Great videos. Rude that they've had so few views. Pandemonium is the right word for me as a newbie dealer when side pots occur. I was "trained" to do it a different way which even I struggle with. And with my mind always rushing in the moment I dont think I'm learning comfortably enough. I was told to leave stacks in front of players and then turn all over, start with smallest stack and take that from each player they beat. Award, muck their cards, move on to next lowest stack, repeat until done. With the proper way you show..how to remember which players are eligible for each pot besides the one player it's pointing at!? Ugh. And in amongst all this, players already know they've lost, gotten up and walked, have chips left, multiple players talking and saying things. God damn. Then there's PLO. Oh no.
Howdy GreatBritishBeast!! Thanks for watching! Yeah I tooootally feel ya on this. Dealing can get hectic and nerve wrecking especially for a newbie. It's too stressful. And the way you were taught, leaving stacks in front of players, would confuse the heck outta me. That seems like it would only work if multiple players went all in on the River. Point the pots is the only method I know as of now, but I'm sure there are other ways. The main thing I struggle with is the button freezing when a player leaves. Maybe you can make a video about that and teach us 😃! I'd totes watch and sub!
Once again, how in the WORLD have you mastered yet another subject?! Nonetheless, that silky voice can explain anything to me. I feel much more enlightened on this now. And, I saw those Angela Bassett arms reaching into the frame - GET IT!
As a dealer, who is ever left for the last side pot, i muck the losing hand (leaving their hand out may confuse you), they have been eliminated from the other pots (since their is a superior winning hand). I also instruct the players in order (last side pot to main pot) to turn over their hands so I don,t have to read multiple hands and get confused as to who involved in which pot. It gets really confusing with Omaha8.
ur amazing at explaining stuff thank u! could u make a episode on how the match plays out if one player or all players go all in preflop? and another thing how do i determine the lowest bet? like at 6:09
Hey RiverJ 😊! I'll add that video to my upcoming video schedule for sure! As for the action at 6:09, the lowest bet out became $25 after taking $500 from each player that had a bet out. So maybe don't think of it as a new bet, but as the remaining amount after taking $500. But since $25 is still less than the amount the other players have remaining, another side pot has to be created.
Hey Roberto Mondello😊! Thanks for your question! A side pot is created when a player doesn't have enough to cover a bet but wants to stay in the game. They would have to go all in to do this. The river is the last round of betting and if every player has enough to cover the bet there's no need to create a side pot. So in other words, if someone bets $100 and the other players have enough to cover that bet, they can't decide to put less money out just to create a side pot. They have to cover the bet or fold. The player with just $75 left however would have to go all in if they wanna stay in the game and that's when the side pot would be needed.
@@webstersfixtionary Ok, thanks for answer me. I asked you because I had seen a James Bond film where the protagonist was at the poker table for the tournament where he played with three other competitors, among them was Mr Le Chiffre, the main antagonist of the movie. After the fifth and last card has been added (the River) James is the first to play (smal blind), checks, one of the participants is the second to play (big blind) and must either check, or make a bet, which usually should be equal to or greater than the big blind (apparently the small blind was $1,000,000 and the big blind was $2,000,000, but I don't know if they raised the big blind or not, because they showed directly the scene where the croupier has added the fourth card on the table, the Turn). The second player raises on the big blind going All In, betting $6,000,000, the third player calls, but does not have the same amount as the second player and puts $5,000,000 into the pot, Le Chiffre who is the Dealer and the last player to play can call , fold or raise, and in fact raises to double the big blind's All In ($12,000,000), only Le Chiffre's raise wasn't an All In since he had enough chips to play. Now it's up to agent Bond, whether to call, raise or fold, and in fact he raises betting all he has, i.e. $40,500,000, and Le Chiffre decides to call by betting everything he has, but I don't know how many chips he had, if he had the same stake as James either had less or more. There was no side pot however, they did that winner takes all thing. If you don't believe me you can look it up on RU-vid, unless you haven't already seen that movie.
😂Which Bond film is this?? I wanna see it now! Ok so the scene switching suddenly and backtracking to the "turn" (4th card) is confusing and throwing me off but, this situation depends on how much money players have left and how many bets and raises the cardroom will allow in one turn. Usually in the last round of betting (or sometimes at the "turn") when you have all players going all-in because they can't cover the bet, or everyone is all-in except the one person that still has money left, some dealers/croupiers won't bother making side pots. They just wait for the showdown and calculate who's owed what from there. If Le Chiffre called all-in, he more than likely had less than Bond. If the dealer/croupier had seen that his all-in was more than Bond's bet, Bond would have had to call that bet. Dealers/croupiers can kinda eye the chips to see if it's more or less without counting them. If they see it's more they'll just ask the player (Bond in this case) if they wanna call the bet or not. No need to make him actually count out the chips. You can look at his stack and see he can cover it.
@@robertomondello2447 Oh shoot! My bad, didn't see this. My goodness, this scene is why I stopped becoming a dealer! It's sooooo tense 😂 . Yes, in this situation dealers typically won't waste time doing side pots at the river when you have the final two players with money going all in because it might just be one person getting paid out anyway just as how it happened in the scene. Bond beat everyone anyway. If he had not, then the dealer would have paid out the winner based on what they were eligible to win. For example if the guy that went in for 6million was the best hand, then he would have gotten 6 million from each player (well 5mil from that other guy) plus the main pot since he actually contributed to the main pot all the way up to the River. This is a great scene!!
In your first example, could you explain why players B and E were the only ones eligible to win the main pot if all the other plays bet 1K into the main pot as well?
Hey Team1200! 😊 Thanks for the question! So all the other players were eliminated during the showdowns for the side pots. If a player beats you for the side pot they're definitely gonna beat you for the main pot so the dealer would just eliminate you anyway. Player B was not eligible to participate in those side pots because they only contributed to the main pot. So when the showdown for the main pot came around only players B and E were remaining.
Perfectly explained but, that's so stupid. In the earlier pots, different players had money in the split pots but because they lost against 1 player in the latest pot, they don't have an opportunity to play in the previous pots that have their money. That's so dumb. They could have better cards against someone in the earlier pots they betted but, they can't even play just because they lost for a small pot. I can't properly explain it because I don't really know terms but, it's stupid. For example. That second pot that C went all in and A, C, D, and E all had money in the pot but, just because they lost a pot after that, they're just disqualified and can't play for a pot they have money in. if that makes sense.
LOL!! I had the exact same hang up when I was learning this! I'll try not to confuse you even more with my humble attempt, but basically if "A" couldn't beat "D" for side pot 3 then they definitely wouldn't be able to beat them in the subsequent pots and remember only "A" and "D" were eligible for pot 3. So all in all, if you lose a pot to a player, there's no point in staying in for the next pot because you're just going to keep loosing to that same player. For example, even though "C" had chips in the main pot, they lost to "E" for the side pot which means they would lose to them again for the main pot either way. Hope that helps 😬
