Why can't we raise when someone goes all in

To clarify, I mean the BB is undoubtedly allowed to raise all-in for 300 (at NL), but should the Button be allowed to raise when they face the 300 bet?

I don’t believe it should be allowed, the betting should not be re-opened, that ship has sailed already …

You are focusing on the button, and smaller amounts close to blinds…
Lets say those 3 players have the following … (button) 15825 , (sb) 23650 , (bb) 22975
( lets also assume that all other players fold on thier turn )

Button limps 2000, sb- calls 2000, bb- raises to 4800, button calls 4800, sb- raises to 11500, bb- calls the 11500… ( raise of 6700, and is less than 1/2 sb stack, almost 1/2 for bb ) Button cannot re-raise that 6700 which I believe is the legal raise minimum at this point, cause they don’t have 18200… but they do shove all in, for the xtra 4325…

Now had either sb or bb wanted to pay 15825 they prolly wouldda just shoved already , neither player can now attempt to protect thier hand should they get raised by the button, which is what just occured… they now are committing 68-71% of thier stack, compared to about 50% and must allow each other to just pay that amount… it does hurt both sb & bb, they got raised and can’t re-raise back to protect thier hands from each other…

What I am saying is this : Since the button cannot make a legal raise, they use the NL loophole to get the rest of thier chips in right then and there, while the other 2 players get screwed because by giving the button that “right”, it takes away the “right” of the other 2 players to re-raise and do the same… get the rest of thier chips in… right then and there…

Doesn’t it ??? :thinking:

I think Craig got it right when he said the ship had sailed for the Button when they elected to call 2000.

A player waives the ‘right’ to raise again when they see a later player does not have the option to make a full raise, therefore they make the decision to make the raise themselves or call.

In your example, all the min raises are just events leading up to the under raise, which causes the dilemma of who still has the option to push.

1 Like

Thank you :+1:t2:

I agree with this too.

Yeah, I have the option to be screwed because someone behind me doesn’t have enough chips, you’re right on there Chase…

Do I need to be this damn blunt ???
When is giving 1 group “rights” by taking away another group’s “rights”, fair to both groups ?
I’m now talking on the philisophical level, in general… the details are meaningless.

I didn’t make it all personal and accusatory… and just like Warlock in another post, I bet a few days from now, after thinking about it… you “get it”, but this 1 is pretty simple… “NL” allows then a loophole, that 100% tramples other players’s rights…

Lets look inside that (sb)'s “possible” thought process… shall we…
They were pretty sure button was weak and was outside the window of “shove & pray” mentality, they did worry about bb but even with AA wasn’t trying to play bingo. They wanted to get the button out right there, isolate bb, and make it for 1/2 stacks… had they wanted to raise to 70% of thier stack to cover the button they would’ve already when they had the chance. They thought the raise to 11.5 was enough to do the job. The button only had 33% invested so they should lay down most weak hands, and the bb had to worry about gett’n “covered” on a later bet if they stay’d in.

Yes, I am asking the “detailed” version of the same question… if you get the right to go around the rules and make an illegal raise, can’t I then shouldn’t I be able to do the same and make a illegal re-raise ??? One of my strength is looking @ things in the abstract… and thats what it boils down to… Its only after you admit thats whats happening, you can attach “good - bad” to it or even go from there… I have always thought it was kinda a crock, but it is what it is… I, like an idiot I guess, thought someone could just quote me some xx.xx.x rule that dealt with this. What do I get, I ask a thoughtfull question, put a very specific way, and all ppl can do is ignore me ??? Really ??? Seriously ???.. talk about ultimate courtesy around here with all the nh,gh crap, well I guess in some repects there is none… and yes, semantics means something to me…

bet was 2k, raise was 2.8k ( not a min raise )… raise was to 4.8k re-raise was to 11.5k ( again, not a min raise )… then the dilema as you say…the only “min” thing there was the button’s limp, and the sb’s call… Right ??

This is the Rule we apply at Replay:

If a player bets and another raises, the first player will not be allowed to raise again unless there is a full raise.

If you can see that a player later in the betting has less than double the chips you plan to bet, and you would like to have the option to raise, then you should bet less than half of their stack.

They do not take away your right to raise if you choose the bet amount.

where does this rule originate , plz ?
how many other sites/casino’s do it ?

and why the hell does someone else’s ALL-in … stop me for going ALL-in … you see what I mean Mr. ChaseTheRiver, sir …

Even if thats your rule, you have to admit, it does give the shortstack “rights” other players don’t have … so if its a Replay only rule, its kinda lame … don’t ya think… doesn’t anyone playing a NL game deserve the right to shove all in, if they get raised ?

(edit) why not … not allow illegal raises ???

Chase… I’m not being disrespectfull to you… just I’m tired of ppl being stonewalled.

Just like the leaderboard formula rule… we both know how it is currently implemented, that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss if its the fair’st rule, or it it can be improved…

I don’t really get it, I thought NL was NL… if you can make illegal raises, its still a raise once its past that person, therefore if I am raised, I have that same right to shove ALL-in… I’m sry if it allowed a illegal raise, but that being said it allowed it as a raise…

I just checked Chase,
Just as you have a Code of Conduct Page, I suggest you build a “Rules @ Replay poker” page, for anything not covered in the basic rules of poker, that any book will tell you…Even if it makes me leave, then your future customers won’t be able to say “but its not listed anywhere”

This is kinda dumb… NL is NL… a raise is a raise… you do know alot of poker sites deem a “legal raise” as any raise where the last bet is raised by the big blind or more…So that means if you bet 2k, and I raise to 5k, the next raise is only to 6k ( if the blinds are 500/1000 )… not to 8k because you deem the min raise to be 3k, not 1k …

Thats a great example of 2 casino’s using different but accepted rules … I learned poker where you only had to raise the BB amount… when the hell did they ( poker gods ) chg that rule. ???


