Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Proposal: All In The Pot (The Water’s Fine)

timed out, final vote 5-1-0—Yoda

Adminned at 11 Jan 2008 16:32:27 UTC

Part 1
Add the following to Rule 2.7 entitled “Dealing and Play”:

There will be a GNDT entry entitled “TBTH” for each player.  This column will track each player’s Total Bet This Hand.  Every time a player calls or raises, the amount of their call or raise is added to the TBTH column.  At the end of each hand, all player’s TBTH columns are reset back to 0.  For example, if a player bets $50, and then later in the hand raises $25, their TBTH would be $75.

Helpful for keeping track of who is eligible to win what, especially in terms of all-ins and side bets.

Part 2
Add a Rule to the Ruleset entitled “All In” with the following text:

If at any time a player bets all of his money on a single hand he is considered all in. Once having gone all in, a player may not make any more bets during that hand.  Any bet which would be considered a raise to the all-in bet would then be distributed into a Side Pot, in such a way so that the portion of the raise that calls the all-in bet is placed in the main pot (i.e. “ThePot”), and the remainder of the raise then placed into a separate GNDT row entry entitled “SidePotX”, where X is the number of the Side Pot (in cases where more than one side pot exists).  If there is a bet of all-in after an initial bet of all-in has been placed, another entry in the GNDT is created entitled “SidePot(X+1)” where X is the number of the previous SidePot GNDT entry.

If a player makes a bet of all-in that is not high enough to call any previous total bet (including another all-in bet), another side pot is created in accordance with the rules for creating side pots above.  The main pot will then be adjusted to reflect the maximum winnable by the player still invested in any pot with the smallest total bet, and any remaining balance will then be distributed into the remaining side pots in such a manner that each side pot, if added to the main pot, then reflects the total winnable by the player with the smallest total bet still invested in that side pot.

The players who are invested in the side pot with the fewest invested players determine the winner of that pot in accordance with the rules for determining winners of hands.  The winner of that pot then becomes invested in the side pot with the next fewest invested players (or the main pot if there are no other side pots), and winners for each side/main pot are determined as usual.  A player who makes an all-in bet is not eligible to win any of the money in a side pot they are not invested in.  A non-seated player may not be invested in any pot.

Comments

Darknight:

01-10-2008 01:09:59 UTC

imperial for now

Yoda:

01-10-2008 01:34:20 UTC

sounds good for

spikebrennan:

01-10-2008 01:57:34 UTC

Would it be better for TBTH to track each player’s bet during this _round_ (i.e., pre-flop, after the flop, after the turn, after the river?)

Rodlen:

01-10-2008 05:43:41 UTC

for

Jack:

01-10-2008 12:29:21 UTC

for

aaronwinborn:

01-10-2008 15:05:28 UTC

for plus someone should put in a fix for spikebrennan’s concern

spikebrennan:

01-10-2008 22:29:31 UTC

against until the concern that I raised is fixed.

spikebrennan:

01-10-2008 22:30:35 UTC

We have time to fix this because all participants in the currently ongoing hand started the hand with the same amount of money, so there is no need for side pots until this hand is concluded.

Night:

01-11-2008 01:48:59 UTC

The reason I went with ‘Total Bet This Hand’ instead of round is for cases where a player goes ‘all in’ prior to the last round.  If a player goes all in after the turn, for instance, they would be eligible to receive whatever is in the main pot at that time, and a side pot would be created for the remainder.  But, if another player goes all-in after the river for less than the TBTH of the first player that went all-in, then that first player would be eligible for more money than they put in according to the wording of this rule right now.  I think.

So, I went with TBTH instead of TBTR because it actually makes it easier to keep track of who is eligible for what in cases where multiple side pots are necessary, in particular in cases where side pots are created on more than one round.

Who knew ‘programming’ poker in legal terms could be so convoluted.  ;)

Night:

01-11-2008 01:53:37 UTC

Addendum to the first paragraph of my comment above: The first player would be eligible for more money than their TBTH if the wording was re-worded to read TBTR.  Again, I think.

Also, if we went with TBTR instead of TBTH, any player who went all in previous to the river would have a TBTR of 0 during the last round, which I think would be more confusing than not, not to mention make it more difficult to determine their winnings in the case that they win their pot(s).

spikebrennan:

01-11-2008 03:35:17 UTC

imperial
Change of vote to imperial merely to nullify my own “NO” vote.  Let the democratic process prevail.

Yoda:

01-11-2008 03:50:06 UTC

According to Rule 1.4 (Voting), the Dealer cannot cast a vote of deferential.

spikebrennan:

01-11-2008 15:03:51 UTC

Does that mean that my vote is still “No”, or that I presently have no valid vote?

Night:

01-11-2008 17:17:30 UTC

Because I’d really like my proposal to pass, I’m going to go with “no valid vote”.  ;)  (Is that selfish?  Oh well, it’s the wild west, GIMME!)

Yoda:

01-11-2008 21:13:43 UTC

Your proposal would pass anyway.  It was 4-2 before Spike’s COV.  Now it is 4-1-0.