Raising in No-Limit Hold'em

Poker rooms have always been composed of a diverse crowd of people. From players to dealers to management, you will find people from all walks of life and people with various opinions on everything related to poker. You can ask several professional poker players how they would play a specific hand in a particular situation, and you are almost sure to get several different opinions. The same is true when it comes to poker rules. Ask five different floorpeople how they would rule in a specific situation, and it would be possible to get five different answers. Recently, I came across a situation that has caused more discussion than any other poker rule I have ever written about, and it shows why different opinions can sometimes clash when it comes to certain situations.

The question is simple: What constitutes a raise in nolimit hold'em?

Here is a quick scenario: Player A bets $100 and when it comes back to him (with multiple players having acted), the total bet is $220. Since Player A bet $100, and somewhere in the betting round it got raised to $220, Player A obviously has the option to reraise, right? Well, not so fast.

Many people to whom I have posed this scenario immediately get stuck on this fact: Their theory is that Player A was raised and therefore has to be able to reraise. They forget to take into account all of the variables at work, and how the amount that Player A has to call reached that specific number. For the record, I don't believe that Player A should be able to reraise based on the rules that govern what happened before the action got back to him.

Let's take a closer look at the situation.

The game was $2-$5 blinds no-limit hold'em. On the fl op, Player A bet $100. Player B went all in for a total of $140. Player C went all in for a total of $220. Player D called. It was now back on Player A.

The first question that needs to be answered is: Who raised Player A? The answer is: No one!

Player B called the $100 bet and raised $40 more (all in). Player C called the $140 bet and raised $80 more (all in). Since the opening bet was $100, a legitimate raise would have to be a minimum of $100. No single person made a legitimate raise in that round of betting, and Player A now can only call or fold.

Those who take the opposite side of this discussion argue that because Player B made an all-in raise that was not a legitimate raise (it didn't reopen the betting), the $40 raise he made should be discarded, allowing for the argument that Player C actually raised Player A. I don't buy this theory simply because you cannot discard a bet that is made in no-limit. When the action got to Player C, he could have called $140 or raised, meaning that $140 was the bet that Player C was facing. Because he elected to raise does not mean that the $40 bet can be discarded, whereas it would have stayed had he elected to call.

The argument for the other side (that Player A can raise) rests on the assumption that Player B's all-in raise does not count and that Player C actually raised Player A. Let's now apply this to a different situation.

Player A bets $100, Player B goes all in for $195, Player C calls, and now the action is on Player D. Player D can call, fold, or raise. Knowing that the $95 raise by Player B does not count, Player D can call the $195, making sure that Player A can't raise, or he can raise to a total of $200 (a $5 raise). This tiny $5 raise will then allow players A and C to reopen the betting. Based on this situation, the rule simply cannot be that the raise by Player B can be disregarded.

This situation is tough to put into writing and might come across as confusing. If you are interested in really getting a better idea, take out some chips and run through all of the different scenarios. Each person with whom I have done this has come away with a better understanding of the rule, and almost all have agreed that you cannot disregard Player B's raise, meaning that Player A should not be able to raise.