So I went camping this last weekend and we (about 7 of us) got playing a hold 'em tournament. Now, nobody in my group is an expert (by any means) and it’s mainly just for fun.
A situation came up repeatedly and I’ve never heard of it before (and I seemed to be the only one who got screwed- repeatedly - on it :mad: )
Here it is:
3 players are still in, each with a varying amount of chips.
Player 1 - small number of chips
Player 2 - medium number of chips
Player 3 - large number (more than the other 2 combined) of chips.
So player 1 goes all in on the turn, as he got little choice at this point but to go for broke. Player 2 and 3 match, since even if they lose, it’s not a big loss to them. At this point some others talk about the “side bet” that the 2 players who have excess chips can make above and beyond what they need to cover the low man’s “all-in” The effect is essentially that the high man can force the middle guy to play two hands or drop out of playing the low guy as well if he doesn’t want to.
Is this how the game is played for real? I’ve never seen it when I’ve watched on TV. I thought as soon as someone goes all-in, all betting is done and you just wait for the cards to fall. Everyone was saying that “That’s how they play at the WSOP”, but I disagreed.
Did I mention I got screwed on this - several times :mad: :mad: :mad:
If someone goes all in and two or more other players are still in, then a side pot continues, that only they can get (not the all in player). You could even have more than two pots I think in extreme situations.
Thats how its always worked in online poker, and the poker I’ve seen on tv (except home game poker on tv).
I’m not an expert either, but I believe they’re right. The betting is only over once one player goes “all in” if the action is head to head. I know I’ve seen this on TV, but I can’t think of an example right now. But browsing some rules sites seems to confirm this. For example, from this site:
That is how it’s played. A side pot is created. If the person with the low chip count goes all in, but cannot match the bet, he will double up. Anything beyond that “all in” bet is a side bet between the other two (or however many) bettors.
This is the central question here and I don’t think it’s been answered yet. I don’t know the answer for sure, but here is an example:
The low man goes all in on the flop for $500.
The middle man and high man both call.
NOW, the middle man and high man can form a side bet. Understood.
The question is, how does the betting on the side bet work?
Let’s say, the high man bets $200 on the turn and the middle man calls. Then the high man bets $300 on the river and the middle man doesn’t want to match. Is he only “folding” the side bet, or is the middle man also folding out of the main pot where the low man went all in?
I’d guess that when the middle man folds, he’s out of the whole hand, not just the side pot.
Does anyone know for sure?
(of course, the middle man can go all in on the side pot if he desires)
He’s out. If he folds, he loses whatever chips he has already in the pot. That’s why you have to decide, pretty much on the turn, how much of your chip stack you’re willing to commit. If you’re in for $800, and you will only have $200 left on the river, you’re pretty much pot committed. If you’ll still have half or over of your original stack, then you have a bit more leverage.
Related question to the OP which has now been answered.
I’ve seen people suggest that any bets into a sidepot should be ‘real’ bets (ie it is not considered ethical to bluff into a sidepot in order to force someone else out). This seemed a little strange to me at the time, and is something that I have seen done on online games.
Does anyone have any more on this, is it a widely held view?
If there is already a side pot, there is absolutley no reason not to do whatever it takes to win it. Bluff, slow play, check-raise…whatever. that is money you want to add to your stack and the all-in player has no claim to it, so you might as well do what you can to get it.
I think what you may be talking about is the case where there is no side pot, and betting agains the other action players would create one. In this case, many players choose to check down to the river. Think about it…in tournament poker, you want other players to bust out. If there are two (or three) hands still standing against the all-in player, there is more of a chance one of you will put him out. So, if you bet a bluff and the other player folds, you haven’t really accomplished anything anyway because if you can’t beat the all-in player you wind up with nothing anyway.
However. If you have a strong hand and feel like the other action player will chase, there is nothing wrong with trying to create a side pot that you hope to collect.
I have found lots of players touchy about this. Recently in a tournament I was criticised for raising the first caller when a particularly annoying player was all in. The tone of things was “you better have what you’re betting”. As it was I had AA and had waited a long time since I had played a hand. It kind of seemed obvious to me that I couldn’t be bluffing the all in player and therefore had to have what I was representing. I was hoping for another call.
Some players do get touchy about it. I happen to be one. “Buying” a pot just to see if you can throws off people’s strategy. I tend to think if someone is willing to go all in, they have what it takes to win. Either that, or they’ve read me well enough to know when to bluff me. But I wouldn’t make that remark to anyone, and I’m sure the person that did was probably a leetle on tilt from seeing everyone raise 3 or 4 times before even seeing a flop. It gets old, and I’ve complained about it more than once on this board.
I’ve only had one person get huffy about my betting up the side pot, but he’s a hothead who stunts at the table (goes all in by leaping to his feet and throwing down his sunglasses, trash talks constantly, etc.) so I’m not too worried about it and take great delight in putting him on tilt by pushing chips around when he doesn’t want me to. At a ring game if you have a strong hand there is no reason at all not to bet it in this situation. Early in a tournament I don’t have a problem at all with betting someone out to isolate the all in player, whether it’s me doing it or not. Later in the tournament as we’re getting closer to the money I’ll be more hesitant about doing it but if I have the nuts I’m going to bet it whether the other guy likes it or not. I’m not in it to make money for him; if I can take out two players, or take out one and cripple another, I’ll do it without hesitation or remorse.
I’m hardly buying a pot with pocket aces. Someone goes all in in early position, you see it in middle position and I raise behind you. I’m not buying the pot I want you to shovel chips in.
But that is not always the case. As you know, there are those times in tournament poker where an all-in is a reflection of a short stack, not a strong hand or a bluff. Let’s say I get blinded out of half my stack and end up with a Q-9. I pretty much have to go all-in with that and take my chances.
If there is already a side pot, I could not fault another player with a strong hand from trying to grab it. After all, his bets don’t affect me at all. That’s chips out there for the takin’ and I see no reason for the active players not to use whatever strategy they want to try to get the side pot.
If, as I mentioned in my previous post, there is no side pot then likely the best thing is for the remaining players to check down to the river to make it a better chance to put me out. But even so, I can’t really fault the aggressive player from betting a strong hand, especially if the table is full of chasers and the strong player is a little steamed. That’s a good way to ‘even the score’ against a chaser or two.
divemaster, yes, absolutely, and heads up even more so. Not like you can wait for the nuts to come around.
I’ve barely gotten my feet wet with tournament play, I pretty much stick to cash games. Tournaments have a different strategy, and I’m still learning to adjust my game for that.
