Raising Rule... Whats The Reasoning?

[JaxxVain 0]

Ok, I was playing in my home game. A monthly tournament. Blinds are 1k, 2k.Player A calls, Player B calls, Small blind goes all-in for 2.5k.Big blind wants to go all-in 8.5k to try to isolate.As far as I know the big blind is not allowed to raise here, because technically his bet was never raised (by the full amount).I am pretty sure I ruled it right, stating that the big blind is not allowed to re-raise. But my question is essentially - why does this rule exist?Anyone have any thoughts here?

[fatman 1]

Think you were wrong. Since the BB has not yet acted he can raise any amount he wants.

[mx957 0]

Think you were wrong. Since the BB has not yet acted he can raise any amount he wants.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Think you were wrong. Since the BB has not yet acted he can raise any amount he wants.

the fatman has sung

[CBass1724 1]

Think you were wrong. Since the BB has not yet acted he can raise any amount he wants.

[chgocubs99 0]

Think you were wrong. Since the BB has not yet acted he can raise any amount he wants.

[James D 0]

fatmanaments.

[psujohn 0]

Think you were wrong. Since the BB has not yet acted he can raise any amount he wants.

minor FYPNow as for the real situation.Blinds 1K/2KEP calls, MP calls, BB shoves for 2.5K, EP wants to raise but can only call or fold.The reasoning is as you stated in the OP - he took action with his call and was never raised (re-opening action) so he doesn't get to take another action. Since he can't be forced to put additional chips into the pot he has the option of folding.

[JaxxVain 0]

minor FYPNow as for the real situation.Blinds 1K/2KEP calls, MP calls, BB shoves for 2.5K, EP wants to raise but can only call or fold.The reasoning is as you stated in the OP - he took action with his call and was never raised (re-opening action) so he doesn't get to take another action. Since he can't be forced to put additional chips into the pot he has the option of folding.

Thanks all for the replies. I have since re-read the rule, and I can't wait to tell the guys i was wrorrr, er, a, wngng, er, you know. (old school fonzie reference).Anyways, what is the philosophical reason behind the rule? If EP calls, MP calls, BB shoves for 2.5k, why can't EP re-raise (i know what the rule states, because it was not a full raise, but thats not EP's fault)?You could read that the action is still "open" because the "action" is on the EP to call or fold (why not raise too?)Essentially it seems this rule is protecting the BB from isolation. Which is not really protection anyway, because he would rather face 1 opponent than 2.Plus the BB does not deserve protection because he put himself in position not to have enough chips to make a sufficient raise.

[CBass1724 1]

It's just the way it is. Hit the "I Believe" button on this one.

[psujohn 0]

In some ways I disagree with the rule since it really doesn't protect anyone that needs protecting but it works both ways. It prevents the initial raise from raising but also prevents the initial caller from raising. Since it's balanced it doesn't help or hurt anyone unfairly.

[cdipierr 0]

Thanks all for the replies. I have since re-read the rule, and I can't wait to tell the guys i was wrorrr, er, a, wngng, er, you know. (old school fonzie reference).Anyways, what is the philosophical reason behind the rule? If EP calls, MP calls, BB shoves for 2.5k, why can't EP re-raise (i know what the rule states, because it was not a full raise, but thats not EP's fault)?You could read that the action is still "open" because the "action" is on the EP to call or fold (why not raise too?)Essentially it seems this rule is protecting the BB from isolation. Which is not really protection anyway, because he would rather face 1 opponent than 2.Plus the BB does not deserve protection because he put himself in position not to have enough chips to make a sufficient raise.

It's to protect callers behind the initial limper. Let's say I'm on the button with a marginal limp hand, with two limpers ahead of me. I can see the BB has 2.5k left, and know that this will cost me 2.5k at most as there's no chance the EP limpers will shove after the BB. You could argue that this is unfair to the initial limpers and favors the later positions, but all of poker does this. It's always better to be in late position and this is just another reason why.

[fatman 1]

the fatman has sung

fatmanaments.

Just felt like quoting these.

[David_Nicoson 1]

The reason for the rule is to prevent the short-stack from influencing the action out of proportion to his personal risk. It's in his interest to eliminate other players from the hand, so he wagers an additional $0.25 and presents the opportunity for another player to reraise. It's a problem of short-stacking in general, but this is a particularly extreme instance of it and it is therefore prohibited.

[XXEddie 0]

Thanks all for the replies. I have since re-read the rule, and I can't wait to tell the guys i was wrorrr, er, a, wngng, er, you know. (old school fonzie reference).Anyways, what is the philosophical reason behind the rule? If EP calls, MP calls, BB shoves for 2.5k, why can't EP re-raise (i know what the rule states, because it was not a full raise, but thats not EP's fault)?You could read that the action is still "open" because the "action" is on the EP to call or fold (why not raise too?)

Lets put it this way. Every round. Each player has 1 chance to bet or raise the current bet. If the player gives up his chance by check or just calling a bet, the only way they can raise again is if someone else makes a LEGAL raise.In the above example. EP had his chance to raise, he didnt, nobody else made a legal raise. It's EPs fault for just limping to begin with. In your first example, however. The BB was never given a chance to raise, it would be unfair to force him to call when he never had the chance to raise himself. Does that make sense?