Action in a 3 way pot that also has an under raise

Question

Hi. I would like clarification on a ruling that was made in a pot I was involved in in a private game. it involves 3 players. 1 small stack (player A) and 2 larger stacks

Amounts arent accurate, and only relavent with regards to the Under Raise (house rules are a raise must be double the last bet (not double the raise) to constitute a full raise. Anything under that is an under raise. this makes it easier for the amateur dealers.

3 way to the flop (again, cards are irrevalent)

Player A (BB) bets 750

Player B calls

Player C raises to 1650

Player A all in for 2600 (everyone understands that this is an underbet under house rules)

Player B wants to go all in...

A ruling is made that Player B cannot do so becase Player A had under raised Player C and that Player B's call of the initial 750 constituted äction in the hand"

My feeling is that Player B should have been allowed to shove as, although he had had action on Player A's initial bet, he had not acted on the full/legitimate raise from Player C yet, so should not be bound by the "cant raise an under raise"rule.

Thoughts?

Regards

Simon

Answer 1

Hello, Simon!

You are definitely correct in feeling like it should be allowed. However, there are a few things to consider: under-raising rules are put in place to prevent unreasonably small re-raises (i.e. raising from $100 to $105). These rules typically mark this threshold at double the previous bet, as you've pointed out.

The main issue here hinges on which house rules are being used. In many no-limit games, there are typically two ways under-raises are handled: a half-bet rule or a full-bet rule. Based on what you’ve described, it sounds like the private game you played in uses the full-bet rule.

Under the half-bet rule, an all-in raise that is at least half of the previous raise (i.e. a $50 bet, then an under-raise all-in to $75) reopens the action, meaning Player B would be able to re-shove in this case.

Under the full-bet rule, however, the all-in raise must be at least double the previous bet to reopen the action. In your case, Player A's all-in to 2600 didn’t meet this threshold (as Player C had raised to 1650, the threshold would have been 3300 to re-open action), so Player B's options were limited to calling or folding.

So, while you are correct under a half-bet ruling, if the game follows a full-bet rule, the decision to prevent Player B from going all-in was technically 'correct.' I'd always check with your game organizer to confirm the specific rules for clarity (whether at a private game or at a poker room/casino).

Best,

The Other Simon