Sub97

We have started a regular poker night recently. Great laugh usually. However, after a few drinks on Saturday night we ended up in a slightly heated arguement..

We play Texas Hold Em (I should say none of us are gambling experts and we have only played 6 or 7 times so far). We have a 30 quid buy in, we all get the same amount of chips obviously, and then the top three finishers get some cash back.

The problem on Saturday was this, on the second round of betting on one hand, one guy went all in, for arguements sake, lets say he had 1000 dollars worth of chips. Two others matched him. One of the two then raised it another 500 dollars and this was matched by the third guy. So we had one guy all in on 1000, which two others had matched, and the other two with a side pot of 500 dollars each.

Now, the guy who went all in won the hand, so won back his 1000 and 2000 from the other two. But this is where the arguements started. What should have happened to the remaining 1000 dollars? The way I see it, there are three options:

1 - The 1000 dollards remains in the pot for the next hand as you can only have one winning hand per round. The arguement against this is the money has nothing to do with the following hand, so why does it stay in the pot.

2 - The side pot goes to the best hand between the two players that bet on it. The arguement against this is like I said above, only one hand can win per round. (This is actually what we ended up doing though).

3 - Once someone has gone all in, you cant raise after that. We didn't actually think of this on Saturday, but someone at work says thats how they play. This doesnt seem fair to me though, as if you have a cracking hand, and someone goes all in on next to nothing, why should you be penalised?

If anyone could shed any light on the correct answer, it would be much appreciated.

Cheers

Steve

JerryTerzo

I think the side pot is then like a bet between the two players who re-raised, the winner of this side pot takes the money regardless of the main pot.

I think.

speedymonkey

Surly the two players that had the side bet would split the pot between them, as the strongest hand wins the main pot (obviously) and then the side pot is divided between the other two, it dosnt come down to who has the better hand 2nd time round.

Only the best hand wins, not then the second or third if you get what i mean.
Pokers is a great game, ive been playing for years online and at a mates every teusday, and there have been a few arguements over the years, we even have an electronic card shuffler proper table and chips, its helps get the heart going

hail-hail

#2 is correct, if a player goes all in and two other players match this, the money is taken off to the side (£3k) and the remaining players play on raising and betting as normal.
The two players then complete the hand with the winner taking the money.
The winning hand is then compared to the all in players hand and the winner gets the £3k.

There could in theory be two winninghands, and this is fine.

LG John

The answer is Number 2 - in poker there can be times where there are even more than 2 winning hands taking down sub-pots!

Rules can vary a little from place to place but the above is always what happens. One variance however is that the bet was 1000 and then another player re-raised allin for 500 more. In some places this is seen as an under-raise and that player would have had to have waited until the next betting round to make that raise. This is pretty rare though and I hate that rule personally.

Sub97

Great, thanks very much guys. So we were right in what we ended up with.

Basically half of us thought this, and the other half were thinking what speedmonkey does - that there can only be one winning hand.

Cheers.

Sub97

Ah, just thought of another problem we had - sorry!!

We play blinds in our version, i.e. first person dealt to each time has to put a small blind in, second person has to put the big blind in. We start at 1 dollar and 2 dollars for the blinds, doubling that every 10 hands. We've found it is a good way to ensure the game is eventually wrapped up!

Anyway, it got to 1000 dollars for the big blind and just three of us left. The guy who had to put the big blind in didn't have it, he only had around 850 left. The majority of us felt that if you didn't have enough for the blind then you are out, as that is effectively the buy in to that hand. He argued that if he had have known that he didn't have 1000 he would have gone all in on the hand before, but we said it wasn't our job to count his chips. We felt a bit **** as it was a poor way for him to go out, but surely that is the right rules? He said we should just have to match his amount for the blind - same as an all in. But not many of us thought this was right....

Hanley

Sub97

I think you guys need to read up on the rules before doing a home game

If you don't have enough chips to match the big blind then you're automatically 'All-In' and you'll end up with the side pot situation again.

EBRWRX

For a regular poker school involving money would it be useful for you all to read and agree the rules beforehand in future. As far as I'm concerned he was all-in with what he had left. That may not be the "rules", but that's the rules as my entourage agree and play them.

Hanley

I beleive that is the rules

Sub97

It probably would do us well to read the rules

Half of us have never played before and half of us have. So we just started off by going along with whatever the "experienced" players said on the whole...

Do you know of any decent web sites with a quick run through of the basics please?

I'll give Google a go too.

Thanks for all the replies by the way

GazTheHat

#2 is correct in your first post; The side pot will be won by the winning hand of side-pot betting players.

£30 buy-in. I'm coming round your house!

We play a league every saturday night, religiously, for about 2 years now.

One thing i have found that works well, is a digital timer. I got mine from Argos for £7. That way we double the blinds every 15 mins. You don't have to keep track of the number of hands. (which would be easily done in our games)

As for your second post; Poor bloke, he's not out. He is considered "all-in" and a side-pot is created for the amount he has.

Here's a great website and you'll learn everything you need to know to host a poker tournament/league:
http://www.homepokertourney.com/

(oh, and plug-plug, if you're after a nice table to host it on, let me know.... as we make them! )

dharbige

In this situation, the player on BB would be All-In with his 850. Other players would have to call 850 to stay in the hand. Player on SB would still have to bet 500 (blind), plus 350 to call (plus any other bets).

To extend the scenario, if BB had less than SB, other players would have to call SB to stay in.
If both SB and BB had insufficient chips to make their blinds, they would BOTH be All-In, and other players would have to call the larger of the blind bets to stay in.

In general: If you have chips, you can ALWAYS play in the hand, but you can only win the same number of chips off other players as you have bet. (Hope this makes sense).

Sub97

Yes thanks thats great.

Thanks for the link too Gaz.

The Snug Rhino

dont confuse the hobby players

LG John

He, he If anyone reading this thread is unsure then you should give online poker a try as you'll quickly learn the structures and what-beats-what. Most online poker rooms will allow you to play for fun (although this is NOT representative of real money play) and you can also play for mirco amounts with blinds of 1c/2c

Sub97

I seem to recall you were doing quite well at this last year mate - making around 500-600 quid a month on it if I remember rightly - probably not though knowing me! Are you still doing that?

LG John

Yeah that would be me My earning rate has never been quite sustained at that level as I'd keep on cashing in my bankroll to go towards things (cars, holidays, etc) and I wasn't putting in the hours I should have. Recently though I've sorted myself such that I don't touch my bankroll and now I'm slowly building it and building it.

Sub97

Nice one

I have done alright at our friendly game, so may well have a go at it online.

2000TLondon

I've started playing Hold 'Em with a group of Houstonians every month, can't get more authentic than that! I'm on my sixth tournament, and I have reached the top table on 4 occasions, fifth place being my highest, which out of thirty to thirty five experienced players is pretty good, I feel. The pots are quite valuable too, as each player can put in up to $100 each.

Even though a few of the players have been on "tours" and the majorty are experienced, there are still issues and debates that have to be settled each week!

Sub97

Cool - so we're not the only ones that argue then!

2000TLondon

Three dozen men, 85% humidity outside, hundreds of bottles of beer, several thousand dollars in cash, there will always been an argument or two!