Reopening No-Limit Hold'em Raises

Several years ago I wrote about a situation that was coming up quite a bit in no-limit hold'em. It occurs when multiple people make all-in raises that, by definition, are not raises, because they are not equal to or greater than the previous bet or raise. The question was, "Should the player who made the initial bet be allowed to raise when it comes back to him?"



At the time, I contended that the player should not be able to, as no individual player had raised the original bet. I got lots of feedback on that column and ultimately agreed that the original bettor should be able to raise. Bob Ciaffone amended his rulebook, adding the following rule: "Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to individually qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise."



Recently I have seen a new situation occurring, and it is closely related. Here is how it was explained on one of the popular poker forums:



The game is no-limit hold'em. The blinds are $100-$200. The first-position player raises to $800. The next player goes all in for $900. The next player to act wants to raise the minimum. What is the minimum raise in this situation?



The scenario resulted in many different responses and lots of discussion. I received a lot of e-mail asking me what my ruling would be. Ultimately, Rick Nebiolo, a rules guru himself, put together two very clear scenarios on which he was going to ask different cardrooms for their rulings.



Note No. 1: In both scenarios, assume that everyone but Player D has plenty of chips.



Note No. 2: If Player A folds or calls, assume that the minimum allowable raise reopens the betting for Player B and Player C.



Here are those scenarios:



First Scenario:

Player A bets $20. Player B raises $60 more to $80.



Player C calls $80. Player D goes all in for $90.



This action is now on Player E.



In your cardroom, what is the minimum allowable raise for Player E?



(a) Raise to $140 ($50 more than the all-in player)(b) Raise to $150 ($60 more than the all-in player)

© Raise to $180 ($90 more than the all-in player)

(d) Other



If your cardroom rules were rewritten, what do you think the minimum allowable raise should be?



Second Scenario:

Player A bets $20. Player B raises $60 more to $80.



Player C calls $80. Player D goes all in for $130.



The action is now on Player E.



In your cardroom, what is the minimum allowable raise for Player E?

(a) Raise to $140 ($10 more than the all-in player)

(b) Raise to $190 ($60 more than the all-in player)

© Raise to $260 ($130 more than the all-in player)

(d) Other



If your cardroom rules were rewritten, what do you think the minimum allowable raise should be?



Send me an e-mail about what you think the rule should be and why. This has been a debate that has been ongoing for years; maybe someday we can get to the bottom of it.



On a different note, in my last column I discussed the live straddle, which occurs when a player voluntarily puts up an additional blind, and by doing so has last action before the flop (provided no one else raises). I have always described the live straddle as an additional blind, but I recently realized that might not be accurate. By defining it as an additional blind, it would not count as a raise. That means that in limit poker, there would still be three (or whatever the house rule allows) raises in addition to the straddle. Several of my colleagues have disagreed with me, saying that a live straddle should be considered a raise, which means there would be one fewer raise allowed when a straddle is in play.



While trying to come up with a way to explain to them why they were wrong, I thought of something that kind of went against my argument. If a straddle really was an extra blind, it would by default alter the bet amounts for the first round of betting. For example, in a $20-$40 hold'em game, a player would straddle for $40 ($10-$20 blinds). If that $40 really was a third blind, the next person to act would be able to raise to $80, which is not the case. With a straddle, the next person would make it $60, and so on.



Once I thought about it, I realized that a straddle really is just a live raise that allows the person making the straddle to have last action.



Mike O'Malley is a consultant for www.PartyGaming.com, and can be reached at [email protected]. His website is updated regularly at www.rzitup.com.