Reopening No-Limit Hold'em Raises

Earlier this year, I wrote about raises in no-limit hold'em. In that column, I described two different situations, and asked readers to let me know what they thought the minimum allowable raise should be in each case. Here are the two situations:

First Situation:

Player A bets $20. Player B raises $60 more to $80.
Player C calls $80. Player D goes all in for $90.

What can Player E do?

(a) Raise to $140 ($50 more than the all-in player)
(b) Raise to $150 ($60 more than the all-in player)
(c) Raise to $180 ($90 more than the all-in player)
(d) Other

Second Situation:

Player A bets $20. Player B raises $60 more to $80.
Player C calls $80. Player D goes all in for $130.

What can Player E do?

(a) Raise to $140 ($10 more than the all-in player)
(b) Raise to $190 ($60 more than the all-in player)
(c) Raise to $260 ($130 more than the all-in player)
(d) Other

I was amazed at the number of responses I got, and the thought that so many people put into their replies.

I was not surprised that at least every answer was given, and legitimate reasons were provided for each answer.

A majority of respondents thought that in both cases, (a) would be the correct answer. Sean Smith, a dealer from Laughlin, Nevada, explained it this way: "(a) would be the correct answer in both situations. Any all-in bet too small to reopen the betting has no effect on the betting for that round.' If Player E chooses to call instead of raise, the betting would still be open to Player A, and the same minimum raise amount (a) would apply to this player."

It was not surprising to me that many people thought this was the case. The generally accepted rule for no-limit hold'em does read as Sean quoted above. What I believe Sean, and most others, did was apply wording in that rule to this situation, when it should not have been. "No effect," with regard to reopening the betting, has an impact on whether a player who has already acted will be able to reraise an all-in bet. When it comes to the minimum amount a person can raise, this wording is not relevant.

Several players did pick (b) as their answer.

Mike Gaumond of Fredericksburg, Virginia, described why he picked (b). "After Player B raises $60, the minimum reraise amount is $60 more than the current bet. When Player D goes all in for $130 (which is not a full raise), the minimum reraise amount stays at $60, but the current bet is now $130. Therefore, Player E would have to raise the minimum of $60, but since the current bet is now $130, he would have to raise to $190.

"The minimum raise amount ($60) should not be lowered just because a player is all in for less than a full raise. However, when a player goes all in, his chip count ($130) becomes the new current bet amount, and any reraise should have to be the minimum of $60 over what the current bet amount is."

Mike does a good job of explaining why (b) makes the most sense. In no-limit (which differs from limit), a player must act on the amount of the bet he is facing. In this case, that amount was $80. That amount cannot be reduced to a lower amount because of how it got there (smaller raises).

A few people did pick (c) as their answer. I put (c) into the equation to try to throw a curveball and provide a hint why (b) works best. If (a) or (c) is used, you are allowing a situation in which players can control the action on undersized bets/raises.

To explain this, assume that Player A bets $100, and Player B raises to $199 and is all in. Player C now has two options: He may call $199, which stops Player A from being able to reraise when it comes back to him; or, he may raise $1 to $200, and allow Player A to reraise. Think about that for a minute. For $1, Player C can control what happens in that betting round.

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.