Posted Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:49 am GMT by jibsta5
if i have more than half my opponents chips and i get dealt 2 aces and i want to end the game and go "all in" and my opponent does as well; if he ends up winning do i lose all my chips or do i just lose the amount that matches what he put in?
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 Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:33 am GMT by ballbp
You would only lose the amount he put in.
Posted Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:43 am GMT by jibsta5
so what you are saying is if i have more chips than my opponent and i go all in, if i lose i only lose the amount that he has and get to keep the rest of my chips, not lose them all to him?
Posted Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:49 am GMT by ballbp
Correct. He then doubles up and if you had half of his chips as you said, you're then back to even.
Posted Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:01 pm GMT by jibsta5
thanks a lot, is there any website or anything that you know of that can prove this because it is to settle a arguement with one of my buddies? it is just my word against his right now.
Posted Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:06 pm GMT by ballbp
I don't know of any sites off the top of my head but I'm sure if you look you'll find some. I would say that this forum is the best way to prove it. There are a lot of really good players that post here and they will read this and post. You could ask it as a general poker question and get responses too.
Posted Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:44 pm GMT by Dave B
it is a given-you CAN NOT lose more money than another has. That is why if you have a big stack you can push people around by going all in. You would NEVER see a player with the biggest stack go all in if this wasnt the case-and it happens all the time.
If someone honestly believes that a player with one chip can go all in and take down an entire pot, then they might be one of the dumbest people in the world.
Posted Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:35 pm GMT by golddog
More to the point, I think, your opponent cannot win more than (s)he can bet.
Thus, they would double up if they cracked your Aces, and you would still have the remainder of your stack.
Posted Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:12 pm GMT by SillyPuppy
In addition, there can be this situation:
Alice: T100
Bob: T200
Claude: T150
Claude goes all in, and Alice and Bob call, the "Main Pot" will have T300, (T100 from A,B, and C), and a side pot will be established for T100 (T50 from each of Claude and Bob). At the end of the hand, the side pot will go to the better hand between Bob and Claude, and the main pot will go to the best hand between A,B, and C.
There can actually be numerous side pots, although I've yet to see more than one in any games I've been involved in.
Posted Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:27 pm GMT by graniteguy
I have a game once a month that 25+ people attend. We play only one hand wins. If the lowest chip person wins the hand, the side bets are given back to the players.
Is this unheard of? I think of a side bet as a separate bet. If it is a separate bet, than a person should have a choice. What if my money is in the "all in", but I choose not to participate in the side bet. Can you fold one, but not the other? I have been pondering this for several weeks and any reply would be appreciated.
Posted Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:40 pm GMT by Dave B
that seems like a pretty silly way of doing things.
Think of it this way....i have AA w/ $200, some dude has 34 w/ on a big blind w/ only $5 left. I go all in, BB calls w/ $5 and the 2 others w/ $75 and $100. Flop is 3 4 9. Turn is J and river K. $5 dude wins $20 and the rest take their money back???? That aint poker.
If you contribute to a pot, that money is IN THE POT. You dont get it back if you lose the hand.
Posted Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:59 pm GMT by ballbp
Dave
Our games are looking like they're about to turn into no-limit as well and I wanted to know the answer to the second question he asked. The one about If you're in the main pot and someone else wants to start a side pot. Can you play the main pot and opt not to play the side pot?
Posted Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:04 pm GMT by Dave B
Absolutely not. That would be like choosing to not bet on the river in a limit game because you think that you might be beat.
If someone w/ a short stack goes all in, you call, and someone behind you goes all in w/ more chips than you have....that is the fun of NL poker. You need to go all in yourself to call or fold-no other options can be available.
That is NL poker....if people dont like that, then stick to pot limit or limit.
Posted Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:08 pm GMT by ballbp
No I agree with you. When you push in all your chips you do just that. I just wanted to make sure before it came up when there was money on the table. Like I've said before, things get really touchy really fast when someone has their money on the table and they swear they're right. Thanks man.
Posted Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:45 pm GMT by graniteguy
| Dave B wrote: | that seems like a pretty silly way of doing things.
|
The first time we played- If an all in was called, all betting stopped. You called or folded to the all in. Even if the guy only had $5. This was silly if not outright stupid. We evolved to how we have it now. We now need to evolve with the side bets, which will be done on the next game.
Thanks for the info.
Posted Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:46 pm GMT by callon
"If someone w/ a short stack goes all in, you call, and someone behind you goes all in w/ more chips than you have....that is the fun of NL poker. You need to go all in yourself to call or fold-no other options can be available. "
I just posted a question about this in the beginner section. And frankly I still strongly disagree with this rule. Maybe someone could explain the logic better, but in my opinion it gives the short stack person an unfair advantage. If they go all in, then they get to stay in the game regardless of what else happens. Now let's say everyone calls. In the next round of betting, another player places a side bet. Now to stay in, everyone else has to call the side bet EXCEPT of course the person who went all in. He gets to stay in without it, though obviously he can't win any side bet money.
