Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

The rule is: The cards must be shown in the case of all-in when there are no more possible moves (fold/check/bet/raise) to be made by any of the players that are in the hand. Now, this happens when: all the chips of the participanting players are in the pot there is only player in the hand that has chips. This is so because, since he's the only one left ...


5

You haven't provided enough information. This is entirely dependent on what the action was leading to the all-in, current stack sizes, and the frequency with which your opponent is taking said action. I can tell you, just from experience, that your opponent would either need to be very short stacked, ~13-15BB or less, or jamming all-in with a very wide ...


5

You also have to take into account whether you are playing a tournament or Cashgame. For tournaments, the ruling is as described by Radu Murzea In Cashgames, there is usually no showdown until the river is dealt. The player who has gone all in has to show his cards first. The player who called can then still muck his cards if he cannot beat his opponents ...


5

My short answer is this: as long as your opponents have 100BBs, it doesn't matter how many BBs you have (as long as you have them covered). You will only play for their 100 BBs. Shoving every hand when you have 10000 BBs is as bad as shoving every hand when you have 100 BBs. The difference is that in former case you don't have to re-buy every time after you ...


5

See here: How are side pots built? . I don't think the rules about side pots will change if a player is so severely short stacked. In your particular case, I think it will be: Main Pot: 40 (10 from each player, since player 2 has the fewest chips) Side Pot 1: 60 (player 1 has 20 left, so players 3 and 4 also put 20 chips in. 3 x 20 = 60). Side Pot 2: 40 ...


4

Firstly, the term "short stack" only really relates to a pre-flop description of relative stack sizes of all players. It doesn't have a reasonable use after the action has started. That said, a player may be "short stacked" post-flop but that's entirely down to what action has occurred. Specific to the example, player A can only call the All-In for $7, ...


4

This sounds like a play money game, am I correct? If so, then I can assure you these same people would not be doing this in a real money game in almost all typical circumstances, except maybe a tournament structure where the blinds are very high relative to stack sizes. The simple answer to your second problem is, a better starting hand than your ...


3

This is actually an interesting question and not because it might relate to good strategy when considering hand equity match-ups or Expected Value, (let's face it, random All-In shoves every hand don't fair well in terms of overall strategies) but because it's a good example of bankroll management, and how people misapply it. The key concept here is how ...


2

The only one I've heard is something like "x-way all-in", for example "There's 4-way all-in".


2

This question is actually very similar to the "double your bet" strategy for baccarat, or any other close to even odds game. Casinos typically will always have a table max bet for these games to prevent some billionaire from coming in and keep doubling their bet until win back all of their loses. The number of times you can lose before you hit the limit is ...


1

• The minimum legal raise is equal to the previous raise amount. • If the previous raise amount was less than a big blind, then the minimum raise is equal to the big blind. • If a player goes all-in for less than the minimum legal raise after the open raiser, and is called by at least another player, the open raiser will only be able to call or fold, ...


1

Was this [calling all-in] good playing or bold (and mindless) move? This should be a snap call. AQs is just far too strong to fold. Villian would have to be 3-bet shoving a very tight range to justify folding here. Specifically, he would have to be jamming {33+, AQ+, AJs} for it to be unprofitable to call his all-in. The average opponent is 3-bet shoving ...


1

Funny that I should come across this question shortly after leaving this comment. To expand on it: As always, the answer is "follow the rules of the house you're in." Most poker rooms in casinos (at least, the ones I've seen) will address this issue in the fine print of their rules, which you can usually find online and at the registration desk/brush stand. ...


1

This would not count as a misdeal since the outcome of the hand would not have been changed. If you are playing a cash game it makes no difference what you do. If you're playing a home game/casino game simply let the house deal with and dispute. In this instance you didn't do anything wrong. I suspect the misdeal call had a "crap I don't have a hand" ...


1

After reading the question and your own response (http://poker.stackexchange.com/a/2704/88), it doesn't seem that much of a problem. Firstly, you don't have to show your hand at all, ever. Although, if you don't you can't "claim" the hand. You must show a winning hand to take a pot. That's a general rule. Secondly, the order of play matters in this case ...


1

There is no right or wrong or fair or unfair way to structure a game of poker. You can set the rules to be whatever you want and it changes optimal strategy accordingly. If you want to run the game like this, that's fine and if people want to play it they can. And if they are smart they will play differently in certain situations because of it. For ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible