Stupid Question About Side Pots

[Jordan Olsommer]

When someone pays enough to be in the main pot and then folds to later action in the side pot, why is that player not allowed to show down a hand to compete for the main pot? He put in enough money to see the other players' bets for the main pot, after all. Forgive me if there's a very simple reasoning behind this but I just can't see it. Does anyone know how this rule came about? I'm not arguing that it should be one way or the other - I'm just curious as to why the rule is what it currently is.

Thank you in advance for your responses, unless you want to respond with something to the effect of "dumbest. question. ever."; I'm really more interested in people who have something meaningful to say.

The "all-in protection" rule is used to allow a player going all-in to still be able to compete for part of the pot instead of being forced out. The rule was originally set in place to prevent collusion between rich players vs. poor players, and also to prevent rich players from preventing poorer players (or rather, players with smaller bankrolls) from calling bets. Example: You have a straight flush and bet $30 out of your $100 stack. I have nothing and bet $3 billion with my company's shares. You have to fold because you don't have that kind of money.

Any players competing for the side pot are not only playing for the side pot. They are playing for the side AND the main pot. Allowing a player to win part of the pot is the same as allowing a player to turn up his cards for preflop bets only after folding on the river. The pot is still the pot. The shortstack is entitled to a portion of the pot if she has the best hand. Other players are playing for the whole pot.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
The shortstack is entitled to a portion of the pot if she has the best hand. Other players are playing for the whole pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, there's the problem - I was thinking of them conceptually as two separate pots. Thanks for answering that question.