# Texas hold 'em question (Now WSOP 2005 - Spoilers!)

Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Jon_Are, Jun 26, 2005.

1. ### Jon_Are Cinematographer

Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
Messages:
2,036
0
Trophy Points:
0
I'm a poker player from way back, but I'm new to hold 'em.

My question relates to "all-in".

Say Player A has \$100 in chips, Player B has \$50, and Player C has \$10.

Now, the last card has been turned. The bet is to C. He goes all-in.

Does this mean that A has to put in just \$10? And B \$10? What if A or B raise at this point, knowing that C is out of chips?

Thanks,

Jon

2. ### Jim_F Screenwriter

Joined:
May 15, 2000
Messages:
1,077
0
Trophy Points:
0
FWIW from a pretty bad poker player:

It only takes \$10 to call "C".

One of the others might raise if they think they have best hand and want to maximize their winnings, or if they think they can beat "C" and want to bluff the other remaining player.

Either "A" or "B" could raise the bet to \$40 (stakes permitting) for instance, and the other could call. Of course "A" could force "B" to move all-in in order to call, but "B" can only make "A" call a maximum of \$50. His bluff could still work, because there's no way "A" wants to double up "B" and wind up in last chip position.

If "C" and "B" move all in and "A" calls, there will be a main pot of \$30 ("C"s stack plus 2 calls) and side pot of \$80. "C" can only win the main pot.

Now, according to PartyPoker (et al.)"house" rules, if both "B" and "C" go all-out, losing to "A", then "B" takes 2nd place on the strength of his chip position prior to the hand regardless of his hand's rank compared to "C".

Hope this helps.

3. ### Patrick Sun Moderator Moderator

Joined:
Jun 30, 1999
Messages:
38,749
480
Trophy Points:
9,110
If A and B want to stay in, they can call C's \$10, but they can also have a side pot between A and B and continue betting against one another, but C is in the pot for \$10, and could only win \$10 each from both A and B should either stay in for an all-in call by C. The side pot is then just heads-up between A and B, and they could continue to bet until one calls (even if one of them goes all-in, to have any chance of winning the side pot, the other has to call the side bet, else forfeit the side pot).

4. ### Jim_F Screenwriter

Joined:
May 15, 2000
Messages:
1,077
0
Trophy Points:
0
As Pat said, there's also a side pot in the case of the \$40 example above.

5. ### Jon_Are Cinematographer

Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
Messages:
2,036
0
Trophy Points:
0
all right...

Just two players, A with \$100, B with \$10.

It's A's bet; does the fact that B has just \$10 mean that that's all A can bet (\$10)? Player A cannot bet \$11 and effectively buy the pot?

Jon

6. ### george kaplan Executive Producer

Joined:
Mar 14, 2001
Messages:
13,063
2
Trophy Points:
0
Jon,

It depends on the game, but in a tournament setting, no you can't just buy a pot. If that were the case, as soon as one hand was played, there would be a chip leader, and he'd just bet everything he had, and since no one could match him, he'd win the tourney after just playing one hand.

7. ### Jim_F Screenwriter

Joined:
May 15, 2000
Messages:
1,077
0
Trophy Points:
0

I've been assuming we're talking about no limit Hold 'em.

"A" can bet whatever he wants, up to \$100 (though anything more than his opponent's stack is superfluous or for effect) To call, "B" can only move all-in and will double up if he wins. Otherwise he's all-out and the game is over.

8. ### Jon_Are Cinematographer

Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
Messages:
2,036
0
Trophy Points:
0
OK, thanks...I think I'm ready to take on Chris Moneymaker now.

Jon Moneyloser

9. ### Jeff Blair Second Unit

Joined:
Apr 30, 2000
Messages:
335
0
Trophy Points:
0
Good luck on that one Jon. The best way to learn how to play Hold 'em is to do it online. Almost all of the sites have a free section so you can play with out takeing out a second morgage. That way you will learn the rules. Depending on the table, it may not be too real. i.e. someone going all in on a 7-2 off suite. The worst starting hand in Hold 'em.

10. ### Sami Kallio Screenwriter

Joined:
Jan 6, 2004
Messages:
1,035
0
Trophy Points:
0
As long as you realize that playing with play money is a totally different game compared to when there is real money on the table. Same rules but people play very different.

11. ### Jon_Are Cinematographer

Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
Messages:
2,036
0
Trophy Points:
0

Absolutely. I've been messing around with play money for a week now, just to get some practice and the feel of how the game is played. I totally understand how the betting is skewed, though.

