Why can't we raise when someone goes all in


One thing that’s been bothering me for a long time is the fact that when one player goes all in before me, when my turn comes, only the CALL button shows. The RAISE button doesn’t show. No matter how many players are in play.

The latest example of this is hand #336512987 where I had quads and was waiting for my turn to raise. The player before me had 55 chips left and went all in, my turn came and i had only 1 option: call with 55 chips. I couldn’t raise. The player after me also called although I was baiting him and waiting to raise to get him to call.

This is one incident out of many, and I still don’t understand why the game is programmed this way. Why can’t we raise if someone goes all in and there are others still in play?

Please can you help with that?

Thank you


1 Like

Hi, thanks for the question,

I just looked at the hand, all that I could see was that you folded before the timer had run out? …
did you press to fold? …
why didn’t you at least call if you had quads? …
or had you lost the connection and the system folded you…

Very strange and I don’t really understand what happened there, I’m sure that if you explain to… support@replaypoker.com … they will clear it up for you.

Sorry I can’t help on this one.

I think you posted the wrong hand number
looks more like the one in question

1 Like

Apologies i posted the wrong hand. The correct one is #336512987

Thank you so much whoeverit you’re right, i posted the wrong hand. The correct one is #336512987 as you said. Corrected.

Hi cohenmaya,

thanks for spotting this hand and reporting it. We are looking for examples of the under raising logic being bugged and we need hands just like this to add to our list of scenarios for a forthcoming improvement in the logic.

You say you have seen others? Could you please make a note of ANYTHING like this which looks like a flaw in the betting logic and report it to Support or to me in a PM? A screenshot showing exactly the Buttons you are offered would also be helpful, but I know that’s a big ask if you are concentrating on playing and time is limited.

@Everyone, Anyone who thinks they should have been allowed to raise, or sees a raise they think should not have been allowed, please drop me a PM with the hand ID.

Thanks, Rob


Hi Rob and thank you so much for your reply. I wish I had saved more of these incidents in the past, but I will make sure to do so in the future and report them back to you.

Thank you


The extra 5 chips he had when he went all in is not enough to constitute a raise. It does not meet the minimum raise requirements so you were not allowed to raise. No legitimate raise was made.
This rule is commonly misunderstood by players in live games. I am not sure which exact policy is used at Replay to determine what is a raise and what isn’t but I imagine Rob will come back with the answer to that.


Exactly Seville


The 5 chips didn’t constitute a raise so should have been treated as a call and cohenmaya should have been able to re-raise in response to doggiezz bet. The action was still open and was wrongly killed by that bet.

If doggiezz was out of chips and and Maya was allowed to re raise then where does doggiezz get the chips to stay in the game ?

I think whoeverit and I are pretty much in agreement except for the terminology. cohenmaya checked on the river and doggiezz made the initial bet. The all in was just a call plus 5 chips, so not a raise. cohenmaya should have been able to raise. My only difference with whateverit is that it is not a reraise, just a raise. There has been no previous raise.


My understanding is cohenmaya should have been able to raise. It is a response to the bet from doggiezz.
doggiezz would be prohibited from raising if cohenmaya calls 5, (they would effectively be raising their own bet)but may raise again if cohenmaya raises.

Yes. I think we agree this mean the 55 should therefore be treated as a call and other players may raise?
The fact cohenmaya already checked could be relevant, but I don’t think that’s a blocker in this case.

If cohenmaya bets 30 and there is an all-in of 55, I don’t think that reopens the betting.


1 Like

I believe you have that all correct Rob.
If cohenmaya bets 30 and there is an all-in of 55, I don’t think that reopens the betting.t Rob.

I don’t think he could have bet 30 since the big blind was 50, his minimum bet would have had to be at least 50, but agree that there is no raise on the all.

Thank you

Here’s another example, hand #337258881 (after the all in the raise button was no longer showing)

I hope “my understanding” changes into “here’s the poker rules that apply to the logic behind the coding” ( ChaseTheRiver, I hope you know I’m sitting here laughing with you and this thread.)

I too don’t get why any bet isn’t treated as what it is…:thinking:

lets say Bet is 60 and a all-in is made for 100 … No, the xtra 40 doesn’t constitute a raise in the traditional sense but it does show as a “Raise”… Not only that, but part of the “logic” behind No-Limit is that if you cannot make a “legal” raise with what you have left, you are allowed to go “All-In” and subvert the “req.s”… therefore 40 is allowed, therefore it should also be “allowed” to be considered a full fledge’d raise, and be re-raisable… Catch-22, isn’t it ???

I’m sure just as the Anti-Rathoring rules are standard, there is a standard rule/reason why the 40 is not considered a legal raise, and therefore Staff should just quote the rule as it should apply and allow us players to try and find hands that show a “bug” in the application of said rule…

(edit) my personal opinion is it should always be re-raisable, or my ability to shove All-In behind it is taken away… thats a case of whose rights trump who else’s rights…

Hand #337729935 same issue.

Hi Maya, you mean pre-flop when the action gets back to you and you are facing an under-raise of 651?

This is a situation where we do not want to allow a raise. Cohenmaya has bet and there is an under-raise. It does not matter if the under raise is ‘nearly’ the full raise of 825 or if it were 825 with 25, a player in this situation should not be allowed to raise again. The reasoning behind it (general poker reasoning, not my interpretation) is that wanderingstar is in an unfair position when calling 1425 if the better behind them is allowed to raise again when their initial bet did not get a full raise.

There are ‘what ifs’

  1. What if the bettor only has another 100 or wants to go all-in? No, They voluntarily bet 824 which they can see will cause an under raise if another player pushes, so if they wish to have the option to raise, they should size their bet accordingly

  2. What if it were Live? Well, players might agree to get it all in and run the board, depending on stacks. If the Floor were called the ruling would be to follow House Rules if the player in wandringstars seat objected to the raise.

  3. What if wanderingstar wants to either raise or underraise all-in at the point they call 1425? Yes they can, they are new to the round of betting

  4. What if wanderingstar makes a full raise at the point where they call 1425? Then the original better may raise again, including an all-in under raise.

There are other scenarios where we could add further players and change stack sizes, but I hope that explains how this one came about.


What if

You are in a NL tournament and the blinds are 1,000/2,000
You are the small blind and the big blind has 2,300 chips total
All fold to the Button who limps for 2,000

It is acceptable that the 300 all-in by the big blind reopens the betting when you call 1,000?

Thoughts @ Everyone?

I believe it should.