Is there a rule to make it more clear

[psandman]

While you are correct


the rule you quote actually does not apply to this instance . . . as the player on the button is not posting a blind or a forced bet. This is an instance of a player not having enough to call the bet.

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. I think you need to try some gentle diplomacy. Perhaps something like:

"Hey, I can see what you mean, that the blinds are part of the pot. It's similar to a game with antes. In an ante game, everyone has put in an ante, so everyone has an equal share in it. In that case, a short-stack all-in on the first betting round would still have a share at the entire ante pile. In a blinds game, only two players get the pot going, and those are still live and active bets. They're not part of the overall pot until the betting round is complete , and at that point you make side-pots for all-ins just as you would any other betting round."


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this might be the key to his misunderstanding. He views the blinds as part of the "Pot". When they are really forced bets, that are still live, meaning the player posting them retains the right to act.

As another poster said you can only win the amount you wager from each player.

And just to add to Pfapfap's comment about antes. If a player cannot make a full ante they can only win an amount equal to their contribution from each player's ante. Ex. Assume the ante is 2 chips and player A only has one chip left. He can only ante one chip and is all in. He can only win one chip from each player that ante'd, or half the pot in this case (give or take a chip depending on # of players). The other half goes to the side pot.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
his point of view is the blinds are part of the main pot and can't be split up. Even if you T50 left and went all in when blinds are T500 and T1000, then if you won you would get all blinds as they can't be split up.

I think I will give lessons on poker rules ..

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, how about this. The blinds are not actually in the pot yet. Preflop, the pot is zero until the betting is over and all bets are pushed into the center of the table. And when the preflop betting is done, you sort out any all-in situations by creating a main pot and applicable side pots.

So in your original case, there was an 800 main pot and a 100 side pot.

The same thing happens on flop betting. The pot is a collection of bets from the previous round (i.e. preflop), and then all flop bets are collected and added to the main pot. If there are all-ins on the flop, then side pots can be created for inequalities.

Please show your buddie this entire thread if possible.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, how about this. The blinds are not actually in the pot yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument would be technically incorrect. Any bet that is made and called is part of the pot. Otherwise in a Pot Limit game you could never raise preflop becaus ethere was nothing in the pot.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Another rule request. I understand the rule I'm about to ask, just have sosmeone at my home game request to see the rule. I had sent him this via email but he feels it doesn't asnwer his question. Three guys dealt in, blinds T200,T400. Button goes all in for T300, SB folds BB already has him covered. I reach over to the pot and take T100 and give it to the BB as part of the side pot, the reamining T800 stays in the pot. My friend beleives this is wrong and the blinds can't be split up and the T900 is all part of the main pot.
I gave him this rule from Roberts rules of poker but he feels it doesn't cover what happened. IS there another rule somewhere that makes it clearer.

19. If a player lacks sufficient chips for a blind or a forced bet, the player is entitled to get action on whatever amount of money is left in his stack. A player who posts a short blind and wins does not need to make up the blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't win more from any one player than you have at risk. If nothing else it would simply be unfair. Other's have given good technical analysis, I'll provide an equitable example.

Suppose you have a tournament structure that just has to end, in say four hours. So at the end, the blinds start quintupling every blind level. Further postulate that the chips were never colored up in this tourney an there are still $1 dollar chips in play.

Three nits are left, who rufuse, even with escalating blinds, to get all in with anything but a monster, so they spend a lot of time trading blinds.

Now two players finally get all in. The player that loses has has the other covered by $2. The other stacka are now 9k and change and 19 thousand dollars and change. Shorty has $2.

After the hand, the blinds go up from 2k/4k to 10k/ 20k. Shorty, on the Button, puts in his two dollars. Small blind is all-ini for his 9k already and BB is already all- in the BB with his 19k.

BB wins the hand and wins the tourney, because the "blinds can't be split" even though he was risking $2 against thousands. Does that sound right to anybody in his right mind?

--Zetack

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, how about this. The blinds are not actually in the pot yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument would be technically incorrect. Any bet that is made and called is part of the pot. Otherwise in a Pot Limit game you could never raise preflop becaus ethere was nothing in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nit

[Twistofsin]

Your friend is thick headed, so explain it to him like this:

If a player goes all in for $40 and is called by a smaller stack does he get money back?

But why? He put $40 in the pot!

Then explain to him that the blinds are just betting in the dark. If no one calls your entire bet you're entitled to get change back, just like the all in player above.

[ky70]

[ QUOTE ]
...I reach over to the pot and take T100 and give it to the BB as part of the side pot , the reamining T800 stays in the pot...

[/ QUOTE ]

Please note that the T100 is not part of a sidepot...this is just money returned to the BB becuase all-in player had less than the BB posted. Calling it a "sidepot" identifies this money as being included in the hand and available to be won or lost but it isn't.

[Jetboy2]

Seriously...

It boggles my mind as to how "main-pot with a side-pot" is so elusive!

You guys freak out about this. Jeez! Whaddya gonna do when you get a "main pot" and 3+ "side pots".

[allbad]

its not us, it's his bone-headed friend! For the life of me, I don't know why some people refuse to budge from their flawed point of view when arguing with an expert for the opposition. Is OP's friend a lawyer? If not, then he's gotta be a freakin' know-it-all kid.