinds or anyone who hadnt acted,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    JP Poker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭JP Poker


    Degag wrote: »
    AFAIK, it depends what rules regaring raising were being used. The rule most commonly used in Ireland (again AFAIK) is that you must at least double the previous bet, therefore the raise by seat 8 deemed an underraise and seat 3 and yourself unable to re raise.

    There is a rule which i think is used more predominately in the States where a raise must be at least the diffence between the first two bet sizes. Therefore, Seat 3 would have been entitled to go all in, in your example.

    Seat 3: Raise 10000
    Seat 6: Raise 35000 (Difference 25000)
    Seat 8: Raise 60000 (Difference 25000)
    Seat 3: Free to reraise again.

    This is the way it's done all over the world with the exception of Ireland (I use this rule).

    It's used in the EPT, WSOP, WPT, UKIPT ect


Advertisement