I have a question about the procedure for making side pots and would like the opinion of experienced players and answers from dealers.

Here's a scenario to illustrate my question/concern. It's made up.

==

There is a main pot of about $200. There are four players still in the hand after the flop.

The turn card comes.

Andy goes all-in for $54.

Becky raises to $189.

Charlie calls the $189.

Diane calls the $189.

The dealer starts to make a side pot.
There are two methods to consider.

==

Method I:
The dealer announces, "The all-in bet is $54, so that means it's $135 from these three players for a side pot of $405."

The dealer then pushes all four bets (from A, B, C, and D) together and picks out $405 and makes a side pot. The dealer then shoves the remaining chips into the main pot.

Method II:
The dealer announces, "The all-in bet is $54, so that means it's $216 into the main pot. All the rest is on the side."

The dealer takes the all-in bet and then $54 from the other three bets and puts all of those chips into the main pot. The three remaining piles of chips are pushed into a pile on the side.

=========

Players:
Which Method above do you prefer?
Or do you not care?

Dealers:
Which Method is the way you should be making the side pot?
Is neither correct?
Or does it not matter?

==

The "social" poker room I go to in Portland has dealers who use Method I.

My thought is:



My rationale is:

Best way is not listed.

Best way eliminates trying to figure (189-54)*3 or 54*4.

Best way is, "Pull in $54 from each bet; rest is on the side."

Either method 1, method 2, or the YTF method are all fine with me as long as the money ends up in the right place. Personally, I'm using method 2, but I'd be more descriptive about it when I'm announcing as I deal.

"He's all in for 54. There are 4 players. 54 times 4 is 216. So there's 216 in the main and the rest is in the side pot for you 3."

The YTF method is method 2, only without the unnecessary step of doing the math, isn't it?

Anyway, I prefer method 2, especially for awkward amounts like 54.

But if you talk through method 1 first, that is fine too, especially for rounder amounts. it's just harder to follow for some, and cannot be undone/explained once you mash the piles together.

Either way works. Just announce what you're doing before touching any chips.

I would go with "Four time 54 makes it 216 in the main, the rest is on the side."

If Andy had 180 out of 189 I would go with "He's short 9 so 9 times three, 27 on the side, the rest in the main."


If it gets the least bit tricky, this is the only way to do it.

The difference between YTF's method and method 2 is that YTF is literally taking 54 from each stack and pulling it into the main pot. Even a player who's sitting at a poker table for the 1st time in his life can follow along and see that YTF is taking proper care of all of the money.

When I do method 2 I'm grabbing a $100 stack from Diane's 189, a $100 stack from Charlie's 189 and 16 more from wherever else I can quickly grab it. Even if I narrate what I'm doing the whole time I'm running the risk that when the hand's over and Charlie wins only the side pot he's going to give me a funny look wondering where the rest of his money went.

IF!? I hate it when dealer just starts grabbing chips and moving them around.

You knowing you're doing it right is no help if it's not clear to the players.

Well then you're doing method 3. Method 2 was:
Method 3 is the worst of both worlds to me. It's not appreciably faster than method 2 for cases when the all-in is close to the full amount or round, and like method 1 it's not transparent, easy to follow, or easy to reconstruct. It relies heavily on having done the math right.

I mean it's not bad when it works, but when there are questions it causes problems.

Which is it Dinesh? YTF said he's picking 54 out of each individual stack without the unnecessary step of math. You responded that he's just doing method 2.

Then when I responded that when I do the math to arrive at the same number and take the total of 216 from wherever I can most quickly grab it, you decided to call my method an abomination and label it as method 3.

Did you read my first response to the OP? I'm narrating the entire thing. I'm identifying 4 players who are in for $54. I like method 2. Method 1 is a little more effort, but basically just as good as method 2 is.

And YTF's method (which may or may not be method 1, 2, or 3 according to you) is definitely the easiest for the players to follow along with and the least likely to result in any dealer errors no matter how inexperienced or distracted the dealer is (not implying that YTF is either of those).

It is both. You said
Which I don't think is correct. Both YTF and Method 2 literally do this. Method 2 and YTF are both taking 54 out of each stack. This is visually easy for the players to follow and understand, and is easy to keep the 54s separate until you have them from everyone and dump them into the main pot, in case there was a counting error, a question, or you need to reconstruct. The only difference is method 2 starts by saying "54*4=216", which YTF just skips entirely.

You are doing the math, then taking 100 from one guy, 100 from another, and 16 from any old place after that. That is not easy for people to follow, and not necessarily as easy to reconstruct if there are questions or issues.

I didn't call your method an abomination, I said it was the worst of the three methods, which it is. I also said it is fine when it works, but causes problems when it doesn't. Which it does.

In post 3 you said you use method 2, but in post 6 you said you're taking 100 from some people and 16 from others and nothing from others, which is not method 2 after all. I agree with what you said in post 3. I think post 6 is worse than either method 1 or 2.

