Tell me more ×
Poker Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for serious players and enthusiasts of poker. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 10 down vote favorite

I'm just wondering the rationale for preventing folded players from competing in sidepots. My feeling is that once a player has as much in the pot as an all-in player, they should be allowed to compete for the side-pot, even if they later fold.

Any reason why this isn't the case?

share|improve this question
Why does your question refer to side pots in particular? The reason folded hands cannot compete for side pots is the same reason that folded hands cannot compete for main pots. – Silversana Dec 1 '12 at 16:18

3 Answers

up vote 1 down vote

If a player meets the all in bet, and then folds, BY DEFINITION, s/he was bet out of the side pot by one of the other side pot betters. That's why the player can't win the side pot.

Basically, you have to stay in until YOU'RE all in, not just match another (all-in) player.

share|improve this answer
up vote 3 down vote

I liked your question and will try answer it from a different angle. Basically we all agree that when a player fold his/her hand, he/she cannot win any pot.

BUT, one of the major concepts of the game is that one can only win according to what he/she risks. That's why there are side pots, and I think that's why the question was asked - if a player risk enough chips as an all-in player, he/she should be able to compete for that pot

I think that the rules was defined as they are today, because it gives more options of play and more flexibility to the game. the following are some examples:
1. give advantage to players with big stack by forcing others out of the hand.
2. give a chance to small stacks (when they know there is a chip bully in the table).
3. knockout games (some of the money is given to the a player that eliminate another player). etc...

As I wrote in the beginning, I think the rules are as they are for a good reason, but this theoretical question is quite interesting.

Amigal

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks for the answer. I think it gives too much advantage to short stacks, short stacks already have an advantage beyond their chips. Firstly, a short stack doesn't have the risk of being re-raised, and secondly, in a tournament that pays beyond 1st place, short stacks have an expected return beyond their stack size. To add the ability of being able to win three stacks in a one-on-one contest I think goes too far. Not that it bothers me too much, I'm much stronger in the push/fold stages of a tournament than I am when the stacks are deeper, so this rule helps me chip-up. – Clinton Dec 5 '12 at 1:15
up vote 4 down vote

If you fold for what ever reason before the hand is finished you forfeit your right to compete for any pot on the table. That is simply one of the rules of the game.

So, that is where strategy comes in to play. If there are three players in a hand with one of them all in, I always try to bet the remaining player out of the hand. That way I am only competing with the player that is all in.

share|improve this answer
This doesn't really answer my question of "why". All I can see is that it is "one of the rules of the game". I think my question made it clear that I knew that, so this tells me nothing new. – Clinton Dec 1 '12 at 1:26
1  
@Clinton The definition of a fold says that, if you do it (fold), then you forfeit your right to win any pot on the table. That's "why". You can't compete for a sidepot just like an all-in player because... well, he's all in and you folded... – Radu Murzea Dec 1 '12 at 8:02
Yeah, it really can't get any simpler than that. It is a rule of the game just like any other rule of the game. It is what it is. if you don't like the rules of the game, then play a different game or create your own. – Linger Dec 1 '12 at 17:13

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.