Player B has one dollar more than Player A and is all-in for side pot #1.
Player C and Player D are contesting side pot #2. No other players are in the pot.
Player C has the nut high, Player D has the nut low, and they chop side pot #2.
Player C has the nut high, Player B and Player D both have the nut low, and they are supposed to chop side pot #1, which contains $3. If the side pot and main pot are supposed to be considered separately and the extra chip is supposed to go to the high hand, what do you do?
(In the actual hand, the dealer paused because he knew something was weird, then decided to mix the main pot and side pot #1. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to stir up some cranky players and they didn't notice. Maybe it would have been different if Player A also had a share of the low side of the pot.)
The high and low are each $1. The remainder of $1 goes to the high for a total of $2. The low is left with a single $1 which goes to the worst position.
This is totally out of my field and probably wrong
Each side pot should be split according to house rules. Some places allow each player involved in the side pots to be eligible for only 1 "extra" chip. So if on the first side pot there was an extra chip, High would get it. Next side pot, if there was an extra chip again, Low would get it.
At our place, the extra chip in each pot always goes to the High, and if two players eligible for the same "extra" chip, then I goes to worst position.
Regardless if there's only one main pot or 10 side pots, each pot should be chopped properly, with the odd chips being awarded as defined by the house rules. In your scenario side pot #2 is chopped evenly (the odd chip, if any, going to the high), side pot #1 has two chips going to the high and the one remaining $1 chip for the low is awarded to either the player in worse position or to the player with the lowest card by rank and suit in the hand (this varies by card room). The main pot is then chopped similarly.
The procedures really aren't very complicated and it annoys me to no end when I see a dealer get lazy and mix side pots and main pots. I would definitely point this out in a game.
Each side pot should be split according to house rules. Some places allow each player involved in the side pots to be eligible for only 1 "extra" chip. So if on the first side pot there was an extra chip, High would get it. Next side pot, if there was an extra chip again, Low would get it.
At our place, the extra chip in each pot always goes to the High, and if two players eligible for the same "extra" chip, then I goes to worst position.
But I really like Angus' solution ...
+1
My room also would use Uniden's last explanation. High always gets it.
Regardless if there's only one main pot or 10 side pots, each pot should be chopped properly, with the odd chips being awarded as defined by the house rules. In your scenario side pot #2 is chopped evenly (the odd chip, if any, going to the high), side pot #1 has two chips going to the high and the one remaining $1 chip for the low is awarded to either the player in worse position or to the player with the lowest card by rank and suit in the hand (this varies by card room). The main pot is then chopped similarly.
The procedures really aren't very complicated and it annoys me to no end when I see a dealer get lazy and mix side pots and main pots. I would definitely point this out in a game.
Let's build actual pots to make things a bit clearer in the chopping process.
Main pot $83, side pot 1 $3, side pot 2 $10.
chop as follows (in my casino anyway) side pot 2-$5 each to C/D. Side pot 1 ($3 total) $2 to C for high, $1 to worst position between B/D. Main pot ($83 total) $42 to C for high, $21 to worst position B/D, $20 to better position B/D. At least the places I have worked would chop this way.
The procedures really aren't very complicated and it annoys me to no end when I see a dealer get lazy and mix side pots and main pots. I would definitely point this out in a game.
In all fairness in this case I don;t think the dealer was being lazy. Its not any less work doing it the way he did it.
I think the dealer was looking for a MORE FAIR solution. I agree he shouldn't because the rules say not to .... but It seems to me that that more fair rule would be to combine side pots in this scenario.
In all fairness in this case I don;t think the dealer was being lazy. Its not any less work doing it the way he did it.
I think the dealer was looking for a MORE FAIR solution. I agree he shouldn't because the rules say not to .... but It seems to me that that more fair rule would be to combine side pots in this scenario.
By lazy I mean not caring to take the time to inquire what the correct procedure is. And a big lol at (most) dealers doing something to make things fairer for the players. In my experience, most dealers will take the quick and easy way out, fair or not, and most idiots at the table never notice.
By lazy I mean not caring to take the time to inquire what the correct procedure is. And a big lol at (most) dealers doing something to make things fairer for the players. In my experience, most dealers will take the quick and easy way out, fair or not, and most idiots at the table never notice.
Really? You don't think if that side pot had one more chip in it the dealer wouldn't have just split and then moved to the next pot? But he saw that a player was getting nothing which is what caused him go the other route.