Playing for real \$, what's the rule-of-thumb opening / calling minimum (first two cards)? I've heard that >70% of opening hands should be folded (I know there a tons of variables, such as position at the table, number of players, etc.).

Jon

12. ### Chris Tsutsui Screenwriter

Joined:
Feb 1, 2002
Messages:
1,865
0
Trophy Points:
0
Some more thoughts for the poker ppl...

If the bet goes to C first, I think "C" is correct to go ALL in because most likely either Player A, or Player B can easily put him all in for the sake of eliminating "C". This is because "A", and "B" have a bigger stack and one of them will probably try to bully "C" out of the pot, especially if they sense weakness. Unless "A" and "B" have mediocre / bad hands, in which case "C" will end up buying the pot, even if "C" has a bad hand... heh (I generally think short stacks should play on the aggressive side, because they need to gamble a bit more to get back up)

On a different note, if this was a tournament... It would be strategic for Player A or Player B to "CHECK" it to each other and not bluff eachother over a side pot. This is so that they have a better chance of eliminating Player C. Thus, there would be no side pot involved in the situation if both players were unsure if they had player "C" beat.

If Player A has a bad hand and bluffs player B out who had a winning hand, then Player C might win and be back in the game by just having a high card... That's why my friends like to check it to each other when trying to eliminate somebody unless they are strong... In other words... Don't bluff if you want to eliminate somebody that's already all in...

I don't play a whole lot, but I like to play at the Bicycle Casino. The best I've done was placed 4th in a tournament of 32.

I like super aggressive style, but I tend to play conservative at the casinos cause I'm still noob. hehe

Poker is FUN!

13. ### Jason GT Second Unit

Joined:
Dec 12, 2002
Messages:
452
0
Trophy Points:
0
Jon:

(This coming from a pretty bad poker player) -

Specifics are really hard to give. Most hands in hold 'em will in the long run lose when played against good competition. Aside from the variables you've already mentioned:

1) cash game? tournament? limit/no limit?
2) how are the players on the table? Tight (ie, tend to play good/premium hands only)? Loose (ie, play poop like j/3 offsuit?)?

If for instance a really tight player raises preflop, you probably want to get out of his way unless you have a very good hand.

If it's the sort of table in which everyone calls a bet to see the flop (and nobody raises preflop) you can limp in if you really want to, but I don't recommend it. Think of it this way: in a hand that has 4-5 people seeing the flop, what are your chances of coming out with the best hand?

14. ### george kaplan Executive Producer

Joined:
Mar 14, 2001
Messages:
13,063
2
Trophy Points:
0
Yes, it depends on your situation (position, and if you're in a tournament, chip count), but the following are good hands to play (of course you'd play even worse hands when you're a blind):

a pair of 7s or better
any cards where the lowest is a 9 or better
anything with an ace
touching, suited card (6,7 or better)

15. ### Sami Kallio Screenwriter

Joined:
Jan 6, 2004
Messages:
1,035
0
Trophy Points:
0
I always want to see the flop if someone does not bet high. Even with bad cards you might get a great hand at the flop as you get 3 cards.

And remember, you don't lose big money with bad cards, you lose big money with good/great cards that just aren't good enough. In hold'em it's easy to get a great hand and that's why I like 5 card stud much better but unfortunately not many play it anymore.

16. ### Jon_Are Cinematographer

Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
Messages:
2,036
0
Trophy Points:
0

That is my thought as well, which is why I was surprised at that advice.

Jon

17. ### Jon_Are Cinematographer

Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
Messages:
2,036
0
Trophy Points:
0
Hah...I just blew \$180 on one pot - had two pair, aces over tens...lost to three of a kind.

Think I'll stick with play money for awhile.

Jon

18. ### george kaplan Executive Producer

Joined:
Mar 14, 2001
Messages:
13,063
2
Trophy Points:
0
Well it makes sense to stay for the flop almost all of the time in Omaha Hi/Lo, but not in Hold 'em. In the end, you will lose more money from your small bets by staying in with off suit garbage and then having to fold when the flop doesn't help you, than you will win from staying in and catching a lucky flop (which you may still lose).

19. ### Jack Fanning Second Unit

Joined:
Feb 12, 2001
Messages:
295
0
Trophy Points:
0
Real Name:
Jack Fanning

Joined:
Feb 27, 2001
Messages:
3,425