Help with a ruling please.

[ukgazz]

Hi I would be interested if there are any official rules for this situation as I have seen it happen differently in various online sites and live games :

Blinds 200 / 400

SB Posts 200
BB can not post the full 400BB and is forced all in for 300

Do the players to act have to call the full 400 that the BB should be or can they call the lower 300 bet?

Thanks for the help.

UKGazz

[tigerite]

On Party you have to call the full 400.

[splashpot]

full 400

[Stoneii]

You're right that different places allow different rules but I think the international TDA rules say you have to post the full BB if you can, to call.

stoneii

Call for full BB and a side pot is created iirc

[ukgazz]

Thanks for the fast responses guys.....
I have spent ages trawling for an official answer and finally found it in 'Robert Ciaffone's' definative rule set which seems to be used everywhere in the 'Button and blinds usage' section :

[ QUOTE ]
RULES FOR USING BLINDS

1. The minimum bring-in and allowable raise sizes for the opener are specified by the poker form used and blind amounts set for a game. They remain the same even when the player in the blind does not have enough chips to post the full amount.





[/ QUOTE ]

I will submit my evidence and collect my wager ;d

UKGazz

[schwza]

bodog does not do it that way. if the BB posts 300 at 200/400, you can limp for 300. not sure what the min raise is. if the BB posts 100 and SB posts 200, you can limp for 200. they are the only place i've seen that does it that way.

[MegaBet]

The full 400 and the rest goes in a side pot if necessary. That is the blind level, you can't change it.

[MegaBet]

This reminds me of a time in a home game when 3 players were in a pot (inclding me), one player was already all in and myself and another player were in a side pot. I went all in on the turn, and the other player thinks and says "I will have to fold but at least I'll have a shot at the main pot." I say what are you talking about? If you fold you're out of BOTH pots. He is adamant and says if he put money in the main pot he should be allowed to contest it even if he folds out of the side pot, otherwise it's "not fair." An argument ensues and I have to back down because everyone else is agreeing with him. Very frustrating.

Has anyone else come across a ruling like this?

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of a time in a home game when 3 players were in a pot (inclding me), one player was already all in and myself and another player were in a side pot. I went all in on the turn, and the other player thinks and says "I will have to fold but at least I'll have a shot at the main pot." I say what are you talking about? If you fold you're out of BOTH pots. He is adamant and says if he put money in the main pot he should be allowed to contest it even if he folds out of the side pot, otherwise it's "not fair." An argument ensues and I have to back down because everyone else is agreeing with him. Very frustrating.

Has anyone else come across a ruling like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me very angry, and is the reason I hate live games.

[mosdef]

you are right, a fold takes him out of both pots.

when you bet, you are exposing your whole stack to the risk of a reraise, so it's not fair to allow him to fold and then continue playing for the dead money. it allows him to be in a win-win situation, where if he has nothing he gets to chase the dead money on the turn or river and if he has something then he has access to your whole stack.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of a time in a home game when 3 players were in a pot (inclding me), one player was already all in and myself and another player were in a side pot. I went all in on the turn, and the other player thinks and says "I will have to fold but at least I'll have a shot at the main pot." I say what are you talking about? If you fold you're out of BOTH pots. He is adamant and says if he put money in the main pot he should be allowed to contest it even if he folds out of the side pot, otherwise it's "not fair." An argument ensues and I have to back down because everyone else is agreeing with him. Very frustrating.

Has anyone else come across a ruling like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree that is "not fair" in some senses. it gives the a-i guy an advantage. a simpler example is an 8-handed 7-stud game where i only have one ante (this is sklansky's example). i ante, and if folders still have a shot at the main pot, i win the 8-ante pot 1/8, so i have 0 EV. but in real poker, i win the 8-ante pot ~1/5 or so b/c sometimes someone folds what would have been a winner, so i have +EV if i'm allowed to play w only one ante.

the same idea happens any time there's someone all-in, but it's a little easier to see in the 1-ante case. i can see why someone who didn't know the rules would think he was being robbed if you could bet him out of the main.