It seems as if the new rage in poker is what are known as bomb pots. This is from page 74 of my book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How to Make Them Better; An Analysis of Those Areas Where Poker Rooms Need Improvement.

Next, I want to mention what is known as bomb pots which have become popular in some cardrooms. For those who don’t know, a bomb pot is when all players agree to put a predetermined amount of money in the pot when they receive their first two cards. Then, the real betting action begins on the flop.

It should be clear that bomb pots not only change the structure of the game, but that they affect the balance of luck and skill towards luck. But they also have another much bigger problem. Bomb pots allow each player to not only see his starting two cards but the flop as well. In addition, there will be a lot of money in the pot before the real betting starts. This creates an ideal situation for players who want to collude, and because of this fact, no poker room should ever allow bomb pots.

All comments are welcome.

Mason

Would you say that this excerpt is a good representation of the quality of your book as a whole?

A lot of people like bomb pots because it adds to the apparent luck factor in NL. In reality, lots of casual players don't understand how to play them, especially if they are double bomb pots. The results are the newb players get wiped out, often leaving. If it happens in a room with a nice sized waiting list, it isn't that big a deal. However, if the room has spare capacity and would like to expand, it gets rid of people who could have supported more tables. The rooms I play in like it because they spread it as a double bomb pot, collecting double the rake which is maximized automatically. A win for the room.

Here in Central Texas the rage is PLO double board bomb pots. While as a player I'm a fan of them (because people are absolutely terrible at PLO), overall I believe they're a net negative. They can result in multiple players going bust and games breaking.

As a room operator I'd recommend flips where people just put in "x" amount on dealer change and you run out the bomb pot without any additional action. Helps to scratch that itch without killing a game in the process.

You could just make them Limit or capped as well.

They are an effective way to wake the table up every so often as well as give the Players some opportunity to see the Flop without a 3bet getting tossed out there.

How some Players lose their discipline in these is amazing and certainly an appeal to 'see blood' at what could be a snooze fest. GL

I don't quite follow how it creates an ideal situation for players to collude.

I think KABOOMing bomb pots from all poker rooms everywhere would be an overreaction.


Yes, I understand it's a different structure.
No, I don't think it leads to increased collusion.


Concerned that people in a regular NLH game are going busto in a double board PLO bomb pot... cap or limit the action. Make it a flip (no betting after initial ante).


I think they're fine in the spots that I've played them. Lowest level NLH in the room and a reasonable 3-5BB from everyone before seeing a NLH flop.

Some rooms have caps on how much you can lose in a bomb pot to keep it from getting too crazy.

There is definitely skill involved to those hands. You get people who don't know how to read Omaha hands properly, people over-valuing hands that would be great in NLH like two pair and sets, and others who are just afraid to bet anything because they don't know where they are. Someone who has thought the strategy through and is watching for tells can do well.

Collusion isn't something I've heard talked about before but is a potential problem.

Gamblers like them and will stick around for the next one so I'd say there is a benefit. You're always free to sit out the hand.

Changing the structure of the game isn't always a bad thing. Straddles, changing buy-ins, high hands, splash pots, all change the structure but they bring in players so they will continue.

In the rooms I play in they're not allowed, so the players all have to agree to put in 25 or whatever amount pre one at a time to see a flop. If a player doesn't agree, we don't do it. We're usually explaining it to the one or two players who don't know what it is but most of them love the idea and they're excited to participate.

I'm aware of this and it's a good point.

But is it really a win for the room? In the short term in certainly seems like it, but I have my doubt about the log term. That's because when bad players lose lose at too fast a rate they often quit playing and, in my opinion, turn into short-time players. When there lost rate is slower, and the "balance of luck and skill is better," they'll often turn into long-time players and actually lose more money in the long-run.

While not the subject of this thread, well structured poker games can actually be quite cruel.

Mason

As a room operator, you're always dealing with what some players want in the short-term and what's good for the room in the long-term.

Often, these problems will solve themselves, but that can come at the expense of long-term business.

Most live poker games remain honest because the players themselves police the games. I'm not as optimistic on these double board bomb pot games.

Mason

Let's look at an example. First, suppose it's a $1-$3 nlh game and two players are sharing the knowledge of what their cards are. This will give them a nice advantage, but there is only $4 in the pot and they only know four cards (which is enough) before the action starts.

Now suppose you have a double board bomb pot where everyone adds $5 to the pot. Now there will be $49 in the pot and the colluders will have knowledge of 10 cards before the action starts (and it's 14 cards in plo). That's a big difference.

