Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:28 pm GMT by Holtzdog
2 players left. Before the flop, player with most chips goes all-in. Second player goes all-in. Second player gets the highest hand. Does he win all the chips?? or does he only win the amount he put in?? 
Now....here is how I feel about it. If 2 players are left and the player with the least amount goes all-in first, then the other player just has to call the first players amount.
If the player with the most chips goes all-in first, and the second player calls, and draws the high hand, he should win all the chips.
I would like to know if there are any written rules that cover this in any poker books??? 
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:32 pm GMT by ballbp
You have it right. A player cannot win more than he puts in the pot. So if the player with the least amount of chips wins then he doubles up but doesn't take all the other guys chips.
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:11 pm GMT by Always_Bored
| Holtzdog wrote: |
If the player with the most chips goes all-in first, and the second player calls, and draws the high hand, he should win all the chips. |
That is wrong. Doesnt matter who calls the all in. If you have more chips or not. You cannot win more money than what you bet. If you only have 100 and there is one other player and he has 1 million trillion dollars you can only double up and get at max 200 (your original hundred plus a hundred off him) It has no bearing on who calls the all in first. Why would i call all in if you only have 100 chips and i have 300. i wouldnt put 3 chips into the pot for every 1 you put in.
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:18 pm GMT by ballbp
Right Always Bored, that part he's definitely wrong on. I was referring to the part about his friend being wrong about the short stack taking down the other guys chips if he won the hand. It makes no difference who put who all-in.
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:35 pm GMT by Always_Bored
http://www.homepokertourney.com/allin_examples.htm
here is something in writing
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:47 pm GMT by Holtzdog
I thank you. You are the first in over a week to supply the info I was looking for.
I now accept that I am wrong in the world of poker.
Just out of curiosity.....what would your answer be for the car race??? Do you think that was a good analogy?
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:55 pm GMT by Always_Bored
| Holtzdog wrote: | I thank you. You are the first in over a week to supply the info I was looking for.
I now accept that I am wrong in the world of poker.
Just out of curiosity.....what would your answer be for the car race??? Do you think that was a good analogy? |
for those who dont know what he is talking about with the car. This is the PM he sent me...
| Holtzdog wrote: | The way I see it is like this: I bet you a million against your 500,000 that my car will beat your car in a race.....if my car looses the race you are saying you will only take half my money that I bet???
Just look at this as a bet of my cards will beat yours...... |
I dont think thats a good analogy because if i only have 500,000 that is what the bet should be. If you say hey ill bet you a million that The Flyers will beat the Leafs. I say that i would like to bet but i dont have a million how about 500,000 because thats all i got. I see where your coming from and i dont mean to offend you but in poker thats the way it works.
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:16 pm GMT by Holtzdog
You aren't offending me.....I was just offering "food for thought"
You did change the bet I made to you.....I didn't say I would bet you a million I said I am betting you a million to your 500,000(because that is all you have) because I am really sure that my car will beat yours, and I accept the fact that I would loose my million if I lost, and only gain 500,000 if I win, because that is the bet I proposed to you. .....not the one you suggested......
As I said.......I do concede to the way it is done in Texas Holdem.
Thanks again.
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:37 pm GMT by MasterShake
You mean like horse racing where you have, say, 3 to 1 odds. If your horse wins, a $50 bet gets you $150 back, your $50 plus $100.
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:20 pm GMT by Holtzdog
Kind of....
I understand HOW IT IS in poker I just think it should be different.
If a Guy goes all-in, to me, he is betting all he has , against whatever I have, that his hand is or will be the best . I guess I just think as a real Gambler would.....
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:29 pm GMT by K-rug
With poker it is all 1 to 1 and the big thing is that you are not playing against the house. Meaning, if you lose, the house doesn't win your money. That's a huge point to understand. You are playing against other players. It's also not like betting on a sporting event taking the money line because the bookie legal or not takes 10% (most of them do anyway).
In your analogy, if you lost, would you really give up a million even though the guy only posted 500,000? If so, damn you are bigger person than me. That or very sure of himself which would have just cost you an extra 500,000.
Also if a person goes all in short stacked against an all in with more chips the person can only the amount that they bet. In your analogy, if I bet $20 pre-flop and everyone folded but one guy. That guy should be able to bet $10 and win my $20 if I lost. If that was the case, hell, I'd bet $1 each and every time. You can only win as much as you bet. Period. Unless the house is doing something stupid like a club flush on St. Patty's Day pays bonus. It goes against the very logic of poker.
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:23 pm GMT by Holtzdog
Then you should lose as much as you bet also!!!
The answer to your question: If I had made that bet and lost....yes, I would pay. Otherwise I'd be a sore loser. and not an honerable person.
Lastly, Poker is not new to me.....Texas Holdem is....Why would a person with the most money go all-in if he didnt expect to lose ALL his money if he lost?? Why wouldnt he just ask the other guy(this was a 2 person question to begin with) how much he had and just bet that? Now that is the simple concept!!
I guess the FOOD FOR THOUGHT is getting some attention.....
Posted Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:52 pm GMT by Always_Bored
Ok lets change the way poker is played then. Its no longer even.
Posted Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:17 am GMT by K-rug
The simple answer is hold'em poker pays 1 to 1. You can't win more than you bet. It's that simple. Now you can change the way your home game works. The poker police won't come after you or anything. You can only wager the total amount of money you have and only win the amount you wager.
Horse, meet stick. Stick, meet dead horse. If you play in any normal hold'em tournament, that is not one you are hosting where you can make up your own rules, or go to play in any casino, these are the rules.
I think the San Francisco Giants should only get .5 points for every home run because Barry Bonds set the home run record. Life's not fair. But there are rules. Any time you want to wager twice the amount I put up and still intend to pay if you lose, gimmie a call. Because that's just foolish.
In fact, I'm thinking of a number. What is it?
Posted Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:56 pm GMT by Holtzdog
I only make that kind of bet when I KNOW I will WIN.
I'll bet you a million of my money to only 100 of yours you can't tell me my mothers maiden name......
I know there are rules....the British had them over the colonists but they got changed!! Nothing is impossible......more food for thought.
Posted Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:31 pm GMT by K-rug
I know I said I wouldn't reply.
But I couldn't resist feeding into this. Did you just try compare the British Empire and colonialism resulting in the Revolutionary War to Texas Hold'em? Let me the first to say, bahahahahahahaha.
*ahem*
Unless you have the nuts 100% of the time you go all-in there is no way you can know that you WILL win. You can think you will win. The odss may be in your favor. But I've seen pocket A's get beat by pocket 2's before. That fact of the matter is, unless you are hosting your own game and change the established rules of poker. You cannot win more than you bet. End of story.
Posted Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:25 am GMT by Always_Bored
| K-rug wrote: | | End of story. |
i 100% agree.
Posted Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:12 pm GMT by Holtzdog
Actually the end of the Story, as you put it, was when I agreed that I was WRONG in my second post to this topic.....it was the FOOD FOR THOUGHT that kept this going and you guys bought right into it......NOW IT'S THE END>
Posted Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:40 pm GMT by Dave B
I know you want to move on, but just to simply answer one of your questions.
I am the 1st to act and I have $700. I go all in. Some players have $2000, others only have $500, $400, $200. I cant go only as much as my opponent has, since I dont know who will call.
Also-if they act 1st and go all in w/ less than I have why would I go all in? It speeds the game up. If I win, it just get all of his and we dont need to count the chips. If he wins, then we need to count his up to determine how much he won. If it is a tie, then we can each pull our final bets back and split the pot.
|
|
