The other night, I played with my friends. There was player A, B, and so on and so forth. Player A went all in and I called the all in as player B. Then next was player C who raised and player D called.

Later on, I tried to check but some did told me that I have to call or fold player C because of having some chips. I was hesitant to do any of the two for I only wanted to compete for the all in and not the side pot actually.

If you were on my shoes that time, what will you do?

Gian

Gian,

Since player C had more chips than you, you had to either call their raise, or fold. The side pot is still part of the original hand. You cannot only compete for the main pot.

Well, my question is about comparing full houses. I remembered you once said or advised ?Jacks full of tens (JJJ, TT) beats Jacks full of nines (JJJ, 99)?. I can’t remember when exactly you have said that. But I’m wondering, can that really ever happen? I believe that in a 52 card deck, there are only four jacks. Am I missing something?

Thanks you,
Jayden

Jayden,

In flop games, such as Texas Holdem or Omaha, there are situations that two players can have similar full houses due to shared cards. For example if you held pocket tens and your opponent held pocket nines, three jacks on the flop would give you both jacks full. The same is true if you held J-10 and your opponent held J-9 and the board ran out J-J-10-9-4. In games other than Holdem and Omaha, it is not possible for two players to have jacks full unless they are playing with wild cards.

Well, as I could remember, there was a small blind which was 30 and 60 as the big blind. The first player to supposedly act had only 61 chips, therefore with 61, he went all in.

In your opinion, how many chips should the next player possess to act out? Well, at first instance I thought it should be 61, but eventually I became unsure. Most people at the room fought out it should be 120. At that point, I heard somebody saying that since the hand was actually raised, the minimum raise therefore should be 120 to those with adequate chips.

Any comment will be much appreciated. Thanks!

By the way, nice site.

Keith Johnson

Keith,
In the situation above, the next player only has to call 61. If they want to raise, the minimum raise is to 121. The players raise to 61 is not considered a full raise since it was less than half the minimum.

If this was limit holdem, this changes. Since the all-in raise was less than half of a bet, the players can only complete the initial raise and make it 120.

Let us just put this way, the blinds were at 75/150 and the big blind only has 50. I’m wondering, do you think he is entitled to win the blinds though he doesn’t have enough? Or rather, he can just win the amount he had since the beginning?

Personally, I believe he should only win the amount he had in the first place. But I’m not so sure about this. Any advice for me?

Thank you.

Roan

Roan,

The big blind could only win up to the amount he has in front of him. The player in the small blind would get back 25 and they would play for the 100 chip pot. At no time can a player win more from a single player than they have in front of them.

I hope you don’t mind if I ask something about betting.

Let’s say for an instance, in a no limit game, the blinds are 50/100. Then there is player 1 who is the first one to act after the big blinds and a raise to 300, players 2 and 3 fold to player 4 who eventually places a 500 chip.

Player 1, being dissatisfied discoursed that a re-raise less than double the original bet is not possible. Any idea?

Somehow, I thought that a re-raise was only bound to the minimum of the big blind, therefore if someone places a bet of 300, I could make it 350 or so. Do you think, the minimum raise should be twice larger than the bet placed earlier? And one more thing, is this the same thing at all betting rounds?

Thanks!
Jacob

Jacob,

Once a pot has been raised, the re-raise must be in the amount of the previous raise. In your example above, since your opponent raised by 200, the reraise must be at least 200. Player four?s bet off 500 was a call of 300 and a 200 raise.

This applies to all streets of betting.

Thanks!
Clark

Clark,

A check-raise is not only a common occurrence in Holdem, it is an encouraged tool for players to develop. When you are trying to extract money from an overly aggressive player, then checking to this player to induce a bet can be the proper play. You can then raise them to force more money into the pot or maybe even force them to fold if they were bluffing.

Also, whoever told you that you cannot check-raise during other forms of poker was mistaken. While it used to be frowned upon to do a check-raise and even banned in some casinos, the practice is now considered a standard part of playing poker.

Well, three players were left in the pot and at the turn the 1st player to act bet. Eventually, the 2nd player to act called and then the 3rd player raised. After which, the 1st player called and the 2nd player re-raised. Someone at the table who was not in the hand called a foul for he thought a re-raise after a call was not supposedly possible.

Personally, I thought it was a check raise so I haven’t reacted.

What do you think?

Regards,
Jayden

Jayden,

A check-raise is when a player checks the betting to another opponent, that opponent bet and then you raise. What your opponent did was known as a limp-raise. This is perfectly acceptable. When a player raises as opposed to calling a bet, they are reopening the action to other players. The players have the same options to call, raise, or fold. Would your opponent objected to your other opponent calling and then folding to a raise? Not likely.

1. For an instance, the blinds are 500 and 1,000 but the person who is supposed to be the big blind has only about 800 to post and a number of players are still on board. I don’t know whether or not these players have to post 1,000 in order to stay in or otherwise just match the 800 of the big blind.
2. In what specific situations do you think there are no small or big blinds? I’m not so sure, but I think you already shared something about such before.
3. For example there is a King high straight on the board and it’s the best hand. However, in the later part, it turned out that one of the players also holds a King in his pocket hand. What do you think, does the King that first occurred on the board overrule the King in pocket hand? Or else, the player could claim the hand?
4. For an instance the blinds are 100 and 200, then after the flop, a certain player raises to 400. I’m wondering if the player to the left of the one who raises wants to raise, does he need to raise to 800 or just double the big blind otherwise? Any idea about this?

Thanks,
Francis

Francis,

1. The players need to call the full 1,000 blind amount.
2. The only possible way there would not be a blind would be a case that both opponent were all-in for the ante. There are instances in a tournament where a small blind is eliminated the hand prior to their turn to post. In that case there would not be a small blind.
3. The player king in his hand is irrelevant. The object of Holdem is to make the best five card hand. Since the best five card hand is on board, everyone still in the pot splits the pot.
4. A reraise must be in the amount of the prior raise. In this case, they must raise to 800.

As I am writing this, I just finished playing Holdem by which my friend who had $10 in chips left became very troubled because he was informed he could no longer play because of not having sufficient chips for the big blind, which during that time was actually $40.

Well, I believe that he could have played, but only for $10 from every player. But I’m not so sure about this, so I’m looking for any piece of advice from you.

Thanks in advance! Great site!

John James

John,

You were correct. Your opponent could have still played, but the most he could have won from each player was $10. In no limit holdem you can go all in for less than the big blind if that is all that you have in front of you. Of course, the most you can win from each player is that amount.

I’m currently wondering while writing this. Last night while we were playing, an unusual, bothering situation came up.

Well, at some point, three players were left in, eventually, the hole cards were dealt and one player have folded. The other player was dealt 10 & 6 and I was dealt 9 & 7. Then the flop came and was 7, 8, 9.

After which, player two went all-in with a straight and as my natural reaction, I called him up. Well, we have almost the same amount of chips, but not until after I called. Eventually, player 2 felt he had won.

But afterwards, the dealer dealt the turn which was a 7. Luckily, I won with a full house. However, not everyone agreed, so we started to resolve the issue.

In the end, it’s player 2 who won the game that night. It was so nice of player 2 that he even offered splitting the total winnings until such time we have already cleared the issue. But of course, I believe it was not fair, so I just let him take the winnings.

Anything to say? A comment about what happened perhaps?

Thanks!
Rafael

Rafael,

You won the hand. Your opponent held a straight and you had a full house. A full house outranks everything but quads, a straight flush, and a royal flush. In Holdem you make your best five card hand out of the two cards in your hand and the five on the board. The hand was not over on the flop. There were still two cards to come and you turned a full house. Your friend owes you money.