Mason

So everyone agrees to put in $25 (and no more) before the flop no matter what their hand is. What happens if someone then doesn't follow what's been agreed to? I suspect the poker room would then rule in this player's favor since he's not violating the rules of the poker room.

Mason

Yup, of course they would and there's always that possibility but I haven't seen it happen. It's just like someone agreeing to check it down but then gets the nuts otr and decides to bet.

I think this is a minor point, but in your example, the player who now bets after making the nuts knows exactly what he's doing. But in the agreed upon putting $25 in, I could see a player not completely understanding what is going on and thus violating the agreement.

Mason

I wouldn't put it past anyone to pretend to be "confused". If they broke their code of honor in agreeing to do a preliminary bomb pot while acting in turn, they probably woke up with aces pre in the BB so they decide to jam. And I didn't mention but there are also a couple dealers who won't have that on their watch.

If someone puts in a blind raise under the gun before cards are dealt and left it in there it would be considered binding, right? Bomb pots are just a blind raise and everyone calling. If someone tries to pull it back or raise after the hand has started, which I've never seen happen, it should be an easy ruling. They've already acted pre-flop.

Could you explain more how this makes collusion easier or more serious? It's not intuitive to me that it is worse because they now know 10 cards, as everyone knows 6 of them.

BP's are bad for the game. Some fish busts and gets annoyed and quits. Another quadruples up and takes all the money off the table. The regs dont really want to play them in the first place because they just slow the game down, especially PLO boards where everyone tries to figure out what they have. To be fair the only people who like them are degen losers because it's their only hope of winning a decent pot, but even those guys arent great for the game and probably buyin short.

i love playing split pot games , and bellagio holds two double bomb pot tourneys on tuesday (200) , i plan on playig them next week and see how it plays.
ill give a trip report

It should be obvious. The colluders now have much more information as to how they would want to play their hands plus there's a lot more money in the pot. Notice that you not only have knowledge of more cards but you're able to see exactly how your cards and that of your partner fit in with the boards.

Mason

Mason , if NL double bomb pot is susceptible to collusion , how is that different to PLO not being just at risk ?

2 players get 4 cards total in NL and 2 players get 8 cards total in plo

cant you make the case for both ?

have you ever played it ?

I have under 200 hands in it (usually done with a new down ) .

I am interested and will probably play that Bellagio 200 double bomb pot tourney

While there is always some risk of collusion in any form of poker, the problem with these bomb pots is not only do the colluders have knowledge of more cards, there's a lot money in the starting pot.

Mason

There's a better argument to be made about whether bomb pot poker variants are a bad thing to mix into an NLHE game. I've seen the complaint that it causes games to break, because in the double board NLHE variant you could get two action boards and multiple action hands and half the table can go broke. I've never seen it happen, but I've maybe only played 100-300 hands tops.

If you don't post your blind bet, you don't get dealt in. When it's a game being spread by a casino, the floor knows what the rules are.

My only other notes on this whole discussion is that collusion is fruitless when:

1) Ranges are very wide. Two boards means squeezing is hard because it's usually hard for someone to "have" both boards and if they do they usually need to bet for protection, two pairs and sets on a dry board are much more nutted... etc. etc. thus: more hands go to showdown. And showing up with complete air is likely to cost you both boards.

2) Blockers in in two hole card games aren't strong enough to give card sharing a big edge, and that's even worse when ranges are wide. And in the opposite case, if you have 5c2d on two 554r / Ac2sTs boards, you make way more playing that hand yourself than folding and signaling your partner that there is only one 5 left in the deck, and hoping maybe that's relevant information on the turn and river. Having 2 boards for a total of 6 immediate community cards means (percentage-wise) having a lower percentage of an information edge than if you were sharing in NLHE, and for less streets (because there's no zeroth street). So if you and your partners had some cyber-implants with which to pull off such a scheme, you'd never bother with bomb pots.

3) Hi Opal!

My advice to would-be thieves is that bombs have a way of exploding in your face, n’est-ce pas?

This is just wrong. Suppose the only thing that the two colluders do is to just play best hand (assuming it's worth playing) once the flop (or flop) comes. Notice that here if both colluders appear (to themselves) to each have a good playable hand, one will drop out.

Mason

In many casinos bomb pots are not legal; they only happen because players agree to do it. If players agree to a bomb pot in such a room, each player must in turn put the agreed upon amount into the pot and it is treated as a (legal) raise by UTG. However, suppose everybody agrees to say a $10 bomb pot, UTG raises to 10, UTG+1 calls, next player calls, etc. around to BB who shoves his $300 stack into the now $70-$80 pot to try to pick off a pretty big PF, rake free pot. How can a casino that does not allow bomb pots do anything about this since BB didn’t break any casino rules?