So now if anyone folds for not meeting the side bet, the guy who's all in has a chance to win their money that's already in the pot without ever having to put up the extra bet that they had to. If that's not clear, I have an example spelled out on the beginner board. My point is that there's no way in hell all in boy should be able to win ANY of my money if he didn't have to make the same bet to stay in that I was faced with. Suppose that if I only had to bet what he did to stay in, I would have and would have beat him. Instead I fold to a side bet and he wins the main pot.
I don't know if there's a better solution out there, but personally I think this rule is flawed for the above reason.
Posted Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:48 am GMT by Dave B
That is why I hate it when people bluff in a side pot. Unless you have the cards to put the all in player out, just call to the river. Dont bluff people off of the 1st pot.
But hey, that is the rules and that is the ONLY way to play. Unfair advantage for the player all in? He can only win what he puts in, no more. It is never an advantage to be short stacked all in against multiple players. You are hanging on for your life!
Posted Mon Feb 09, 2004 3:29 pm GMT by saper88aa
You hit the nail on the head Dave. 
Posted Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:03 pm GMT by Sente
I'll give you a counter-example that show the disadvantage of being short stacked. This was a hand I played a couple of weeks ago.
I'm playing .25/.50 PL (PL50) and some guy is down to $1.25 (yeah, the type that brings $10 to the table instead of $50). He goes all-in UTG for $1.25. With nothing else to back up his bet, his raise got absolutely no respect. People may not even be giving him credit for a hand as they are figuring he is just "gambling" with the last of his stack.
There ended up being a few callers (3 or 4). I was sitting in the BB with Q9s and decided to call for .75.
Flop was a bunch of rags and rainbow to boot. No help for anyone and it got checked around. Then a miracle occured: turn is a 9, river is a 9. I bet and got one caller and won with my trip 9's.
The original bettor? He had pocket cowboys and with no improvement lost to my trip 9's.
If this guy had a real stack in front of him, he could have bet after the flop and nailed down the pot right there for a $5 or $6 profit. Instead, everyone got to sit back and get cards for free. With a few people in the pot, there was a very good chance of someone sucking out on him. In this case it was me and you bet I would have most certainly folded after a post flop bet.
Back to the topic. It may seem unfair that a player who is All-In benefits if other people fold after he is All-In but before the showdown. Let's say, Player A is All-In and Player B continues to bet. It may seem to be to Player A's advantage if other people are folding. However, if their hands are worse than Player B's, it is of no help to Player A anyhow, he must beat the best hand out there.
The one time it is an advantage to be short stocked and All-In with when Player C has a hand that would beat Player A and Player B doesn't and Player B bets like crazy and drives Player C out of the pot, thus clearing the way for Player A to win. It is up to the players to be smart enough not to let this happen and take away the only advantage that A has. Usually the players will just check (remember what I said before about free cards?) unless someone has a great hand that they are confident that will beat Player A's hand and everyone else's.
Posted Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:25 pm GMT by nicthestick
i love being in position with a small allin stack to my left, and a bunch of raisers and callers. If i have any kind of stack, I will then move allin to pick up the raises and calls.I may lose to the 1st all in player, but the bets picked up more than cover the losses. An example.......
Player A moves in for 200 TC
player B raises to 400
player c calls
player d calls.
I reraise all in to ?????? I pick up 600 in TC while losing the original 200 bet.
This play is extremely effective late in tournaments, when people are watching their stacks very closely.
Posted Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:08 am GMT by Dave B
Another angle to look at is if you are the big or 2nd biggest stack w/ 4 players remaining. The 2 small will be extremely reluctant to go all in or call a big bet. They are more concerned about being in the money versus playing their cards. Easy pickens to grab some big blinds and leave them on life support even if they do get in the money.
Posted Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:01 pm GMT by BeerWench13
"And frankly I still strongly disagree with this rule. Maybe someone could explain the logic better, but in my opinion it gives the short stack person an unfair advantage."
Actually they're at a disadvantage if you really think about it. They're all-in! If they lose, they're done. The only way it is advantageous to them is if you let someone bet you out with a side bet increasing their odds of winning. Basically, they have their hand and that's all they have. If they win, then they only win what they put in. However, if they lose then one of the players who has made the side bet now not only wins the main pot, but the side pot too. The only ones who have the advantage are those that are not all-in. They can raise (such as what happened to you in your other post) and increase their odds of winning the entire pot. If you called/raised the side bet then even if you lose to the player that's all-in, you can still win the side pot from the player(s) who have raised/called the side bet. The all-iner cannot take more from the pot that what he/she has put into it. This leaves the side pot (and possilby the main pot) open for all other players but him/her.
