[jaeden]

We had a situation at our home game last night. The small blind had went all-in but didnt have enough to cover the big blind. My question: Can other players still raise(i.e go all-in as well). One of the players at our table said you can't raise an all-in. I didn't get it. We were playin no-limit hold-em......

Jaeden

[ebae]

You definitely can raise after someone goes all-in. This creates potential side-pots when other players call.

Eric

[SingleMaltFan]

http://www.homepokertourney.com/allin_examples.htm

this might help

and this from robert's rules..also on homepokertourney's site

(removed..this portion was no help at all..sorry)

sb

[Somrakj]

yes you are allowed to re-raise all in. Alot of people use this move if they want to isolate the player going all in. By just calling they get to a situation where others can call or take control. So by re raising a all in (usually a significant amount more) other players are unlikely to call unless they have AA or KK or possibly QQ or AKs

[vrecksler]

This may go against the grain but when I was at the casino playing in a NLHE tournament a similar situation occurred where a short stacked player moved all in with chips that were just barely over the BB. Another player called, then another moved all in to isolate and the tournament director said that he could not move all in like that. Since the original raiser could not meet the minimum raise, no successive raises are allowed.

It was a really odd ruling, so the player called and moved all in on the flop with his KK but there may be some official ruling for this kind of thing, as well as the one you describe, out there. In a home game though, the host usually makes the rules so whatever they decide is how you play it.

[OnTheButton]

Absouletly.


This is often a valid strategy to boot.

By re-raising a lesser all-in, you can limit the field to possibly playing only against the short stack that pushed all-in, AND you can create a situation where your cards can win chips with the 2nd best hand.

Example: (gonna keep it simple)

Short stack (A) is first to act and goes all-in for $1000 with:


Next to act (B) goes all-in for $5000 with:

As it stands right now, if no one else calls, (B) takes back $4000 from his bet, the cards are flipped and play resumes to determine a winner for the $2000 + blinds pot. Player (B) by going all-in for more than player (A) could bet, effectivly folded all the other players out, to limit the play to being only heads up between him/her and player (A).

_____________________________________________

However if player (C) also calls the $5000 all-in with:

There are now two pots created:

One of main pot of $3000+ blinds that players (A, B and C) all qualify for, and a side pot of $8000, that only players (B) and (C) qualify for.

Play resumes, and say the board comes up:

In this scenario, player (A) would win the "main pot" of $3000+ blinds since his pair of Jacks held up as the best hand.

Player (B) would win the "side pot" of $8000 as the pair of 10's the second best hand, and the extra money in the side pot player (A) did not qualify for since he/she could not cover the extra bets.

However if Player (B) or (C) had ended up with the best hand after playing it out, they can win BOTH pots, since they were able to cover all bets present.

Hope that helps a bit.

[jaeden]

If the original raiser cannot meet the minimum can any other player raise or go all-in or can they just call. According to some people, in NLHE casino tournament you cannot raise in this situation. Seems odd to me.

[Fins]

Originally Posted by vrecksler

a similar situation occurred where a short stacked player moved all in with chips that were just barely over the BB. Another player called, then another moved all in to isolate and the tournament director said that he could not move all in like that. Since the original raiser could not meet the minimum raise, no successive raises are allowed.

I think this situation was handled incorrectly... if the AI player was called around the original limper could NOT move all-in to isolate as there was no raise (or a bet that met the raise requirement... usually half the min raise or more) to him but he would have to call the xtra put in by the AI player. But any player after the AI player could raise AI to isolate.

To the OP, if the SB went AI w/ less than required to meet the BB, only the BB could move AI to isolate... if there were no players in before him then the BB could check and have the xtra returned to him. If there was action b/f the SB's AI then its still up to the BB to call or raise... only with a raise could the action be reopened for any other players to be able to go AI.

[hachkc]

Here is my understanding of how this works but I admint I could be wrong.

Let's assume 4 handed for simplicity.

4 Players and blinds of 100-200
A has 500 chips, B has 2000 chipos, C has 150 chips and D has 290 chips.

C posts SB of 100 (has 50 left)
D posts BB of 200 (has 90 left)
A calls
B calls
C goes all-in for 50 more which is less than the min.
D goes all-in for 90 more which is less than 1/2 the min raise.

D can raise at this point because that is always the BB's option so the action to him is still valid.

At this point A and B can only fold or call but not raise because the all-in raise was less than 1/2 of the min raise amount.

If you change the scenario to give Player C 220 chips and he goes all in from the SB, Player D could still raise because the BB always has the right of last action. Player D could still raise all-in but Players A & B could only call or fold.

If you change the scenario further and give Player D 320 chips and he goes all-in from the BB. Player A could now raise because the 120 raise is considered a valid raise (> 1/2 min raise).

[jaeden]

Would the situation be the same if the small blind and big blind were not involved. Could you give another example. This scenario always comes up in my home games.