Bob Ciaffone, nothing to do with Yours Truly

Jump to SECTION 14

3.�All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)

4.�Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to 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. Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)

The United States Playing Card Company
Cincinatti, Ohio … 62nd Edition… printed 1976
Official Rules of Card Games

Under Poker , subset Draw poker , loosely described is a “form of” ( blind ot straddle ) which is the forerunner of the current “blinds” in tournament poker… moving along…

Poker - Laws of pg 86
9. Betting (a) - " All the chips bet go into the center of the table forming the pot. Before putting chips in the pot, a player in turn announces bet-call-raise, if betting - raising, announces how much. A player may not raise by any amount less than the bet he calls, or the previous raise if any, unless there is only 1 player besides himself in the pot."
19. Insufficient bet - " … When a player raises by less than the minimum permitted, he is deem’d to have called, and any aditional chips he put into the pot are forfieted to it"

I will say even this book says Omaha only gets 2 hole cards and is dealt differently…and there is 1 sentence that says anything about holdem, but is accurate as to how its dealt.

( http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm )
Chase…I am curious… is that “Robert’s” rules of poker or “thE” rules of poker… ???
Its also what… homepokertourny… so its a dam home-game ???

Now the book I have does NOT address tournament poker, only poker in general and other card games along with basic rules… I can see other rules that were add’d along the way… WHile yes it says raising is also restricted to previous raise amt, it really is not think’n inside a MTT setting, with increasing blind structrures. ( so I’ll give ya that part ) It barely describes what a blind and a straddle is, but not in the modern tournament poker structure.

If I extrapolate out, thier description/deffinition of “blind” “straddle” “raise” “insufficient bet”… then according to that… part of what is true would be true, part would be false… If you make that illegal raise, you forfiet the chips to the pot, and its just a call… meaning everyone else can take your chips for no aditional risk… making that all in, in that case dumb because only person risking more is the all in’er… hahaha… but the other people are NOT penalized for your “insufficient bet”.

I just pulled the 1st book from the shelf in my library that was older and basic to all cards games for the most basic of rules… it did support you, but it left out what had evolved in the last 40 years. ( yes I like to collect books and have a decent library of older outta print books ).

I plan on researching this further Chase, but it saddens me that you can’t debate abstract ideas without it being personal to you/staff/replay … I like to learn new things, I like ppl to challange my ideas so that if I am wrong… I get it right asap…

I like how you quote something that says basically… all raises are raises except an all-in, then says any all-in too small to qualify for a raise still act as a raise and reopen betting , ohh but only if its considered a raise… Even your description does say… point blank… We are giving a All-In special status, allowing it to break traditional rules… yet other players cannot break those same rules… It says it, right there…

and as 1 black commic says “Goony-goo goo” … WTF… a too small raise acts as a raise but doesn’t really act as a raise … can it get more hypocritical ???


Pretty much, Yes.

Roberts Rules of poker are widely accepted as The Rules, including Poker Stars

The accepted rules of poker, known as “Robert’s Rules of Poker”, state…

Just spent hours looking… Couldn’t find anything on BB only as min, so ohh well there… found alot on “most misunderstood rule in poker, incomplete-bet rule” which is our topic…

What I don’t understand is , you can’t see that I basically moved beyond the “what is the rule” stage, to “can you see how this rule does “that” stage”… and all I get in response is… “well thats the rule, been that way forever”… you completely don’t answer my question, you pivot to another question I never ask’d then answer that instead… for whatever reason, I have no clue…

Ohh so you can answer specific questions… you just choose to answer the easy ones, or the ones that you are “right” about … hahahaha… I’m not afraid to be wrong, I’m just not wrong very much… and I pick my battles carefully…

I have no problem, with the allowance of an Illegal raise( such as an all-in ), as long as its still considered a raise and it thus re-opens the betting… otherwise I am semantically correct, the rule itself allowes a player to break the rules, and that impacts other players’s ability to act in a similar fashion… basically he who breaks the rules 1st, gets away with it…

I’m not debating the fact that its a standard rule I guess. Before now I never look’d at it this closely, I just thought like everyone else it was a stupid rule… I feel cheated, this is a forum to discuss ideas, yet discussion itself is stopped because “the status quo” must be preserved at all cost…

The 1st person to say “the world is round, not flat” was told he was wrong too and that it was accepted knowledge that its flat, so he better get with the program, so to speak…they were no more wrong, than I am to say this rule is contradictatory to even itself …


wanted to shove pre …

1 Like

Hi Galak, That is exactly a situation I want to find, thanks.

The full raise by Bluefox should reopen the betting for you to respond with a raise, regardless of under raises in the meantime.

The under raise by dillyboy67 has seemingly prevented that. This under raise should have prevented Bluefox raising again if neither triptek or you raised, but our rules seem to have failed to recognise a player with a legitimate right to raise in this spot.

Make sense?



Hi Chase,
thanks for your input. Not sure what “under raise” means. I raised, bluefox 3bets, dilly 4bets and the game wouldn’t let me 5 bet shove.

Just my 2 €cents



By under raise, I mean when dillyboy67 raised all-in to 1,130, his raise by 404 was less than double the previous raise of 539 by Bluefox.

We are updating the betting rules and options as soon as we can.


1 Like