WAS PLAYING 100K REPLAY CHAllengs. dirst player goes all in second calls on my turn gave me option to call or fold. no raise no all in??? guy who called second hits the flop for a straight with 8 10 off. WHY COULDNT I GO ALLIN AND PUSH HIM OUT BEFORE FLOP. SOUNDS LIKE A RIGGED GAME TO ME. …I HATE TO BE THAT GUY BUT IT IS AN ALL IN OPTION YES? GARBAGE
You can’t raise the person who made the initial bet since he was already all in, since the 2nd player called rather than raised, the only options are to call or fold in this situation.
I don’t understand that. If the first to call still has chips behind, then shouldn’t a later to act player be able to raise? If not, why?
I think the OP had already called the blinds prior to the other player going all in. At that point, he could have raised and put both players all in. When he passed up that option, and could not raise the raiser (who was already all in), then the only actions allowed are to call or fold for that street. The 2nd player may or may not have been allowed to make a raise, depending on whether or not he had already had a chance to act prior to the all in. It all depends on position and who has already acted. It happens a lot, but its hard to explain unless you can see the actual hand. You can only raise the last person to bet regardless of how many people call - it is the last bet that matters. I hope that helps explain it
I agree it would be helpful to see an example of this type of situation.
I don’t have any examples to show, but this is a fairly important concept to grasp, so I’ll give you a hypothetical situation. You are in the BB, 3 people limp into the pot and the SB goes all in with a short stack. This is all preflop and now you have all the power. You can raise, since you have yet to take any action in the hand, but if you do that, you leave the door open for one of those other players to reraise you. If you flat call the all in, knowing that the other 3 players can only call or fold, you can see the flop cheaper. Understanding what actions the other players can take in any given situation is invaluable.
It was https://www.replaypoker.com/hand/replay/559662001/straight-eight-to-queen
OP raised preflop from the BB. Opponent then went all-in which was a small re-raise. OP was not allowed to raise again(to pressure the 3rd player) when his turn came.
This falls under the rule that an all-in raise from the short stack does not open up the action unless the raise is at least a full(minimum) raise.
So what you’re saying here, is that the small stack’s all-in is less than the current bet, and less than the BB?
OK that makes total sense, then.
If only the software recognized this all the time. I had a situation in the BB where the SB raised all-in for less than 1BB after an initial limper. I called with T7o getting a great price, knowing that I should not have opened the action again. Program allowed the initial limper to raise though, winding up in the SB tripling up. Too many bugs in the program here.
THE SECOND TO ACT, WHO HAD THE 8 10 STILL HAD PLENTY OF CHIPS HENCE ME BEING ABLE TO PUSH HIM FROM THE HAND WITH A HIGHER BET. YES???
Can you post a link to the hand? That might make it easier for us to understand the situation.
No. Since the all in didn’t have enough to make it a legitimate raise, you cannot reraise.
I just had an example of such a hand happen.
KK, I open to 900. A small stack shoves a little over 1000, and my only option is to call, no re-raise possible. I would have thought that I could re-raise here.
No raise is possible here. Harleyrg07’s shove was below the threshold to constitute a raise so it is deemed as a call and both you and JackSpor may only complete(match) the bet or fold. Both players are deemed to have called your original bet. If you were allowed to raise here you would be re-raising your own initial raise.
Right, but now we have an actual example that we can replay and understand.
"“Action”" for all players can only be re-opened by a legitimate raise, therefore those whom have already “acted” will only be able to call the illegitimate raise, while anyone whom has not “acted” yet … can , with a legitamate raise reopen action , but they may just call as a freeze-out on those who can’t raise.
Some ppl calc this into thier raises to use this as an advantage.
I must admit I don’t really understand the REASON for this rule. What would be wrong or unfair if this rule did not exist.
Since the all in was not a legitimate bet and the player had already acted, raising is basically the same as changing your mind after you have had your turn. We all wish we could do that sometimes
I think you mean to say not a legitimate raise. It’s a legitimate bet, but not bigger than the current bet by the amount of the bet increment.
This makes me consider why an illegitimate raise is allowed for an all-in bet. Perhaps it should be more proper to allow the short stack to only call, and then if action on a future street results in a legitimate raise, they may call all-in to match the new bet.
It seems wrong that facing the illegitimate raise that I should be able fold or call only. If I have to make a decision here, I should be able to make all decisions. Perhaps now that only one player is all in, I should want to raise and get the other players behind me to fold, so I have the small stack isolated. I can’t do that. Yet I have pressure from a less than bet size raise to fold my own hand. It just doesn’t seem right.
Yes, that is what I meant to say.
In this scenario, the short stack is basically not allowed to take their turn. They can’t raise and in effect, have to “be put” all in. The rules are the way they are to allow everyone one turn on each street. I agree it would be nice to be able to reraise to isolate the small stack, but I’d also like my hand back…you know, the one I folded in early position, assuming one of the bigger stacks would call and put me at risk