Implementing the full bet rule

After the recent controversy around the details of all-in raises and how they affect the option to re-raise, we need to formally adopt an HGPA position on this matter.

The position that most people seemed to advance was that we should formally adopt the “full bet rule” for all-in raises.

The common description of how this rule works is as follows:

If a player goes all in with a bet or raise rather than a call, another special rule comes into play. No-limit games usually use what is called the full bet rule. The full bet rule states that if the amount of an all-in bet is less than the minimum bet, or if the amount of an all-in raise is less than the full amount of the previous raise, it does not constitute a “real” raise, and therefore does not reopen the betting action.

For example, with the full bet rule in effect, a player opens the betting round for $20, and the next player has a total stake of $30. He may raise to $30, declaring himself all in, but this does not constitute a “real” raise, in the following sense: if a third player now calls the $30, and the first player’s turn to act comes up, he may now call the additional $10, but he does not have the right to re-raise further. The all-in player’s pseudo-raise was really just a call with some extra money, and the third player’s call was just a call, so the initial opener’s bet was simply called by both remaining players, closing the betting round (even though he must still equalize the money by putting in the additional $10).

If we can get a simple majority in favour of formally adopting this rule then it will be added to the Etiquette page as one of the standard HGPA rules.

Should the HGPA formally adopt the full bet rule for no-limit games?
View Results

Leave a Reply