Rules Q: Limp with AA, short stack all in, no reraise?

The last time I was home on leave, I went to the Hawaiian Gardens Casino in LA a few times - mainly because it is closest to home, and I didn't have a lot of time to be driving to and from casinos. The last time I was there, a question came up from a player at a table, about a hand in progress -

He had limped in under the gun - it was a raisy table. If I had a solid hand or one of another couple players, you could expect a raise. I had no hand, so my hand was in the muck, but he had limped in, and a player in a later position raised all-in. He was in for the BB, or $2, and the all-in, let's say . . . was about $12-15. It may have been less, but it was well within the limits of a 'raise', as it at least doubled the amount of the action before it, which was $2.

Action gets back around to our friend under the gun, and the dealer says something (I wasn't paying attention), and he says "I can't raise?" And the missile popped up on the radar - apparently I had been paying attention on some level because it occured to me that the dealer said "Call or Fold?" Suddenly much more interest was deposited into this hand. We were going to have to teach the dealer how poker works (bad sign).

The player calls a floorman over, and asks him "If I limped in, expecting a raise so I could reraise, and the raise is at least double the action before it, I can reraise right?"

*** Tangent - I think the rule is the all-in has to be at least half of the action before it in order for the person who took that action to re-raise. So if the blind is $2, I raise 4 to $6, and you go all in for $8, I could re-raise, because you covered half of my raise. At least that's how I learned it in the card room... Correct me if I'm wrong ***

To which of course the floorman responded, what everybody knows to be true, I can stop paying attention here because we know how it will end, "Of course, it's a no limit game and he didn't bet a small enough amount to kill the action with his all-in." EXCEPT . . . he didn't say that. He said this:
"No. You already had a chance to raise."

I believe he is wrong, and will likely never set foot in Hawaiian Gardens (sp) again.

Perhaps somebody better versed in the rules could point out what the actual rules are, and yes, I know that it's different from place to place, as the house rules are what they are, I'd just like to know what the gold standard is, so that I can use it to effect my poker decisions in the future.

Thanks in advance

WG

This is definitely wrong. The floor supervisor must have misunderstood the question. He most certainly can reraise as long as it's an amount double the last raise.

So if the blinds are 1/2, the AA guy checks (so he can check raise), someone shoves ai pf for 15, then the raise is 13 so as long as someone re-reraises it by 13 or more then he's good.

And yes, the dealer made the 1st mistake by saying "Call or Fold" but the player made the 2nd mistake by asking "I can't raise" - this was a big tell. The floor made the 3rd mistake in a bad ruling that was probably misinterpreted and the player made the 4th mistake by not insisting and explaining why he has the right to reraise.

*ANd only experience will teach you this, but I have learned that the majority of the time if the dealer makes a bad call, he's new or tired, that a confident player can explain the rules to him in a calm and logical way and then the dealer will trust the players unless another player contests it.

Thanks Storm. As it turns out the player who asked if he could raise - he didn't want to raise, he was just shocked he wasn't allowed to. I would have done the same thing were I him, just probably after the hand had played out - unless I wanted to raise. But I would have done it by raising.

I'm not perfectly versed in the 'deeper' rules of poker. Do you happen to know the particular situation where betting again is not allowed? I know there exists a situation where after an all in, even if you can raise more than his bet you are not allowed to.

I ran into a similar situation earlier least year at Viejas casino, in San Diego. I don't remember the exact details but it was very much like this situation. I called a raise, 3rd person goes all in, action gets back around and dealer says to call or fold, and I asked why I couldn't go all in or raise - something about a rule saying that I couldn't b/c one player is all in and I didn't raise the original raise - very strange - I was actually just thinking about that the other day.

I wonder if it's some strange rule to prevent collusion or squeeze plays???

I think that if the all-in is not at least half of the minimum raise, you are not allowed to raise after it.

I don't know whether that applies to the most recent raise, and no players may go all in. Generally when this comes up, a floorman is called to the table and walks the table through the hand telling people who can and cannot raise.

It's too complicated, I've played thousands of hands of live poker at casinos in FL, MS, CA and NV, and only seen the situation less than 10 times.

Generally though I'd expect it to be:
Player A calls $2.
Player B raises $6 to $8.
Player C reraised all-in to $10.
I'd expect Player A to be allowed to raise but Player B not to, for instance.

And it's true, you can prevent collusion, or squeezing. but if I have a hand like AA, I want to get my money in NOW. If I chose an alternate route (deception) counting on a raise behind me because of my position than a blunt raise, I should be entitled a reraise when the action spins back around.

If you don't want to be colluded against or squeezed, don't call all-in bets with weak hands and expect not to be raised.

Not that I agree with collusion. Not that I agree with not being able to raise with AA preflop.

There is one thing i am missing here. Was there anyone else in the hand besides the original limper and the all-in raiser?

It's not clear to me if there was anyone left to act after the limper. If it was just the 2 players left then of course he can't reraise because his only opponent is already all-in.

Now if there were other players left to act after the limper then of course he should have been able to raise but your original scenerio doesn't make that clear, at least not to me.

Now the ONLY reason I could see for them not allowing him to reraise is this particular casino has implemented a very rare house rule that does not allow Check/call raises. Meaning if you just call or check you cant raise when it back on you in that round, now I doubt that this rule is in place without players knowing about it or having come across it before.
As long as this rule is not in place they made the wrong decision.

Thanks for the clarification there, Grossberger. I kinda figured you'd come and lay down the law on that one. I think the floor person and dealer made a mistake.

And of course, there were more people in the hand, Mr. Snake. I know I didn't make it clear, but of course the only option would be to call, as a raise would be entirely a return bet.

Thanks to all.

Robert's Rules is the most commonly accepted and complete set of rules for poker, I'm assuming that's where Grossberger got those from:
http://www.homepokertourney.com/robe...s-of-poker.htm