Poker: How does "All In" work?

[RickJay]

Playuer A cannot raise again if Player C doesn’t raise.

If Player C wishes to raise, that is USUALLY disallowed. Different rooms vary on this, however; I have played in a few places that allowed raises above the short raise. Some will only allow it if the short raise is at least 50% of a normal legal raise. It’s honestly the one rule that drives me batty.

[Dead_Cat]

@RickJay

Playuer A cannot raise again if Player C doesn’t raise.

Agreed, in all cases.

If Player C wishes to raise, that is USUALLY disallowed. Different rooms vary on this, however; I have played in a few places that allowed raises above the short raise. Some will only allow it if the short raise is at least 50% of a normal legal raise. It’s honestly the one rule that drives me batty.

I suspect you have come across dealers/cardrooms misinterpreting the rule and therefore enforcing it incorrectly. The first link I posted above goes into the confusion between ‘the 50% rule’ and this situation.

[RickJay]

This is something I’ve often confirmed with the pit boss. It’s truly weird.

[Sam_Stone]

@RickJay

The short raise rule is the one rule I don’t get at all.

I agree. There is strategy to it as well. If you have a hand you want protected, in that case it may be smart not to short raise in the hope that someone behind you will raise the full amount and chase people away. But if you have hand that wants action (say, a big flush draw, or a big made hand), a short raise will freeze raises on that round and encourage others to call for just a guaranteed $200 risk, whereas otherwise they might call and then get a big raise behind them.

I knew lots of guys who intentionally bought in for the smallest possible amount so they could play games like this. Of course, that means they may not have enough chips to fully profit from big hands, so I think it’s a losing play. But it causes the game to slow down because there are always side pots to manage. It’s annoying.

The fact that you can game your chip situation like that makes the short raise rule questionable.

[RickJay]

@Sam_Stone

I knew lots of guys who intentionally bought in for the smallest possible amount so they could play games like this. Of course, that means they may not have enough chips to fully profit from big hands, so I think it’s a losing play.

It’s a losing play for you, because you are a skilled and experienced player. It is very advisable for newbies. I’m sure you’ve read Miller. Starting with a min stack and playing two rounds of betting is a good way for the inexperienced player to even the odds.

[Hamlet]

@TheGunIsMightierThanThePen

For instance, in this high-stakes cash game, at 4:32 in the video one player pays off a side bet he made with another player after seeing the hole cards of the loser of that hand, and at 5:15 the other players are egging the winner of that hand for not revealing his hole cards, over which they had another side bet.

That is one of the best reads and folds I’ve ever seen. I’m not a huge fan of Polk’s, but that was a genius-level play.

[RickJay]

@Hamlet

That is one of the best reads and folds I’ve ever seen. I’m not a huge fan of Polk’s, but that was a genius-level play.

Yeah, everyone I know in the poker community talked about it. It’s the best fold I have ever seen.