«

You Be The Floor:

Calculating an Undersize Pot

Comments (9)
by , Jun 21, 2009 | 5:16 pm

An interesting situation came up the other day in a $5,000 Pot-Limit Omaha that required floor intervention … (yes, even Harris screws up every once in a while occasionally calls for assistance.)

Blinds were 5k/10k … the big blind was all-in for his last 5k … meaning there was 5k in front of the small blind, 5k in front of the big blind … so the question is: How much can the first player to act bring it in for? Or perhaps more specifically, since we all probably know that the minimum to call is still 10k … How much would “pot” be in this situation?


Tags: , , , ,
  • Kevin Mathers

    Since there’s only 10k in the pot, the first person to act could raise it up to 30k.

  • http://pokerati.com/about-us/#danm DanM

    yeah, you might think that — particularly because little blinds are not completed when calculating a “true” pot, but …

  • Lillian2611

    The pot is determined by calculating the amount actually in the pot plus the minimum to call, so it seems to me that the pot in this situation would be $5k + $5k + $10k = $20k and the first player can raise it to a maximum of $30k rather than the $35k that would be standard if the BB had been able to complete.

  • http://www.rapideyereality.com Otis

    Lillian and Kevin are correct. I can’t imagine anyone making a different call.

  • http://pokerati.com/about-us/#danm DanM

    i’m so glad you all are saying this, because this really woulda been a boring post if everyone was like, yeah, right here’s the answer, and all were right.

    while i’m not quite ready to make an assertion of what was correct, i can tell you that 30k was not the ruling that was handed down.

  • Harris

    According to Tournament Director Steve Frazor you are all incorrect. While the player in the big blind only has $5k, when calculating the pot the big blind is an implied full bet. The reasoning behind this is because if you count the big blind as only the $5k and not the full $10k then you have to allow players to only call the $5k to enter the pot. If they want to raise the pot they would call 5 and raise 15 more for a total of 20, not 30. Since you are always required to call the amount of the full big blind, regardless of whether or not the big blind has enough to cover the amount, in order to enter the pot, the big blind’s bet must be considered a full bet whenever calculating the total amount of a pot sized raise. Therefore the answer to the question is $35k

    And by the way Dan, I did not make a mistake. I was simply unsure of the correct amount and had to consult the floor for assistance. How dare you post that I made a mistake just days after showcasing my final table prowess

  • http://pokerati.com/about-us/#danm DanM

    So you called the floor on yourself? I did not realize that …

  • http://www.rapideyereality.com Otis

    I know Steve well and respect the hell out of him, but this call confuses me.

    While it’s true the amount of the minimum bet cannot be altered because the big blind does not have enough to post the full amount, the amount that is in the pot is not implied at any point. The amount in the pot in this case is light, but it is what it is.

    That is, I disagree that if the pot were calculated based on the actual amount that any player could enter the pot for the lesser amount. Better put, the blinds don’t define the minimum bet. The minimum bet defines the blinds.

    Here’s a different scenario:

    The small blind is $5K, the big is $10K, and both can post the required amount. The player under the gun only has a $5K chip and goes all-in. The player to his left wants to pot it. Now, if the ‘implied amount’ rule were in play, the limp should be counted as $10K, which clearly wouldn’t make sense.

    Again, I respect Steve a great deal and would never doubt his calls. If there is such a rule on which Steve is basing his call, the rule doesn’t make sense.

  • http://pokerati.com/about-us/#danm DanM

    I tracked down TD Steve to try and get an answer about the above … and before I had the camera rolling, he acknowledged, “I was wrong.” But he might have just been joking, so I went Bill O’Reilly on his ass and forced him to answer the tough question: