Side Pots

[Chipfire.]

Can anyone direct me to a decent explanation of side pot rules and how to calculate who gets what - had a 3 player all-in scenario with 6 players left and mass confusion.

[Terminator]

I must admit that side pots can become very confusing. Basically, anyone who is all in is entitled to win the same amount of chips he has left from any other person who has called and has more chips than them (they can win all the chips from any caller with a smaller stack than them).

Here's a simple example that might help you understand:

4 players are all in in a hand.

Player A has 600 chips
player B has 900 chips
Player C has 1100 chips
Player D has 2000 chips

Player A can win 600 chips from each player (4 x 600 = 2400 main pot)

Player B has more than 600, so a side pot (1) is made. They can win the main pot, + 3 x 300 (the amount of chips over the 600 in the first pot) = 900 (side pot 1).

player C has more than players A + B. He can win side pots 1+2, 2400, and 900. He has 200 extra chips that player D must match, so the final side pot (2) is 400.

Player A can win 2400 (main pot).
Player B can win 2400 (main pot) and side pot 1, 900, total, 3300.
Players C and D can win all the pots.

[Dice Man]

They also say that you shouldn't bluff an empty side pot. For example say A has gone all in and C and D call him, there is no side pot yet. If they just checked the board between them to the end then there's a greater chance of A being knocked out than if one of them bluffed at it. Say D has pocket tens and the flop came AKQ. If he gets bet at by C then he'll probably fold it (suppose C and D have bigger stacks as well). Then it'll be down to just C and A. A might win it with 99 in the pocket. C might have absolutely nothing. If there was no side pot then C hasn't benefitted at all as he was going to lose it anyway. But now he's let A triple up when he could've been knocked out by D. And later in a tournament people getting knocked out ensures that you'll get paid more. Probably C will go out in 4th now and he deserves it.
Bluffing when there's a side pot can be a good move though. If your remaining opponent folds then you pick up the side pot for nothing, and you have a chance at winning the main pot too. Sometimes you'll still make a profit on the hand by picking up the side pot and losing the main pot.

[Top Pair Ace Kicker]

Thats a bit of a simplistic attitude towards bluffing at an empty side pot. There can be a few advantages to doing so, and is the subject of many an interesting debate online.

For instance in the example above, If I was player C and I thought that either 1)Player A had gone in with something as low as 8-9 suited then why not bet at it with pocket Tens? If player D has gone in with K-x or Q-x or even A-x if the x is low enough, your bet might get them to fold! Why let them have it cheap?! What if they have pocket Jacks?

If I also thought 2)player D was a better player than player A, or that player A's stack was still going to be minimal even if he did win this pot, again why not have a bet? I certainly wouldnt want player D getting any more chips than he already has. To say that the fewer people left in the game means more money for you is technically correct, but if you give yourself a lot more chips in a hand like this rather than gifting them to player D who may only hit something after you have kindly checked all the way down to the river, can be the totally wrong option. You could put yourself in a much stronger position to actually win the whole thing, rather than just move yourself up one place in the money.

To say that player C "deserves" to go out in 4th for betting isn't the attitude I take anyway.

[Dice Man]

Well I could've said all that except that I would've contradicted what I'd already said. There are always a lot of factors to consider when playing poker but it's impossible to describe them all in one example. The fact is that bluffing an empty side pot will generally lead to you risking being trapped (and losing your entire stack) more than it will lead to you winning a smaller pot with ace high.

Of course I can see your point, if your opponent still in the pot believes you to be a good player, and also believes dogmatically that good players never bluff dry pots, then you could get away with that, but the chances are your bluff will be a worse hand than the player who's all in. Unless he's poor (either at playing or in stack) then I don;t know why he'd go all in with a hand like 89 anyway.

[Chipfire]

Thanks Chaps, interesting debate about the dry side-pot too.

[Top Pair Ace Kicker]

Well I could've said all that except that I would've contradicted what I'd already said.

So why would you have said it then? I dont understand. Or are you saying that your original post is wrong or not detailed enough?

There are always a lot of factors to consider when playing poker but it's impossible to describe them all in one example.

I agree It's why I think that when people say you should "always" or "never" do something it's incorrect. Never bet at a dry side pot, for example. Theres times and places for everything.

