believe it or not...a RULES question

[D-Nut]

OK....so a situation came up last night at the local cash game and the dealer made a ruling that I did not agree with. Let me know the correct ruling....So we enter a 3 way flop...postflop, the UTG player checks, MP player bets 30 dollars, the button only has 31 dollars and ships. The UTG player wants to raise but is told he can only call the 31. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, as he should be able to raise the initial 30 dollar bet...I can't think of a reason why UTG action should be closed. Now obv if UTG calls 31, the MP player cannot re open action, but that should be the only restriction. Can someone confirm this bc everyone at the table with the exception of Pat and myself agreed with the floor decision. I had people offering me silly side bets that I'm sure I would have won but no one there knows anything...or is it ME that knows nothing??

[Chipless Wonder]

My understanding is that if the button had shoved for 45 or more dollars, then the MP would be permitted to re-open the action.

[D-Nut]

I'm pretty sure that is correct, but it was the UTG player who was told that he couldn't reopen the action. He was told he could either flat 31 or fold. I'm trying to find out why HE wouldn't be able to raise.

[D-Nut]

LOL...I know LAPP, I got gun shy...there were 8 mooks including the dealer yelling at me telling me that I was wrong so I'm sure no one was going to prove me right to collect, and second I'm sure I wouldn't get paid, lol....Oh well, I guess ignorance is the price I pay for playing in a game where they have no idea what they are doing....I'll take that trade off I suppose!

[D-Nut]

Toxin, that is the EXACT rule they broke out. I can't possibly believe this is a rule. If so, its the worst rule in poker lol... I just assumed it was being interpreted incorrectly. It seems only common sense to me that the UTG player who has checked cannot have his action closed

[ThrillCory90]

It's good rulling though a bad rule I believe.

This is from Robert's rules which I believe most places use.

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 3. A player who has already checked or called may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is 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.)

[ThrillCory90]

The rule isn't very good but this is the best explanation I can come up with.

I think it is to protect the player squeezed in the middle. Like if UTG checks, UTG+1 bets 100, MP raises all in for 160, then The button calls, UTG cannot raise because it isn't fair to the button if UTG raises here. This is because if UTG raises then if the button wishes to fold he should only have to put 100 in the middle since the extra 60 wasn't a full raise and there was only one real bet so far in the round and that was the original 100.

I agree though it's a bad rule.

[Lorcat2]

Fear is correct Dave. If first to act checks, they have already taken their choice of action. Unfortunately they get f*cked if they are slow playing. Say first position leads out for 50 and MP jams for 70, then LP (person who hasn't had any action) can make any raise that they want. If LP raises, obvi the the minimum or more ,which would be a raise to 100 here, action is re-opened and EP can reraise LP and they can go at it.

I dealt and this is always how I ruled the game. I was playing 1-2nl at Ballys in LV and they ruled this way too.

As for the uproar of emotions and yelling, if it's out east (P-Town) they can never handle a disagreement in a civil manner and they don't always have consitency towards their rulings.

All in all, checking is considered as an action.

[Headhunter]

Hmmmm .... Fear, can you provide a link to RRoP that you are quoting? I've searched several of his versions and can't find your quote.

I believe they are misapplying the rule. I can't believe that UTG is limited in his action. It's not that the all-in didn't reopen the betting (that's clear). UTG is c/r the original $30 bet. I've never ruled this way, nor have I ever seen it ruled this way. What generally happens is:

UTG checks
MP bets $30
LP shoves for a total of $31
UTG asks floor if this $31 reopens the betting AS IT RELATES TO MP. When UTG learns that MP cannot re-raise, then UTG is "safe" to call the $31 knowing he doesn't have to put any more into the pot. However, I can't understand how UTG can't raise.

I'll look into this further to find a link. But Fear, if you could provide a link to the RRoP version you were using, that would be helpful.

[LAPPIN]

You are 1 million per cent correct and shame on you for not taking those side bets!