I’m just posting from an AI response regarding casino and on-line play. Even your link referenced in Betting and Raising in Poker notes unlimited raising is allowed.
I’ve been using AI a lot lately.
Again, this was an NLHE game but I’m guessing the on-line rules (see above post) would apply in this case. But again, there were only two (2) raises made after the Flop not three (3).
I don’t know about this because probably 80% of people on here would call an all-in with a 4 Flush hand on the flop even with 3-6 suited. I know pretty sad. The other 50% might hesitate.
That is how I read it, as they have already acted (calling the BB) and the all in is less than the full size of the last raise. BB=200 raise to 750 (+550) the next legal raise would have been plus 550 (total 1300) since the BB’s all in total was only 1165 and everyone else in tha hand had already acted all they could do was call.
It’s not the number of raises that’s the issue - that is definitely unlimited in NL. I’m sure you’ve seen at least one hand where 2 players continually min raise each other until one of them is all in.
The rule that’s coming into play here is that a the minimum raise amount is the last bet/raise. If a player is all in without raising by the minimum, it’s considered a call.
It’s unclear to me how much of this is immutable laws of the game and how much us up to the site and convention. I suspect it’s entirely the latter, which is why it’s hard to get a straight answer, but the rules are basically universal.
(As an aside, I think it’s typical in short deck poker for a flush to rank higher than a full house, but that wasn’t the case the last time I played royal poker on Replay, so there’s clearly some variation in rules between sites)
not four-flushed
They did act initially, but they hadn’t acted to Gezaclanismo’s raise, so they hadn’t acted to the last valid raise. If Gezaclanismo had limped as well, they definitely would not have been able to raise (if the big blind was all in for < 400 chips). I’m pretty sure they do get to re-raise against Gezaclanismo though, and if either one of them did, that would open the action back up for Gezaclanismo too.
Sure, if the BB had just called Gezaclanismo, everyone else would have been facing a fullsize wager and could have called or raised BUT… the BB’s all in was NOT a fullsize wager and THAT is what they were facing… the all in supercedes the previous raise.
I am going to start quoting to try to avoid confusion lol.
It is totally up to the host to decide what rules to use. I believe most sites adopt a standard such as Roberts Rules but there can always be amendments, deviations or special rules although these should all be documented and published on the site. It is kind of like building codes… most towns and cities do not write their own building codes they adopt usually either the National Building Code or the International Building Code and then ammend those to fit local needs.
I’m nearly 100% certain that’s just not the case, or at least not the way this usually works. I did find this thread from a long time ago that suggests Replay used to a treat a < min raise all-in as closing the action for everyone though. No indication if that was considered bug and fixed or if it’s still the case though: All-in Closing Action Problem
Who were the players calling after the all in. You cannot call a bet or raise that has been (re)raised you must call (or re-re-raise) the (re)raise. (say THAT 10 times fast… lol) That is the bet all subsequent players are facing. The rule is quite specific when it refers to facing a fullsize wager it says nothing about previous wagers.
ps going to bed now… past my sleepytime catch up in the morn… this is fun! 
Hi, this comes up from time to time and is well worth discussing because it can have a major impact on how a hand plays out.
Hand 1120038036
@Gezaclanismo raises to 750 and the big blind shoves for an additional 415. Replay (and many Rule setters) says that the under-raise is treated as a call which does not reopen the betting, therefore Gezaclanismo is not given the option to raise again.
Here is an example of a site which publishes Robert’s Rules of poker, which are widely accepted as a solid reference for all levels. (Credit to Bob Ciaffone).
Jump to SECTION 14
3. All raises must be equal to or greater than the size of the previous bet or raise on that betting round, except for an all-in wager. Example: Player A bets 100 and player B raises to 200. Player C wishing to raise must raise at least 100 more, making the total bet at least 300. A player who has already acted and is not facing a fullsize wager may not subsequently raise an all-in bet that is less than the minimum bet or less than the full size of the last bet or raise. (The half-the-size rule for reopening the betting is for limit poker only.)
4. Multiple all-in wagers, each of an amount too small to qualify as a raise, still act as a raise and reopen the betting if the resulting wager size to a player qualifies as a raise. Example: Player A bets $100 and Player B raises $100 more, making the total bet $200. If Player C goes all in for less than $300 total (not a full $100 raise), and Player A calls, then Player B has no option to raise again, because he wasn’t fully raised. (Player A could have raised, because Player B raised.)
Accordingly, in 1120038036, once the big blind has made their under raise, any player who limped for 200 should be able to raise (they have the option to reply to the raise of 550), but any player who has already called 750 has had their option to raise and may only call, including the initial raiser. - Even if they have another less-than-the-raise amount.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but the idea that in NL poker there are unlimited raises or you may go all-in any time is not 100% accurate. The rule basically protects players from calling a regular bet of whatever the pot is, then a relatively small all-in raise of a handful of chips to find themselves potentially exposed to a massive shove from the initial raiser.
In short The under raise does not reopen the betting.
The way to avoid being caught out here as the raiser with A A would be to either raise to a small amount which enables the big blind to make a full raise, or make a raise which covers the big blind’s stack.
Rob
Thank you Rob for clearing that up. It really is nice to have a responsive staff. Has Replay adopted a set of rules to govern play and if so is that fact published anywhere on the site? I cannot seem find that info anywhere. Perhaps it could be included in the FAQ and/or the playbook page. 
I bow to your superior knowledge and wisdom. 
Thanks very much for your enlightening reply!
