Question about All in in the small blind
 

I run a bi-weekly tournament, one of my members played in the WSOP this year and came back with a new ruling that I am not sure about.

He says that if you are all in and in the small blind that you can win the entire big blind if you win the hand. So if the blinds are 500/1000, it’s folded around to the small blind he is all in for say 600 total, he can still win the 1000 that’s posted in the big blind because that is a forced bet?

We have never played like this but I told everyone at the game I would research it and try to find something out. Has anyone ever heard of this or does anyway play like this.

Thanks for the help.

Re: Question about All in in the small blind
 

That's a ridiculous rule, and there's no reason anyone should play that way. In your example, the BB should take 400 chips back and the hand is played for 1200.

Re: Question about All in in the small blind
 

I agree. You can only win what you put in.

Re: Question about All in in the small blind
 

[ QUOTE ]
one of my members played in the WSOP this year and came back with a new ruling that I am not sure about

[/ QUOTE ]

Was he in the 500/900 Omaha event?
That was the only event that was held at the Belagge-o.

Re: Question about All in in the small blind
 

That's completley wrong. You can't get action on chips that you don't have. If no one calls and the big blind and small blind are left, the big blind would take back any amount over what the small blind had. Technically, it would be in a side pot, but there is no one left besides the big blind to win it.

From Robert's Rules of Poker:

SECTION 15 - TOURNAMENTS

20. If a player lacks sufficient chips for a blind or a forced bet, the player is entitled to get action on whatever amount of money is left in his stack.

This implies that you can only get action on the chips you have left.

Re: Question about All in in the small blind
 

This is not true.

From http://www.homepokertourney.com/allin_examples.htm

[ QUOTE ]
What happens when a player can't cover a blind? (All-in on a Blind)
If a player in the big blind position does not have enough chips to post a full big blind, he must go all-in with all his remaining chips. Even though this all-in bet is less than the full big blind, the 'bring-in' (minimum bet) is not lowered for the other players. If the blinds are 100-200 and the big blind goes all-in with 125 chips - the other players must still post 200 to remain in the pot. The 'bring-in' remains at 200 and the small blind must post 100 additional chips to call (assuming no raises). The big blind player all-in for 125 may only win 125 from each other player in the hand, he cannot win the full 200 big blind from each player.

An example: Assume the blinds are 200-400. The small blind posts 200 but the big blind posts only 150 (all-in) instead of 400. The remaining players must call the normal big blind bet of 400 to remain in the pot. The bring-in (opening bet) is not lowered to 150. The small blind must add an additional 200 to the pot to stay in the hand (assuming no raises). The big blind (all-in) player may only win as many chips as he bet (150) from each opposing player. A twist to this example is that if one player calls the 400 big blind and then the small blind folds, the player who called is refunded 300 from the pot instead of 250. He receives 250 to make his bet equal to the big blind all-in bet of 150 and he also receives 50 of the 200 bet that the small blind posted. The pot is now 450 (150 x 3 players).


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Question about All in in the small blind
 

[ QUOTE ]
I run a bi-weekly tournament, one of my members played in the WSOP this year and tried to screw us over when he was short stacked in the SB.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: Question about All in in the small blind
 

Thanks for the info everyone, that is exactly how we have played it all along, and this method didn't make much since to anyone in attendance.