FLOP: A All-in 500 B Call 500 C Call 500 (Side pot A-B-C = 1500) TURN: B Raise to 1000 C Call 1000 (side pot B-C 2000) RIVER: B Raise 2000 C Fold
My question is:
imagine that C has the best hand (fold on the river - 1500 on the pot) A has the second best hand (all in in the flop 500 on the pot) B has the worst hand
I think the natural decision is: Player A wins the side pot of 1500 Player C the side pot of 2000)
It's not weird that Player A, can win the side pot of 1500, when he contributed with 500, but Player C that gets better hand than A and contributed with 1500 to the pot cannot win anything because he folded?.... My question is, player C folded against player B, not against player A (and payed much more money) - so dont you think it would be fair that player B can be as eligible as player A to win the side pot of 1500?? PS(Of course B cannot win the side pot of 2000 B-C from the turn, because he folded against C, so the best hands doesn't matter, its normal)
What do you think? I think that it should be logical to say that player B didnt folded against player A, so everything that is accessible to player A should be accessible to player B, because he always made a call to player A and never folded against him.... I think the logic of poker is: to win to some other player you need to have one of this: 1) better hand or 2) invest more money and make other player fold. Its weird to see a player to invest less money and have weaker hand to win more than someone thant invested more money and had better hand....