Does the initial raise get to reopen the action here again?

BB: 20
UTG1: 80 (+60)
MP1: 130ai (+50)
at this point, MP1's all in is not enough to reopen the betting to UTG1, since it was not at least as large as the last raise; MP1 can only fold or call the 50 if it comes back to him at 130 total.

but then...

CO: 400 (+270)

CO's raise (+270) is by at least the amount of the last legal raise (+60), so now the betting is reopened to everyone, including UTG1.

This is not a view. This is the rule in NL games everywhere. The basic shortcut to help you figure this out is to ignore any all-in bets, and if the other bets that happen are enough to reopen the betting to someone, then the betting is reopened. Someone going all in for not enough to reopen betting can't undo or block someone else raising by enough to reopen betting.

If CO wants to raise, the minimum amount he must bet is the previous action (130) plus the largest bet or raise of the round (+60) to a total of at least 190. If he does this, betting is reopened to everyone.

If he bets some amount between 160 and 190 (more than 50% of the raise amount), he will be forced to increase his bet to 190 to make a minimum raise (and action is again open to everyone). If he bets between 131 and 159, he will be forced to reduce his bet down to a call of 130, and action will be open to SB and BB, but UTG1 can only call or fold.

If CO had instead reraised **all in** to (at least) 140, the cumulative amount of the raise to UTG1 would now be +60, which would be enough to reopen the betting to UTG1 as well.

TDA:

What does this part mean in simple terms?

“If multiple short all-ins re-open the betting, the minimum raise is always the last full valid bet or raise of the round“

You are correct that MP1 all in would not reopen action to UTG+1. But when CO makes it 400, that is obviously at complete raise. So when action gets back to UTG+1 he is now facing a complete raise and has all options to fold, call, re-raise.

Once the action to UTG+1 is at least 60 more to call (IIRC), then UTG+1 is facing a complete raise and has all options. So even if CO went all in for $140, the combination of MP1 (+$50) and CO (+$10 more, total of $60), UTG+1 is reopened. The key is facing a total increase in action enough to make a completed bet ($60).

I'll demonstrate with an example: BB 20, UTG raises to 80, UTG1 AI for 120, UTG2 AI for 160. If a player were to raise over this, a minimum raise would be 60 more, the size of UTG's raise, or the "last full valid bet/raise". 220

in this example assuming an all in of MP of $145, itis $145-$80 = $65. So UTG+1 min raise would be $65 + the $145 current action or $210 total.

If I am wrong Iam sure I will be corrected quickly.

The term they used in my dealer school was MBU, short for minimum betting unit. It goes up every time someone puts in a bet or raise higher than the min, but never goes down until the round is over.

A: bet 10 (MBU 10)
B: raise to 30 (MBU 20)
C: All in for 40 (MBU still 20)
D: All in for 55 (MBU still 20)

Since neither C not D put in more than 20, the MBU never went up even though their combined raise was higher. A min-raise for A would be to 75.

The rule was put in to clarify that you can add C and D's partial raises together for the purpose of determining whether the pot was re-opened, but not for determining the MBU.

It's kind of hard to wrap your head around, partly because it simply doesn't come up very often unless you play a lot of satellites or other short stack games.

Everything that was said at the table was correct. Same as everything everybody has said so far in this thread.

What I don't like about the current TDA rules is that in a situation like this the Dealer isn't required to say whether the all-in bet represents a raise or not.

So when I play, every time a player makes a bet the Dealer says "Bet". Every time a player makes a raise the Dealer says "Raise". Except when a player goes all in. Then the Dealer says "All in" and the remaining players don't know what is going on. Unless one of them asks the Dealer how much the last bet is and how much the all in is. And even then the Dealer doesn't say whether or not the all-in is a raise or not.

The funny part is that on occasion a player won't realize that an all in bet is a raise because there are some players who think that a raise must be double the size of the last bet.

The key for me is to ask about the amounts of each bet. Then I do the math. The irony is that Dealers sometimes do the math wrong and when they are asked if it is a raise or not make a mistake and say the wrong thing. Whether or not I am in a hand I will always correct the dealer immediately and explain why, like Dinesh did.

I learned a rule in this thread of the minimum bet size with several all in which I would have guessed the other way if I had to.

Not true. Sounds like people at the table, including OP, were saying that UTG1 did not have the option to raise CO’s bet because MP1’s bet wasn’t a full raise. That’s clearly not true.

This is interesting. Can't believe in 20 years of poker I've never seen this type of situation come up.

I'd say it's way more likely that you have. Whether the answer came from the dealer or with help from players, and whether it was the correct answer or not, it came and went without argument 😀

Part of the reason that is is because of the stupid custom that dealers are not supposed to count down all ins until an active players asks. So if the dealer doesn't know the amount of the all in, they cannot officially declare it a raise or not.

I absolutely hate that custom. I do not understand it or agree with it. I feel a bettor should always know the exact amount of a bet they are facing. But it is custom so I follow along as a dealer, though I find every remotely legitimate excuse to break it. Push out a dirty stack? Let me clean it up and make it easy to count. Bigger chips on the bottom of the stack? Let me rearrange the stack and make it easy to count. Active opponent physically looks like he is trying to count the stack, let me run it down.

Someone once told me the reason dealers are not supposed to count down all ins is to preserve the intimidation factor of an all in. To me this just encourages angles. Hiding big value chips or accumulating a bunch of lower value chips in order to make you stack look bigger. It just opens the game up to shenanigans. Another person told me that having dealers count down every all in just slows down the game. This makes no sense either. So instead of immediately counting down the stack, the dealer waits until a player requests it (which happens a vast majority of the time that it matters) and then counts it down anyway. Why wait?

Opponents either already know they are calling/folding regardless of the amount or it is close enough that they are going to ask for a cou t anyway. Why wait?

Sorry, you just tangentially hit a nerve of mine.

It's far more likely in a short daily tournament than in cash.

Yeah I play 99.9% cash games. And if I encountered it online I wouldn't have noticed as the software deals with it automatically.