The fact is that bluffing an empty side pot will generally lead to you risking being trapped (and losing your entire stack) more than it will lead to you winning a smaller pot with ace high.

There's that generalisation again. Why would it risk your entire stack? Who said anything about putting your whole stack in? If I bet at an empty side pot with a decent amount of chips and was then raised enough, I would definitely consider folding.

I dont see why I would shove my whole stack in, either as a bet or a call.

Of course I can see your point, if your opponent still in the pot believes you to be a good player, and also believes dogmatically that good players never bluff dry pots, then you could get away with that, but the chances are your bluff will be a worse hand than the player who's all in.

Not sure how you figure that out.

Unless he's poor (either at playing or in stack) then I don;t know why he'd go all in with a hand like 89 anyway.

Ah now I see. But what if is he is short stacked? What if the blinds are going to hit him? What if......? lots of other things.

Ive seen people put their whole tournament on the line with worse hands than 8-9 when they are short stacked and I'm sure you have too. If you have about double the big blind left, virtually anything will do.

[Dice Man]

So why would you have said it then? I dont understand. Or are you saying that your original post is wrong or not detailed enough?

My original post is detailed enough, but not perfectly detailed. I was just describing a general trend in poker. There aren't many genuine reasons to bluff a dry side pot and there are genuine reasons not to. Sometimes if one player is all in and there are two callers (particularly if the player all in could go out on the bubble), the two players still in will agree to check in the dark down to the end to reduce the player who's all in's chances of winning.

There's that generalisation again. Why would it risk your entire stack? Who said anything about putting your whole stack in? If I bet at an empty side pot with a decent amount of chips and was then raised enough, I would definitely consider folding.

You're thinking of examples where the player all in has got virtually no chips left. Suppose you only have double of what he has, so half of your stack has gone in the pot as well. If you want to bluff at it then you're going to have to go all in. Even if you had three times the player all in then you need to go all in on the flop otherwise you'll look weak. It's all or nothing with raises sometimes.

When you replied earlier on I remebered two articles written by Daniel Negreanu on this very subject, and I'd consider him to be one of the top authorities on tournament play. I've managed to find them again now which was tricky because his website recently changed drastically.
Usually his journals are very concise and feature a lot of hands, but when somebody bluffed a dry pot he had to write two entries just for that one hand.
My Biggest Pet Peeve: The Dry Side Pot Bluff — Part I
My Biggest Pet Peeve: The Dry Side Pot Bluff — Part II

[Top Pair Ace Kicker]

I see....

So in his first article all he does in the first half is bitches and moans about not winning a pot from some guy who is reading a book at the table, then proceeds to spend the last half wondering where his watch has gone, after going out of the tournament pretty soon after.

Then in the second article on one question about a dry side pot, the answer is to check it down, and in another question the answer is to have a bet because

"True, others may have a pair or a better ace, but so what? Why should you care which player goes out on the bubble, when it’s all but a certainty that it won’t be you?"

Ah. So its ok to have a bet when it doesnt really affect your stack or chances of winning, but it is definitely WRONG WRONG WRONG when someone else does it to you.

If I actually had the money to be regularly playing in the same sort of tournaments as world class players like this, and I knew that they were so easy to wind up, that they bust out of a game soon after, do you know what I would do?

I would bluff a dry side pot every single time

[trustme]

Has a strange one on poker.co.uk a couple of nights ago. $10 mtt, blinds 50/100, i got pocket nines. One player has just had a bad beat and goes all in, my stacks very healthy so its worth a call, thinking this guy could have any two cards. Another player in late position flat calls too, pots about 3000. Flop comes, highest card is a 9 giving me trips, want to get more chips of the other player so put in a 200 bet to a 3000 pot and he calls, turn comes and its a king, im hoping the other player has AK and will think hes ahead, i bet 400 this time and the guy goes mental, typing loads of stuff in the chatbox about checking to pot down, we are supposed to be trying to knock the other one out.
Argument went on for ages, while i "politely" explained that i am never going to give anyone a free card when i have flopped the nuts on such a big pot, never found out what the other guy had but it cant have been to good if he wouldnt call a 400 bet in a pot that size.