I agree that narrating what you're doing while you're doing it is a best practice no matter which way you do it.

As a player, I am clearly in favor of No reason to encourage players to do/understand math on the table to be able to figure out what the dealer is doing. Take the all-in bet from each stack and everything else goes to the sidepot.

As a dealer I usually do it as described by YTF, but if the numbers are really simple I will do it as described in #1.

As a player, I prefer ytf's method. Easy for players to follow and seems to be less prone to error, especially if there are multiple side pots.

Any method stated gets to the right answer. I tell my dealers to use whatever works for them to get the answer fastest. Usually it depends on what the bets are.

If the AI has $22, and the rest of the best are $28, the math is much easier to take the $6 difference and multiply it to get the side pot.

If the AI has $22, and the rest are $163, it's much easier to take $22 times the number of players in the main pot.

If a rookie wants to take $22 from each person's bet individually I don't care. Not as efficient but he or she will learn these shortcuts over time.

This 13 year rookie finds it pretty efficient to take $22 from each stack.

Mine depends on the players. If I'm dealing a casual small buy-in tournament, I'm doing it "the dumb way" and I audibly announce that "I'm doing it the dumb way". Unless there is a good chance I'll run into a problem with chip denominations and it'll take too long to make proper change throughout, I'll just pull in what I need to make each pot right until all the bets are in their appropriate pot (obv starting from the center and working outward).

If I'm dealing a cash game, I'll generally just do the math out loud and do whichever way is easiest.


I never want anyone at the table to be unsure about what's happening. It's their money, not mine.

Lots of people, myself included, don't want a dealer to take any shortcuts when their money is involved.

Do the 10 seconds you might save really outweigh the situations where the dealer messes up the math in his head or when a player doesn't understand what happens and calls for the floor?

YTF's method is the safe one they teach in dealer school. If you do it carefully you won't make a mistake. I revert to it often if the numbers are weird, if there's multiple side pots, or if I'm tired. Any other method is a shortcut that dealers adopt after they feel confident enough.

I don't do #2 often because I find it leads to the most questions. Players don't know if the number I came up with includes the all in stack or they worry that I didn't really get all of the stacks into the side pot. Maybe I just wasn't explaining it clearly enough, I don't know. #1 seems to quiet them down better and they have a visible side pot they can count and redo the math on.

It often comes down to the numbers - if the all in is a nice round number or small number I'll do #2, if the difference between them is $10 then #1 becomes easy.

I agree that bringing in the all-in amount out of each individual stack is the easiest to follow and will give the players the most confidence that their money is being handled properly.

But I've been in a position where I'm pushing out a dealer, ready to sit in for the next hand and have watched them butcher a pot by trying to do it the "easy" way.

Player A bets $200. Player B calls. Player C calls. Player D calls. Player E goes all-in for 182. A, B, C, and D have all bet with 2 black chips. Now I'm watching the dealer make change out of a black chip four separate times, breaking $100 down into greens, reds, and whites. The players are rolling their eyes. And I'm standing quietly behind the dealer wondering why he won't just put $72 in the side pot and get done with the hand.

If the all in bet was for $22, and 5 other players put in $100, using no $1 chips, this would not be very efficient.

The correct answer is...
But,
If it is a simple number then I am ok with doing it as you described in both methods. The kicker is that the dealer must make sure that all players have the correct amounts pushed out otherwise they will need to make change as well.

If it is all in for $26 and raise to $60 with one caller this is simple. 34 twice is 68 on the side.

In your example:

Andy goes all-in for $54.

Becky raises to $189.

Charlie calls the $189.

Diane calls the $189.

This is not simple. I would want it done YTF's way.

The reason is not because it isn't simple math. The reason is so there is no question that it was done properly. When players are all in or playing for a big pot they tend to get a little excited and it is easy for them to loose that part of their brain that can follow simple math and if they think you did it wrong after the hand, there is no way of explaining it to them that they will believe.

I suppose I could have been more clear. As a few folks have noted, 9*3 is simple enough to take the shortcut.

OP specified more complicated multiplication. I cannot do 54*4 very quickly in my head, let alone (189-54)*3. You know who else can't do it quickly? The player at your table with the biggest mouth! Even if you're 1000% correct, SOMEONE is going to stop the game and audit your math. If you don't think so, BET ME! They might speak up right away; more likely, they will speak up after the pot has been pushed, making this affair even messier.

Even if no one speaks up (a rarity), several players will be VISIBLY UNCOMFORTABLE. They have no idea what 54*4 is, but now they have to wonder about your ability to do this correctly. This is not an Optimal Customer Service approach to things. These customers are your GUESTS. Your job is to make your guests comfortable, not uncomfortable.

Who needs all that? Take TWO SECONDS to grab $54 from each stack. Anyone arguing against this is a nit who prefers the one-second solution over the two-second solution, guest comfort and further delays be damned.

Which is why in my first response I noted it was a play time decision which method to use. Though depending on composition of main pot may not be bad if there are lots of green and white in main

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk