Tourney How would you rule this? (2 Viewers)

S

Steverino

Pair
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
171
Reaction score
112
Location
LeRoy,NY
At our monthly tournament we had a disagreement on this hand. Blinds are at 500/1000. Everyone folds to the button who goes all in but only has 300 in chips. Small blind folds and of course big blind checks. Button wins the hand and says he should win both blinds plus his 300 (1800). I disagree and say he cannot win more than he had in chips, in this case 900. House is called over and agrees with me.
Who is right-the button or the house?
 
Perthmike said:
Lol at the button. Has he never heard of a sidepot.
Click to expand...
That's the weird part. I asked what would happen if the whole table called and he said that would create a side pot. But since the blinds were forced in the pot, then he should be able to win the blinds. He actually had another guy who agreed with him and claimed that this is the way it's played at Del Lago casino. I've played a lot of poker in a lot of casinos and never heard of such a thing.
 
Steverino said:
That's the weird part. I asked what would happen if the whole table called and he said that would create a side pot. But since the blinds were forced in the pot, then he should be able to win the blinds. He actually had another guy who agreed with him and claimed that this is the way it's played at Del Lago casino. I've played a lot of poker in a lot of casinos and never heard of such a thing.
Click to expand...

This is only true if he talking about ANTE and not Blinds, I had a feeling the Del Lago Casino references have to do with Ante and not the blind.
 
LeLe said:
This is only true if he talking about ANTE and not Blinds, I had a feeling the Del Lago Casino references have to do with Ante and not the blind.
Click to expand...
this was my thought as well, he may think that blinds are an ante?
 
Steverino said:
At our monthly tournament we had a disagreement on this hand. Blinds are at 500/1000. Everyone folds to the button who goes all in but only has 300 in chips. Small blind folds and of course big blind checks. Button wins the hand and says he should win both blinds plus his 300 (1800). I disagree and say he cannot win more than he had in chips, in this case 900. House is called over and agrees with me.
Who is right-the button or the house?
Click to expand...

Button wins 300 from SB and BB, BB wins 200 from SB.

In other words before the run out the pots would be as such.

Main Pot:900
Side Pot: 400 (which goes to BB anyway because SB folded, and BB is refunded 500 of the 1000 BB)

If there were an ante, that would be in the main pot as well.
 
He can only win what he has, from each player.

Question regarding the ante part - how would this play if the game had a BB ante? Would it still just be the 900 win (his 300, SB 300, BB 300)? I guess it'd have to be? But that's an interesting change in gameplay - it's a place where a BB ante could make a big difference VS every player tossing in 25 or whatever. Full ring, with standard ante, he'd get 900 + 25 * 9 = 1125, VS BB ante, 900.
 
legonick said:
He can only win what he has, from each player.

Question regarding the ante part - how would this play if the game had a BB ante? Would it still just be the 900 win (his 300, SB 300, BB 300)? I guess it'd have to be? But that's an interesting change in gameplay - it's a place where a BB ante could make a big difference VS every player tossing in 25 or whatever. Full ring, with standard ante, he'd get 900 + 25 * 9 = 1125, VS BB ante, 900.
Click to expand...
Ante are consider part of the Main Pot
 
legonick said:
Question regarding the ante part - how would this play if the game had a BB ante? Would it still just be the 900 win (his 300, SB 300, BB 300)? I guess it'd have to be? But that's an interesting change in gameplay - it's a place where a BB ante could make a big difference VS every player tossing in 25 or whatever. Full ring, with standard ante, he'd get 900 + 25 * 9 = 1125, VS BB ante, 900.
Click to expand...

Uh oh, now we're going to have a war :p.

All players can always win the ante, whether or not it's consolidated. This is more apparent in an individual ante game, but the principle holds true in a consolidated ante game. In the sense of "winning chips from each player" the ante is never considered as being "from a player" even if the ante system has changed so one person posts it per hand.

So to your question, the BB ante belongs to the table once it's posted, anyone can win it. The pots are still formed the same way. The Main pot is 300 per player, a total of 900. The side pot is the other 200 from the SB and BB, for a total of 400, and the BB wins that because the SB did not call the full amount of the BB.

Now in the case of the BB being all in with the BB ante (and this is the source of controversy and many hurt feelings on PCF) the ante is posted first, and the BB after. If the BB does not have enough chips for both, he can win the entire ante, but only as many chips from each other player as he was able to post in the BB. If the BB does not have enough chips for the BB ante, he is eligible only to win the ante.

Again this is how it works in an individual ante game as well, but some people make very angry arguments that it's distasteful that a player can be all in and only able to win the ante. But again, the same player was eligible to win the whole ante in all the previous hands since the last BB without posting the ante, so it's a trade off.

