under raise q???

[b.s]

Hi I read a lot about under raise including some other forums and site and i have a question
NL game
SB=20 BB=40

6 players im UTG and i limp,player 2 folds,player 3 raises 280 making it 300 total,button folds,SB calls 300 and BB goes all in 375, im next to act and the floorman dont give me choise to reraise becose bb's raise was not legitimate raise..i think that i havae right to call,fold or raise .....
and here's why:
when player 3 made legitimate raise, his action reopened betting round to everyone (including those who acted and those who didnt),BB action cant have power to suspend further betting becouse in my opinion under raise is way to ensure that non legitimate raises cant reopen betting (but i must admit that definiton of under bet isn't really well written becouse it can be interpreted as if under betting locks the whole betting round in any situation) ..................... here are some of them:
Under-raise: This occurs when a player raises a prior bet but has to go all-in to do so. If the player under-raising … going all-in to raise … has less than half of the expected raise for that betting round, the betting round is locked. The term locked here means that any player who has already acted in the round (checked, called, or raised) may no longer raise. They may only call or fold. However, players who have yet to act (betting has not reached them yet) may raise the expected raise for that betting round, after calling. If the under-raise is half or more than the expected raise, the lock rule does not apply. ...............

or this one where explanation is better:

In games where the bet limit is expressed by a pot ratio or designated no limit and a player goes
all in, if the total wagered by this player is greater than the amount required to call but less than the
amount required to raise, then this excess amount will not be considered a raise. No other active
player will be allowed to call and raise the under-raise wagered by this player."

in famous Roberts book of poker he states this:
"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.)" and i think this situation is same like mine where i called BB....
...................................................
im sorry for the long post i dont whant to start another endless discusion so if you could judge situation from the beggining of the post that would be most helpfull....

Thnx

P.S
in my country texas holdem is just making its way so it is possible that the dealers
are making bad interpetations of some rules as i tryied to explain them ( i dont even know that they exactly think about UNDER-RAISE rulewhen they didnt let me raise.......)

[supafrey]

The dealer + floor did everything perfectly.

The rule is exactly how it's written, you can NOT raise.

If you had never acted yet in the hand (remember that you had already called 300) then you would be allowed to raise after the 375. You had done action once so can NOT reraise an under-raise.

You may call or fold.

[b.s]

no no i didnt called 300 i was first to act after the BB and only limped...

[Sean_in_NJ]

no no i didnt called 300 i was first to act after the BB and only limped...

That's a call.

[b.s]

Of course its a call but supafrey wrote:

"If you had never acted yet in the hand (remember that you had already called 300) then you would be allowed to raise after the 375. You had done action once so can NOT reraise an under-raise."

and i didnt called 300 i just called 40 (BB)

[Gunslinger]

b.s., you are correct, you should have had the optioin to raise. If you had just called the BB's 375 push (or folded), then the original raisor, player 3, would NOT have the option to raise. But you, having not acted on player 3's raise yet, should be able to. Your dealer applied the under-raise rule to the wrong person.

[supafrey]

sorry. i typo'd. I knew you called, either way.

Calling 40 and calling 300 are the same. My fault for typing bad.

Edit: Gunslinger you have the rule wrong, from any account I've seen at casinos. It's not about calling the most recent action, it's having already acted in that round AT ALL. Limping counts as action enough... he CANNOT reopen the 300.

[Sean_in_NJ]

I have to admit I didn't read your original post very carefully, so I apologize.

Having reread it now, you should've had the option to reraise.

You call 40.
A raise to 300.
A reraise all-in to 375.
You have the option to reopen the betting with another raise. The all-in has no impact on your right to answer the initial raise with one of your own.

Had you simply called the 375, the betting would not be reopened and the original raiser would be forced to call the additional 75.

[Gunslinger]

Limping counts as action enough... he CANNOT reopen the 300.

??? Now you're confusing me, supa.

Let's say, in OP's hand, that the BB just folds. So OP limps for 40, player 3 raises to 300. SB calls 300. Are you saying OP can't re-raise here? Player 3 has re-opened the betting, to which OP hasn't responded yet, he should be able to raise, right? Now add in the BB pushing for less than a minimum raise. OP still hasn't responded to player 3's raise, how does the BB's action negate the OP being able to act?

I would be shocked if that's the real application of the under-raise rule, as opposed to maybe how some casinos have applied it. Even reading OP's quote of Robert's Rule, it's clear the only if the first Player A just CALLS the all in, then only Player B, the player to initially raise, is affected by the rule. In that quote it doesn't say that Player A, after betting, then seeing a raise and then an under-raise all in, CANNOT re-open the betting.

[MrDarling]

Dealer and floor manager made a mistake. You should have been give the option to raise.

BB action in this hand do not effect players yet to act after original raise to 300.

[Jauron]

When any player raises YOU the full legit amount YOU have the option to raise again unless the action is be capped at any point.

The floor was dead wrong in this case unless they have some cap rule for NL.


Calling previous bets (BB) doesn't remove the option to raise future bets.