Posted Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:30 pm GMT by saper88aa
Going all in is the best part of no limit Hold'em. You feel so kind of weird sensation deep inside yourself.
Its kinda funny :D
Posted Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:46 pm GMT by blue eyes
callon, do not forget that although you may get a shot at the pot if you were short stacked without worrying about being bluffed out or whatever, you never want to be shortstacked, otherwise, if it was such an advantage, everyone would try to lose money all night. It makes no sense. That is why the rules are the way they are, what if you end up with a royal flush and you were all in for your 2 dollars, now you can't make more money with that hand. The advantage of being all in for a pot with a chance to get to the river for free is just a side effect of a logical a fair rule.
Posted Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:00 pm GMT by Holtzdog
I disagree....when there are only 2 players left and the 1 with the most money goes all-in first the other guy calls it then is just a showdown and the player with the highest hand should win.
I do agree that if the player with the least amount goes all-in first then the guy with the most money would only have to call the amount the 1st player had.
Is there anyone who can really confirm this???
Posted Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:51 pm GMT by Always_Bored
| Holtzdog wrote: | I disagree....when there are only 2 players left and the 1 with the most money goes all-in first the other guy calls it then is just a showdown and the player with the highest hand should win.
I do agree that if the player with the least amount goes all-in first then the guy with the most money would only have to call the amount the 1st player had.
Is there anyone who can really confirm this??? |
If i am reading this right then that is retarded. Its a simple rule. "You cannot win more money than you put in"
Posted Mon May 17, 2004 3:05 pm GMT by Underbelly
Look, it's very simple and not in anyway unfair. If a short stacked player goes all-in, the beating is over for him. How can it be an advantage?
He is going all-in and the only thing that can keep him in the game is having the best hand of all the players that stayed in to the end. He still needs the best hand! If you want to only bet the main pot, you figuring you don't have the best hand, therefor you have no business to be in the hand. If you have the best hand, you would bet to the river!
Sorry for saying this but you logic is just stupid and if you believe that, you have no business at a poker table!
Remember, all the other players have the advantage of being able to fold and get out of the hand whenever they want to.
The whole point in poker is to have the best hand! Thats it! No question! Simple! The short stake still needs the best hand!
Posted Mon May 17, 2004 3:11 pm GMT by Underbelly
and as for betting in Texas Hold'em, you can never win more money then you bet. NEVER! Otherwise 1 chip could will all the chips under the right conditions.
But simply, it works like this. If there was only 2 people at the table, the chip leader would have to constantly count the short stakes chips and instead of going all in, just bet the amount of the short stack. The results would be the same.
See, if the short stack goes all-in, he is just betting the chips he has. Why as the chip leader would I go all in? I just need to match his bet, right?
It's just a lot easier to let both go all in.
Posted Mon May 24, 2004 12:55 pm GMT by Jauron
| Holtzdog wrote: | I disagree....when there are only 2 players left and the 1 with the most money goes all-in first the other guy calls it then is just a showdown and the player with the highest hand should win.
I do agree that if the player with the least amount goes all-in first then the guy with the most money would only have to call the amount the 1st player had.
Is there anyone who can really confirm this??? |
All you ever win is the pot, and since you match the bet by the other player in an all in you can never lose more than that.
I can't beleive we have people who are arguing this. Where do you play poker? This isn't a regional thing, this is cold hard fact. Your thinking of the old cowboy movies where a guy has to put up the deed to his house to call, never happens in a real game. You can only lose what you are willing to put in the pot and whats more if you put it all in there, you can only loose what another guy can call.
Posted Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:56 pm GMT by snoogins47
Side pots do seem like the only logical way to do it
Makes for some interesting strategic options as well.
Man, it'd be kinda fun to play like the old cowboy movies where if you couldn't call a bet, you'd be forced to fold. I'd make sure to sit at a NL table for days on end. $50 buy in? As soon as you take a sizeable pot, you own the table. Every single pot: All-in, oops you can't call, thanks for the money.
But anyway, your question has already been answered, I just wanted to chime in with that ;P
Posted Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:29 am GMT by nicthestick
I bet.......One Million Dollars!!!!!!!
Posted Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:37 pm GMT by [psyonix]
| Dave B wrote: | That is why I hate it when people bluff in a side pot. Unless you have the cards to put the all in player out, just call to the river. Dont bluff people off of the 1st pot.
But hey, that is the rules and that is the ONLY way to play. Unfair advantage for the player all in? He can only win what he puts in, no more. It is never an advantage to be short stacked all in against multiple players. You are hanging on for your life! |
I actually enjoy bluffing others out of the side pot, that way I can scoop up what the shortstack doesn't win.
|
|
