Betting in pot when one player is all-in

[tewall]

Say player A has 1000, and players B and C have him covered. A goes all-in PF, and gets called by B and C, so it's a 3-way pot. What's the right strategy for B and C to follow?

A few rambling thoughts.

If B bets, he gains whenever he knocks C out, and B wins a pot he would have lost to C (but not A) had he not bet. If C folds, he gains nothing, unless his hand beats A and would have lost to C had he not bet. If C calls, then he can win the side pot in addition to the original pot. So a correct strategy for B seems like it would combine the chances of knocking C out to win the original pot which would have been lost to C had B not bet plus the chances of winning a side pot. So one could be more often with a player that will give action than with a side player.

What strategy do you use in this situation? I was thinking primarily about NL, but this question could apply to limit as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Say player A has 1000, and players B and C have him covered. A goes all-in PF, and gets called by B and C, so it's a 3-way pot. What's the right strategy for B and C to follow?

A few rambling thoughts.

If B bets, he gains whenever he knocks C out, and B wins a pot he would have lost to C (but not A) had he not bet. If C folds, he gains nothing, unless his hand beats A and would have lost to C had he not bet. If C calls, then he can win the side pot in addition to the original pot. So a correct strategy for B seems like it would combine the chances of knocking C out to win the original pot which would have been lost to C had B not bet plus the chances of winning a side pot. So one could be more often with a player that will give action than with a side player.

What strategy do you use in this situation? I was thinking primarily about NL, but this question could apply to limit as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a hypothetical question that it can't be answered because you left out the part of how much money B & C have after they both called A. Depending on their stack size they may not be able to be bet the other off this pot. Obviously one of them would like to get the other off it (better to take down a large pot then to get sucked out) but it may not be possible. You also neglected to mention the game size. Is it $1000 NL or is is $200NL? That $1000 bet is a smallish bet on one but a large bet on the other.

So, tol answer your question with my assumptions above taken into it, for B to call A he probably has a better hand than C because C is getting better pot odds so may be tempted to call and see the flop. If C had a monster then he could have re-raised B (I know some players who would call B even if they had AA or KK and try to trap for more money but those players get sucked out on in my B&M games and start cursing and turning purple). Assuming that's true and they both have good stacks remaining B can be more aggressive and bet out in the hopes of knocking out C who might get a lucky hit.

[tewall]

What my question was getting at is the play after the flop. Assume A goes all in, and B and C have him covered. In the limit example, it doesn't matter how much B and C have left. In NL, make any assumption you want.

What makes the quesiton interesting is that since A is already all-in, B or C must beat A to win the existing pot. The side pot is of no value to start off with, because there's no money in it, until a bet is made.

The first flop bet only makes sense from a theoretical standpoint in relation to the existing pot, since there's no money to be won in the side pot. But from a practical standpoint, a lot of players will give action even without a theoretical basis for doing so. So betting the empty side pot has an interesting pschological aspect to it.

You are talking about a cash game not a tournament, correct?

[tewall]

Either way. I'm interested in how having A already in the pot, and not side pot yet started when the flop comes, impacts that betting of B and C. Whoever bets starts out only with the chance of winning the all-in pot with A, so betting only gains if the better beats A (assuming the other guy folds).

[geo8o2]

since u don't know what the all-in player has..

getting the 3rd player to fold.. gives you a "better" chance to win the main pot regardless of what you have.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
since u don't know what the all-in player has..

getting the 3rd player to fold.. gives you a "better" chance to win the main pot regardless of what you have.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP doesn't understand why you should only do this in a cash game and not necessarily in a tournament, in fact rarely in a tournament should you bet into a dry side pot without a hand that you believe will win the pot at a showdown. Unless of course you are in collusion with the all-in player. You will have implied collusion with the oponnnent who still has chips since normally you will both want to eliminate another player. There are of course times when the above is not true.
Two examples:

1) Very early in a large tournament
2) If you are the chip leader and it is very close to the bubble you might want to keep a short stack in the tourney longer as long as you are able to bully the table and increase your stack at the expense of others playing too tightly.

Tewall, be sure you understand that you cannot get a single solution to your theory if you don't specify either a cash game or a tourney. Poker is not a formula it is an art with math at it's basis.

[benkahuna]

One has to weigh the advantage of getting players out of the pot increasing chances to against the inability to get more bets out of the other player and allowing other players to see your cards and get more information about your play.

In tournaments, another poster mentioned the considerations I feel are important.

[AaronBrown]

If B knew he had A beat, B should play the hand as if A had folded. If B knew A had him beat, the money in the main pot is gone, he's playing heads-up with no ante against C. Given that B doesn't know, the obvious way to think about it is to consider some portion of the main pot as in the pot.

In your example, ignoring blinds, there's $3,000 in the main pot. If B thinks it about even odds that he has A beat, it makes sense to think of this as $1,500 in the pot for the purposes of playing C.

You could refine this. For example, suppose B is drawing to a flush. He thinks if he makes it he'll beat A and C, but if he doesn't fill he's going to fold. Then in the only case that matters, he has A beat, so he should treat the full $3,000 as in the pot.

[tewall]

I wasn't looking for a single solution, just some things to be thinking about. What you posted for was exactly what I was looking for. Any other thoughts would also be appreciated.

Thanks.