Just curious, during a recent game, one player was all in, not sure but I think preflop. The other two players got it all in on the flop and decided to run it twice. The allin players said it would count for him aswell. Was this right?

You should never allow RIT when there is multiple players in the pot. If the players not all-in on the flop know they can RIT, it could influence their action on whether or not they call the all-in in the first place.

As for your specific question, if RIT was allowed, then to seems to me the deal was between the other two and only applies to the side pot.

This was wrong in the first place, so there is no right answer about how to do it.

Look at it from the perspective of the player all-in preflop. Especially if he's not familiar with these players. It could look a lot like collusion.

They ended up using the RIT counting for all players. So RIT is only for 2 players, is that the best way? I just wanted to know incase it comes up again?

It's a much cleaner rule to say that players can't RIT in a hand with a side pot. That's the rule I like. However, it can be done, and when it's allowed, it's no more likely to inflate a player's tolerance for risk than the ability to RIT in any other situation. It's just messier and perhaps not worth the trouble.

Player A is all-in preflop for main pot. Players B and C get all-in on the flop for the side pot. Players B and C decide to run it twice. If player A is on board, you run it twice, award the halves of the side pot between B and C, and then award the halves of the main pot among A, B, and C.

If player A is not on board, you run it twice, award the halves of the side pot between B and C, and then award the entire main pot according to only the first turn and river to come out.

Easy peasy. But I wouldn't want to set myself up to have to regularly deal with this scenario and the potential mistakes it could induce (never mind how sloppy it could get with more than one side pot).

Simple house rules should be RIT (or whatever) only can occur when heads up, at least one player all in, and both players agree obviously. Works for us and doesn't take that much more time usually.

In your sample hand there should be just one board for all 3 players IMHO

This falls into the same category as when two players call an all-in and then look at each other and say, "check it down?" before the board is run out. Even in a casual game, just stop that right now so that players are "trained" not to do it.

ok thanks, like the idea that only heads up. I'll mention it next time it comes up

Here's my problem with it. If player A is all-in preflop for 100, and B and C are colluding (and I'm not saying they are here, don't get me wrong, this is hypothetical) and they go all-in for 1000 each, A is now up against two hands to win.

B and C don't care who wins between them, but if they think they're combined hands would have positive equity against A, it makes sense to do this. Especially if it drives out other players.

It doesn't smell horrible, but it does give off an odor, and that is to be avoided in any poker game.

Say player A calls for 100 preflop, gets raised out of the pot, and goes on to see B and C get all-in, RIT, and split the pot (including A's money)? This gives off an odor too, no? It's almost worse because A has been bet out of his entire stake in the pot by two players who may even have a standing agreement to RIT. Yet this scenario is the most basic implementation of RIT.

If players B and C are sharing a roll, it actually doesn't benefit them to get all-in after A is all-in. They'd do just as well to check it down, make small bets, or any other line that gets them both to the river, if the goal is to make A compete against both of them for the main pot.

I'm no fan of soft-play, and I wouldn't stand for this kind of behavior. However, not allowing RIT with a side pot doesn't stymie the intentions of such colluders at all. Like I said, the only real reason not to allow RIT with a side pot is that it's a hassle and potentially messy.

Yeah, you make a good point. The scenario you describe is one reason I don't like RIT. In many cases, there is nothing suspicious about it, but when I see someone overbet the pot, get called, then RIT, it gives a bad vibe.

Maybe what I don't like it having RIT at all, because this can happen.

I suppose using the all-in to drive out everyone else, then getting another hand in it to up the equity could help in some situations, though, right?

RIT doesn't change player equity, nor does it guarantee a split pot. In our games we RIT mostly in PLO where equities are usually much closer than in NLHE. The players who like to RIT are usually those who are interested in reducing their short-term variance, as in "I know I'm ahead, so if you're going to win the whole pot you're going to have to suck out on me twice." More likely than not, the player who's a 4:1 favorite is going to win both runouts (is it roughly 64% to win both if one person has equity of 80%?).

I'm not talking about RIT per se. I'm talking about RIT where 2 of 3 players are colluding and splitting the profit.

Sure, it helps to chase out that fourth player, but what you're talking about now is just basics of collusion, not the effect of RIT. If they're splitting the profits, it doesn't matter how many times they run it—once, twice, four times, whatever. Money-wise, the outcome is the same.

Ah, yeah. Got it. Only took 3 or 4 times. If they're going to split the profit, they don't even need RIT.

This isn't even close to that situation. Here the players wanting to RIT have already gone all-in on the sidepot. There is going to be no further betting. They have already committed there chips before asking if the other will RIT.

This would be similar if before they went all-in one said to the other hey if I call your all-in bet will you run it twice?

If you are concerned that they know in advance that there opponent always agrees to run it twice you have found the problem with allowing people to run it twice that exists whether or not someone is all-in.

If people want to cheat they can just settle up after. Much better to have this stuff out in the open where you can see it.

This is what we do:

multiway pots: all players have to agree on RIT (or 3, 4...), or there is no RIT possible (not even for the side pot)
after they agreed, they can do w/e the f they want