Raise rules

I have a question about short raises and action afterward. In my home game, 5/5, seats 1/2 are in the blind, 3/4/5 call and seat 6 makes a $30 raise to $35. 7/8 fold and 9 goes all in for $60. Dealer calls, 1 calls, 2 folds. Here's the question...3 wants to re-raise the original raise from #6. The consensus was he had already had a chance at action and just called the $5, so was only allowed to call the all-in. His argument was he should have been able to re-raise the $35 bet since that was action after his original call. Who's right? Thanks for any insight or help.

He should be able to re-raise since that action was after his original call.

Cartwright865 said:

I have a question about short raises and action afterward. In my home game, 5/5, seats 1/2 are in the blind, 3/4/5 call and seat 6 makes a $30 raise to $35. 7/8 fold and 9 goes all in for $60. Dealer calls, 1 calls, 2 folds. Here's the question...3 wants to re-raise the original raise from #6. The consensus was he had already had a chance at action and just called the $5, so was only allowed to call the all-in. His argument was he should have been able to re-raise the $35 bet since that was action after his original call. Who's right? Thanks for any insight or help.

Click to expand...

From what I understand here, player 3 (UTG) wanted to do a check-raise.
Since player 9 (BTN) went all in he was able just to call the all in. If 9 (BTN) would had made a raise but without going all in, player 3 (UTG) would had the possibility to re-raise.

#6 raise already overridden by the all-in, so actions after will only be to respond to the all-in.

Cartwright865 said:

I have a question about short raises and action afterward. In my home game, 5/5, seats 1/2 are in the blind, 3/4/5 call and seat 6 makes a $30 raise to $35. 7/8 fold and 9 goes all in for $60. Dealer calls, 1 calls, 2 folds. Here's the question...3 wants to re-raise the original raise from #6. The consensus was he had already had a chance at action and just called the $5, so was only allowed to call the all-in. His argument was he should have been able to re-raise the $35 bet since that was action after his original call. Who's right? Thanks for any insight or help.

Click to expand...

In short, He is,
The action is never over until the players have finished raising and re-raising, he may have been laying a trap by only calling the initial bet hoping that someone would raise on him, especially if he was holding a huge pocket pair.
if he felt at risk from another player calling the initial all-in, there is a strong possibility he could still win chips if the initial all-in player won the main pot and he came 2nd and won the side pot.
It is called strategy, and it is better to have AA against one player rather than two, but either way he would be still be favourite to win some chips if not all of them.

If he has stack to do a bigger bet than the all in,he can raise,i believe thats correct
God bless

From my understanding, since his call was raised he has every right to raise it up again when the action gets back to him.

He can re-raise ,he needs to put 55$ more in the pot when he already put only 5$ .

I had put a question mark because someone put up a nonsensical answer that didn't have anything to do with the question. They erased it and now it looks like I am talking to myself in the first few posts.

Bricxjo said:

I had put a question mark because someone put up a nonsensical answer that didn't have anything to do with the question. They erased it and now it looks like I am talking to myself in the first few posts.

Click to expand...

that will probably be cleaned up.

Seat 3 can fold, call the $60 or re-raise. We do not get to pick and choose which of several raises we want to call. We have to fold, call, or raise the highest bet on the table, and the highest bet is no longer $35, it is $60.

I think, the confusion here was, that the 60$ all-in did not reopen the betting after the raise from 5$ to 35$. To make a socalled "legal raise", you need to raise at least the same amount as the previous raise or bet. In this case the previous raise was 35-5 = 30$, so a "legal raise" would have to be to at least 35+30 = 65$. However if a player dont have that much, its still allowed to go all-in, but this does then not reopen the betting for other players.

If for instance it folds to BTN, who make a raise to 30$, SB call the raise, and BB jam for his ramaining 47$, then BTN and SB are only left with the option to put in another 17$ to see a flop or fold their hand. Even if they both have 500$ behind, the preflop betting round is over. But that does not apply to this situation, because 3 players had just called the 5$ (limped). For these players the raise to 35$ had already reopened the betting, and they should have been allowed to raise, when the action came back to them.