But this case shows exactly why it should be that way. A player has the ability to win the full ante without even having enough chips for the small blind in every hand preceding his turn to post the BBA, so when he has to post the ante for the table, he has to post that first. And besides, it's a pretty simple strategy adjustment. If you are under the amount of the BBA, just move in 100% of the time in your UTG hand. Then you can win the ante, and any action you get on your chips.
 
JustinInMN said:
Uh oh, now we're going to have a war :p.

All players can always win the ante, whether or not it's consolidated. This is more apparent in an individual ante game, but the principle holds true in a consolidated ante game. In the sense of "winning chips from each player" the ante is never considered as being "from a player" even if the ante system has changed so one person posts it per hand.

So to your question, the BB ante belongs to the table once it's posted, anyone can win it. The pots are still formed the same way. The Main pot is 300 per player, a total of 900. The side pot is the other 200 from the SB and BB, for a total of 400, and the BB wins that because the SB did not call the full amount of the BB.

Now in the case of the BB being all in with the BB ante (and this is the source of controversy and many hurt feelings on PCF) the ante is posted first, and the BB after. If the BB does not have enough chips for both, he can win the entire ante, but only as many chips from each other player as he was able to post in the BB. If the BB does not have enough chips for the BB ante, he is eligible only to win the ante.

Again this is how it works in an individual ante game as well, but some people make very angry arguments that it's distasteful that a player can be all in and only able to win the ante. But again, the same player was eligible to win the whole ante in all the previous hands since the last BB without posting the ante, so it's a trade off.

But this case shows exactly why it should be that way. A player has the ability to win the full ante without even having enough chips for the small blind in every hand preceding his turn to post the BBA, so when he has to post the ante for the table, he has to post that first. And besides, it's a pretty simple strategy adjustment. If you are under the amount of the BBA, just move in 100% of the time in your UTG hand. Then you can win the ante, and any action you get on your chips.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

On a side note/down the rabbit hole - why? Let's say a player can't even make ante. Why should (s)he have a right to the antes of others? I know it's in the noise, and if you can't even post an ante it doesn't much matter, but from a "game rules" perspective, it doesn't make much sense.

I've only run STTs with no antes, and this reinforces that, by not having this level of confusion, even though it is pretty minor. Even modern IRL games agree...single antes suck! Too hard to get everyone to throw a chip in. Hence BB antes.
 
In an individual ante cash game, a player who cannot post his ante cannot play. Posting an ante is the price of playing a hand.

I'm not sure what should happen to a player who cannot post his ante in an individual ante tournament game. Since a tournament is an artificial structure, I think you could specify in the rules that the player is out of the tournament (i.e. they're out because they no longer have enough chips to participate in a hand) or that the player can compete for the antes as long as they have at least one chip of the lowest denomination still in play (i.e. they're not out because they haven't lost all of their chips yet). Either rule would still make for a perfectly fair game, since all players in the tournament would be playing by the same rules. The effect on strategy would be minimal in either case.

If you stipulate that the second rule (if you can pay even one chip towards your ante, you can stay in the tournament and contest for all the antes) is reasonable, then a reasonable extension of that to a consolidated BB ante is the rule that if you can pay even one chip towards your BB ante then you can stay in the tournament and contest to win the ante.
 
legonick said:
Agreed.

On a side note/down the rabbit hole - why? Let's say a player can't even make ante. Why should (s)he have a right to the antes of others? I know it's in the noise, and if you can't even post an ante it doesn't much matter, but from a "game rules" perspective, it doesn't make much sense.

I've only run STTs with no antes, and this reinforces that, by not having this level of confusion, even though it is pretty minor. Even modern IRL games agree...single antes suck! Too hard to get everyone to throw a chip in. Hence BB antes.
Click to expand...
In my tourney games, the rule is that the player in the BB has to post the ante first. That ante then essentially becomes 'dead money'. It is not a wager but a fee to play the hand.
  • If the player cannot cover the full BB ante then they will pay the full amount of their stack and no BB, and be all-in.
  • The SB will post and the hand will be dealt.
  • The call amount for all other players at the table will be the amount of the expected BB.
  • The ante will be the main pot and all other chips will go to the side pot (unless there are multiple all-ins in which case additional side pots may be created. But the main pot will always be the amount posted as the ante).
  • If the BB wins, that player wins the antes, then the second best hand will win the first side-pot and so on as per usual.
That player will then have to post the small blind for the next hand. If they don't have enough to cover the small blind then they will post all-in and are eligible for the main pot consisting of the antes and an amount matching their posted blind multiplied by the number of players to enter the pot pre-flop.
 
CrazyEddie said:
In an individual ante cash game, a player who cannot post his ante cannot play. Posting an ante is the price of playing a hand.

