lihar
10-14-2012, 06:20 PM
This is a 'No-Limit' home game.
Blinds are 50,100.
'Player A' raises to 400 chips (has pocket aces).
'Player B' calls the 400 bet made by 'Player A' (has KQ).
'Player C' the short-stack goes all-in with 410 chips (has pocket nines).
action gets back to 'Player A' - he now want to re-raise and go all-in, so he can push 'Player B' out of the pot and stay alone with 'Player C'.
The question is - can 'Player A' go all-in here ???
He claims he can, because 'Player C' raised him (even though it was just a 10-chip incomplete raise).
We all said - he can't re-raise, because no-one had raised over him a complete raise.
He says in 'No-Limit' you can do whatever you want - someone raise you - you can re-raise, no matter how much was raised...
Who is correct here ???
plz help........
Blinds are 50,100.
'Player A' raises to 400 chips (has pocket aces).
'Player B' calls the 400 bet made by 'Player A' (has KQ).
'Player C' the short-stack goes all-in with 410 chips (has pocket nines).
action gets back to 'Player A' - he now want to re-raise and go all-in, so he can push 'Player B' out of the pot and stay alone with 'Player C'.
The question is - can 'Player A' go all-in here ???
He claims he can, because 'Player C' raised him (even though it was just a 10-chip incomplete raise).
We all said - he can't re-raise, because no-one had raised over him a complete raise.
He says in 'No-Limit' you can do whatever you want - someone raise you - you can re-raise, no matter how much was raised...
Who is correct here ???
plz help........