Baseball Poker Question

[Al Mirpuri]

If you get a three face up you have to immediately match the pot or fold. Now, what happens if you catch a second three? Do you again have to match the pot or fold?

[sweetjazz]

I would play that you must match or fold on the second three, just as you did for the first three. For what it's worth, in the home game I play in where we play baseball (it's a loose social game) we usually play match the pot up to a certain limit (10x the ante, for us, though you could make it 20x, 25x, or 50x the ante or really any amount you pleased [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). That may or may not be something your game would be interested in, but I thought I should throw it out just in case.

[Piiop]

We also play you have to match the pot anytime a 3 comes up, regardless of whether you already have matched.
The cap on the size of the amount to match is a good idea too.

[Glurfle]

We play match the pot regardless of the size. This leads to uncomfortable situations where I've put $150 in the pot to win $20 of opponents' money. Still, it makes life interesting.

I was about to post another baseball question, but since there's already a thread going, I'll just use this. How do people deal with the pot-matching rule with regards to table stakes? We've got some players who aren't happy with the idea that a short stack can get cheap 3's by going all-in early. What happens when a player doesn't have enough to match the entire pot? What if they're all-in and get another 3? How much of the pot are they eligible for if they can only match part of it? Currently we've been playing that if you can't match the pot, then you can play on without that 3 being wild. I don't think this is a great solution either, but we haven't seen any convenient way around this.

Incidentally, we've usually played Midnight Baseball (don't see any cards until they're rolled), and more recently Twilight Baseball (choose 1-3 of your cards to see), so managing the pot so you can pay for your 3's isn't feasible.

[taxat]

[ QUOTE ]
How do people deal with the pot-matching rule with regards to table stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

We never played table stakes at our home game. Reloads welcome at anytime.

[ QUOTE ]
Currently we've been playing that if you can't match the pot, then you can play on without that 3 being wild.

[/ QUOTE ]

Table stakes or not, if you can't match the pot your hand should be folded. The act of matching the pot does not turn your three wild, it determines whether you are in or out.

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, we've usually played Midnight Baseball (don't see any cards until they're rolled)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting variation. Does everyone roll their 4's for the extra card? We played Rain Out. What an interesting Midnight Rain Out decision it must be whether to flip a 3 and match the pot or else start all over again.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
We play match the pot regardless of the size. This leads to uncomfortable situations where I've put $150 in the pot to win $20 of opponents' money.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just crazy! Stop doing it!

[ QUOTE ]
How do people deal with the pot-matching rule with regards to table stakes? We've got some players who aren't happy with the idea that a short stack can get cheap 3's by going all-in early. What happens when a player doesn't have enough to match the entire pot? What if they're all-in and get another 3? How much of the pot are they eligible for if they can only match part of it? Currently we've been playing that if you can't match the pot, then you can play on without that 3 being wild.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen those old westerns where someone raises a huge amount and someone has to fold because they cannot match the bet. Well, that's just a myth. In poker, you've always been able to play for what you can match. No one can force you off a hand simply because you do not have enough cash/chips to call. Once you are playing for what you can match you get your cards in the normal manner with or without further betting depending on the number of opponents.

If a player is all-in or cannot match the whole pot then so what? The three should cost him what he has in front of him and then a side pot should be started for the following betting. Any threes that an all-in player catches should be wild. It is not that the player is unwilling to match the pot; he is just unable to match the pot.

Nobody should be going all-in on the basis that they may catch a three. Anyone doing so should be encouraged to do so, as any mistake they make benefits you. A shortstacked player is probably a losing player and why annoy him unnecessarily. You can shear a sheep many times but you can only skin it once.