I'm not sure what should happen to a player who cannot post his ante in an individual ante tournament game. Since a tournament is an artificial structure, I think you could specify in the rules that the player is out of the tournament (i.e. they're out because they no longer have enough chips to participate in a hand) or that the player can compete for the antes as long as they have at least one chip of the lowest denomination still in play (i.e. they're not out because they haven't lost all of their chips yet). Either rule would still make for a perfectly fair game, since all players in the tournament would be playing by the same rules. The effect on strategy would be minimal in either case.

If you stipulate that the second rule (if you can pay even one chip towards your ante, you can stay in the tournament and contest for all the antes) is reasonable, then a reasonable extension of that to a consolidated BB ante is the rule that if you can pay even one chip towards your BB ante then you can stay in the tournament and contest to win the ante.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's fair to disqualify a player that still has chips, just because it's a small amount.
 
legonick said:
On a side note/down the rabbit hole - why? Let's say a player can't even make ante. Why should (s)he have a right to the antes of others? I know it's in the noise, and if you can't even post an ante it doesn't much matter, but from a "game rules" perspective, it doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

It depends on your perspective I suppose, but one way to look at it is posting the BBA is in lieu of posting the next x individual antes in an individual ante game. So in essence, you have paid in advance until the next time the BBA is due.
 
CrazyEddie said:
In an individual ante cash game, a player who cannot post his ante cannot play. Posting an ante is the price of playing a hand.

I'm not sure what should happen to a player who cannot post his ante in an individual ante tournament game. Since a tournament is an artificial structure, I think you could specify in the rules that the player is out of the tournament (i.e. they're out because they no longer have enough chips to participate in a hand) or that the player can compete for the antes as long as they have at least one chip of the lowest denomination still in play (i.e. they're not out because they haven't lost all of their chips yet). Either rule would still make for a perfectly fair game, since all players in the tournament would be playing by the same rules. The effect on strategy would be minimal in either case.

If you stipulate that the second rule (if you can pay even one chip towards your ante, you can stay in the tournament and contest for all the antes) is reasonable, then a reasonable extension of that to a consolidated BB ante is the rule that if you can pay even one chip towards your BB ante then you can stay in the tournament and contest to win the ante.
Click to expand...

Very well put, and I do agree with @buzzmonkey 's response above in a tournament, it would seem contrary to the "chip and a chair" spirit to eliminate such a player.

In an individual ante game I suppose the option exists to make a side pot for the players that paid the full ante, and the main pot only matches the share of the ante the all in player has.

In a consolidated ante game, that's not really an option. Another reason ante-first makes sense is in this situation, the BB is actually short-paying the ante and gets 8 more hands (or whatever) where he can win a full ante if he remains in the tournament.
 
JustinInMN said:
It depends on your perspective I suppose, but one way to look at it is posting the BBA is in lieu of posting the next x individual antes in an individual ante game. So in essence, you have paid in advance until the next time the BBA is due.
Click to expand...
But the BBA would be paying for the next antes, not the ones already played. That's an argument for the BBA can only collect on his antes a match of what he put in.

"In a consolidated ante game, that's not really an option. Another reason ante-first makes sense is in this situation, the BB is actually short-paying the ante and gets 8 more hands (or whatever) where he can win a full ante if he remains in the tournament."
Isn't that also an argument against it? In that, if he only pays 1/10 of the ante, why should he be entitled to win the entire ante, or get the "freerolls" after the BBA moves past him? He didn't pay the full price like all the other players did.
 
legonick said:
Isn't that also an argument against it? In that, if he only pays 1/10 of the ante, why should he be entitled to win the entire ante, or get the "freerolls" after the BBA moves past him? He didn't pay the full price like all the other players did.
Click to expand...
What I meant is that is the superior reason for playing "ante first" instead of "blind first" If you play the blind is posted first, then the all in player not only skips the ante, he wins any action from other players on the chips in his stack that he posts in the blind. In "ante first" such a player is limited only winning the ante, but he does still "benefit" by shorting the pot and playing the next orbit for a discount. But making those chips actionable is even moreso in the all in big blinds favor.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Frogzilla
Tourney How do you rule this one
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
BGinGA
BGinGA
ArielVer18
Tourney How well do you understand the TDA poker rules?
Replies
25
Views
742
krafticus
krafticus
Sparkynutz
Tourney What place should I have been in this tournament?
Replies
5
Views
330
BGinGA
BGinGA
R
  • Poll
Cash Game Is this a call or a raise?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
2K
FordPickup92
FordPickup92
Mike Wells
Cash Game Weird situation in cash game
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
CraigT78
CraigT78
Back
Top Bottom