Is this a bug? Or just part of the game?


I was just curious about whether what happened in this hand was a bug or actually falls within the rules of poker. I believe that there have been some hands when I have been blocked from raising in similar situations, but I could be wrong.

I’m the big blind, and the small blind only has 350 chips (the big blind is 300). Several other players limp in and then the small blind shoves. I call his 50 chip bet in the (mistaken) belief that because his all in is smaller than the required raise size, the other players will not be able to raise. But then the next player raises. I don’t really care that I would have won the hand, but are they really allowed to raise on top of a microscopic all in?

While I’m by no means the authority on poker, I don’t see anything particularly odd. Split pot resolution is something folks have complained about being super confusing (and I tend to agree), and I think that’s what we’re looking at here.

You can, I believe, always call in all-in with an all-in, regardless of how many chips you have. This does prevent him from playing in the rest of the game – they’re restricted to the pot where all the chips are in the hand.

Here’s a more text-oriented hand history from behind the scenes:

I think you may be misunderstanding my question, which is not about the split pot. My question is about action “11” in your picture.

the player “fjballs” limps into the pot for 300. Then “gin4275” goes all-in, which is effectively a raise of 50 chips. I may be completely wrong, but it was my understanding that at this point “fjballs” may call the raise of 50, but that he cannot raise because the all-in of “gin4275” did not constitute a raise because it was less than the required minimum raise size (300).

Basically, because the all-in does not meet the minimum bet-size it does not re-open the pot to re-raises.

Here is a quote from another forum that explains my point:
“In the case of an all-in, there is a distinction between what it [sic] allowed for the raising player, and what constitutes a raise to the rest of the players at the table. If a bet is considered to be a full raise, it reopens the betting, allowing another player to raise again if they choose. In the case of an all-in for less than the minimum raise, the all-in is allowed, but it does not constitute a full raise, and as such it does not reopen betting. In many cases, betting will reopen for an all-in raise that is a fraction of a full raise as well, though this varies a bit from casino to casino. Typically, if this is the case, the most common amount required to reopen betting is 1/2 of a full raise.” – Jeffrey Blake,

Because the 50 chip raise from “gin4275” did not constitute a full raise, “fjballs” should not have been able to raise when the action came back to him. Based on that quote, it seems like the rule could vary in different venues, but I believe there have been times on this site when it was not possible to re-raise in a similar situation.

I don’t actually care about the result of this hand, but these situations come up surprisingly often, and I’ve never been clear on the rule.

For example: It’s late in a tournament, blinds are 1000 and everyone at the table has 8000 chips except the player to my left, who only has 1500. I pick up AA and I’m first to act. I know the short stack is desperate and will shove.

If his shove of 1500 will re-open the betting then I will just limp my AA, wait for everyone else to call his small raise and then shove over the top, but if his raise of 1500 does not re-open the betting (as it shouldn’t because 500 is smaller than the minimum raise amount), then the approach I just describe would not work.

I may see. If some raise and some other player re-raise every single round, then this could go forever.
I think the question here, how many round allowed to do this until the BB the last by force.
2X I recall, I may wrong. Also, this should written in the rules. (may there tho)
Other thing, as in poker important who raise and the amount
“fjballs” I think just hit raise auto, what is that point 300, simply added to that 50.
Its would be more clear if the client show “call 50” and “raise 300” , but, this would slow down the play.

Actually I believe it is a bug JoeDrik, we’d put on hold until the new poker server we’re developing is ready. We figured it was a bit of an edge case, and not likely to happen often, but if you think it’s actually more common than you might imagine, we could certainly throw some resource behind it?!

These bugs that affect the game logic always make me uneasy, and wanted to jump on them right away, but the poker server we have today, is a bit temperamental (and difficult to test) hence why we initially put it off.

To me it looks like the small blind under-raised and therefore did not re-open the betting, so the limpers should not have had the option to re-raise. In this situation, the Big Blind should have the option though, because he has not had the chance to act in the round of betting and would have been penalized if just Call or Fold were options. The Rule of thumb is whether the players calling the allin, behind the Big Blind caller have had previous opportunity to raise and they clearly have. Also, if JoeDirk in the Big blind raises to say 1,000, then any of the other players may now raise because the betting IS reopened. In the other example, I also agree you should not be allowed to limp for 1000 and re-raise the all-in of the 1,500 stack.

1 Like

^^ There’s our poker expert. =)

Thanks, Chasetheriver and MrReplay! Definitely a fascinating look into the small parts that make poker awesome.

Thanks for the response Mr. Replay. I would not necessarily say that it was a huge issue, especially if you plan to fix it soon. I was in a similar situation today when a player raised all in and I was not able to raise after previously calling, so maybe it only happens when someone clicks the auto-raise button. It doesn’t seem like something that would happen very often, but as a player it can be pretty important in some situations to know when the betting is going to re-open. But if it’s going to make the servers crash or something it’s probably not worth it lol.

Chasetheriver, I completely agree, that was the exact issue that I was raising.

A post was split to a new topic: Lost during high stake betting