Pot Limit - Official Ruling Question

My home games are PL and we play hold'em and Omaha. The following ruling for this situation has plagued me for some time.

What's the official ruling on calculating the POT size when theres a main pot and a side pot as result of a player being 'all in'?

Let's say player 1 is all in and players 2 & 3 continue betting with a side pot. If the main pot = $20 and side pot = $5, which pot amount does players 2 & 3 use as their POT limit?

a. the side pot of $5 because that's the active pot.

b. the total amount of both pots [$25] because both players 2 & 3 have interest in both pots and therefore can use both pots in their calculation.

I say 'a' but an argument can be made for 'b' due to the interest in both pots. I have not played in a PL game at a casino nor online to experience this situation.

Thanks for the help.

[Jim T]

B of course.

I could just imagine a 3 way pot where one guy had $99 left vs two deep stacks and $100 total bets were made & called by the other two putting short stack all in. Main pot $297, side pot $2 - maximum initial bet on the turn (or river, whatever) $2????

EDIT: Or even more absurd, a short stack with $999 - Main pot 2997, side pot 2.

[BluffTHIS!]

Like he said it is of course B. This can cause some ugly situations when there is a very big pot preflop or on the flop and where a lag bluffs/semibluffs into a small sidepot with another player allin forcing a 3rd player to fold, and who then doesn't improve but whose action allowed the allin player to win the big main pot when he wouldn't have beat the player who folded. Like I said this is ugly with a small sidepot not a large one which would often be worth winning itself and justified such aggressive action. I've been on the ugly side of this in both live and online play, and if the allin player and lag were friends or online and from same city then suspecting collusion could be reasonable but difficult to prove since such actions are natural for a lag anyway.

oops typo I meant I lean towards b. My home rules states both pots as well.

However, I had people discuss for both ways but I could never find the official ruling with an example or stating "both pots are used" or something to that affect. Since the pot by pure definition is all money invested, then maybe it doesn't need to be said.

Thanks for the input.