Poker Question: 2 friends having a friendly dispute - Need your opinion

[jerseygirls]

Two Poker players go to the casino.

Player A says to Player B in the car, "Lets pool together our money if we sit at the same table to better help our odds of winning".

They Play the $200 buy-in NL Holdem ring game.

Player B busts out fast while Playber A is up $200.

Player B goes to the ATM and calls Player A and says "Should i buy back in for another $200, do you still want to play ?"

Player A responds, "Go ahead I want to stay, we'll figure it out later".

Player B gets back into the game for another $200 and busts out again quickly.

When Player A gets off the table he now has $500

QUESTION IS: How should they split the player A's winnings ???

Player A has a $200 investment in the game (and won a TOTAL of $500, clearing a $300 profit) and Player B has a $400 investment into the game (leaves negitive $400).


Please post your thoughts.

[Bluecircle]

player A keeps it all

[HorseShit]

[Young]

A keeps it all. Re-Buy should have been higher than 200. Regardless.....A keeps it all.

[Deej]

Player B needs some classes.... or just better luck next time....B shouldnt get anything....BUT,,,,,A DID bring up the idea.....he should atleast buy the guy dinner....

the initial buy in should be held accountable....but they should overlook the rebuyin.....that was his own fault...

[CE_Rashaan]

Since they agreed to pool there money and Player A agreed to the re-buy then the overall investment was $600 ($200 from A and $400 from B). Player A needs to settle his owed investment by giving Player B $100 from his own pocket. Then they split the winnings $250/$250. More simply put $150 of the winnings to Player A, $250 of the winnings to Player B.

[enigma]

the total stake played into the game was $600, with 66% put in by player B.... player B should get 66% of the winnings

[gecko]

Player A should give the person 150, if that was me.

[cool1]

even split of the $300 profit

[Young]

Originally Posted by enigma

the total stake played into the game was $600, with 66% put in by player B.... player B should get 66% of the winnings

Did you bother reading the thread ?

How is the guy who lost entitled to any of the winnings?

Does anyone in this thread actually gamble besides me? Or is everyone on GFY automatically an expert.

The point of a rebuy is to risk more money in to the pot in order to have another chance at winning the whole pot.

Is it that hard to get?

It's not a tournament....its not TV. its heads up no limit poker. B gets shit.

[G-Rotica]

Player B should mug Player A and blame it on some random black dude.

[Snake Doctor]

My question is did player B lose all the money going all-in against player A?
LOL

[ElvisManson]

damn...that's a tough call....as Player A was the person that initiated the idea to pool the winnings I would say he should split the winnings.

The fact that Player B busted out twice doesn't affect the inital agreement that was made when they sat down at the table.

[fuzebox]

I wouldn't have made the arrangement in the first place.

[cuda]

Player A should take his take himself and Player B to a strip club. Since Player B has no more money he should sit there and sip his glass of water while Player A enjoys $500.00 worth of lap dances.

[pumpbubble]

Irrelevant of the number of buy-ins the amount of profit should be dispensed 50/50.

Oh, and get another partner for poker!

[cuda]

Bump for pumpbubble!

[Violetta]

Originally Posted by jdavis

[Meta Ridley]

give B 100 bucks

[rhizome]

Originally Posted by enigma

the total stake played into the game was $600, with 66% put in by player B.... player B should get 66% of the winnings

That's the right answer. It's pretty simple. They agree to pool their money together (and I assume split the profit fairly). Initially they both put $200 on the table but later on both accepted player B's extra $200 contribution. This means total pool is $600 with $400 of it contributed by player B. It is player A's responsibility to now hand over $333 of the $500 pool to player B leaving him with $167 and a net loss of $33. And player B will have $333 and a net loss of $67. The whole thing was handled poorly - once player B wanted to buy-in again, player A should have either said I don't want a part of it or contributed $100.

[dissipate]

Player B needs to learn how to play poker.

[chadglni]

They both lost $50. Dude gets $350 of his $400 back and even though A won he loses $50 overall. End of fucking story, that is how it works.

$600 in - $500 out = -$100 /2.

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by dissipate

Player B needs to learn how to play poker.

Poker doesn't work like that.

[Nom_is]

I think the real question is:

Why the fuck would player A be stupid enough to agree to pool his money with someone who goes all in within the first 5 fucking hands and loses?

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by Nom_is

I think the real question is:

Why the fuck would player A be stupid enough to agree to pool his money with someone who goes all in within the first 5 fucking hands and loses?

Poker doesn't work like that, try again noob.

[Doctor Dre]

Why in hell would you wanna do that ? that's just stupid

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by Doctor Dre

Why in hell would you wanna do that ? that's just stupid

Pooling money is nowhere near stupid, it dilutes your risk giving you less variance. Both players do have to be overall winners in the long run though.

[Nom_is]

Originally Posted by chadglni

Poker doesn't work like that, try again noob.

I'm sorry, but yes it does. If you agree to pool your winnings with somebody who will go all in every hand, even with 2-7 off suit, regardless of position, pot odds, outs, or how many people contesting the pot there are, then you are fucking stupid. End of story.

Oh and by the way, don't be so fucking pretentious as to assume I don't know what the fuck I am talking about. I probably play more hands of poker in a week than you do in a month, and I spend more time reading books on the subject than you do watching episodes of sesame street to learn the alphabet, retard.

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by Nom_is

I'm sorry, but yes it does. If you agree to pool your winnings with somebody who will go all in every hand, even with 2-7 off suit, regardless of position, pot odds, outs, or how many people contesting the pot there are, then you are fucking stupid. End of story.

Oh and by the way, don't be so fucking pretentious as to assume I don't know what the fuck I am talking about. I probably play more hands of poker in a week than you do in a month, and I spend more time reading books on the subject than you do watching episodes of sesame street to learn the alphabet, retard.

Sorry but I didn't have to read books to figure out how to play poker. Where the fuck did you read 27 off and all that shit? You sound like the typical Rounders watching wannabe that picks up a few books and thinks he knows wtf he is doing. I've whizzed through $1500 in 20 minutes before, has not a fucking thing to do with how well I play. You are a noob, deal with it.

P.S. you don't play more of shit. When I play poker online it's 4 to 8 tables of taking money from people just like you.

[Nom_is]

Originally Posted by chadglni

Sorry but I didn't have to read books to figure out how to play poker. Where the fuck did you read 27 off and all that shit? You sound like the typical Rounders watching wannabe that picks up a few books and thinks he knows wtf he is doing. I've whizzed through $1500 in 20 minutes before, has not a fucking thing to do with how well I play. You are a noob, deal with it.

P.S. you don't play more of shit. When I play poker online it's 4 to 8 tables of taking money from people just like you.

Nobody has to read books to learn how to play poker, but it certainly helps if you want to master it. And I've never seen rounders, so why don't you shut the fuck up, stop acting like you've made it to a WSOP final table when really you are just a mediocre idiot who thinks he is god's gift to poker.

All I did is state one interpretation, which was meant to be humorous. If you don't agree, fine, but don't hurl insults at me like a fucking faggot.

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by Nom_is

Nobody has to read books to learn how to play poker, but it certainly helps if you want to master it. And I've never seen rounders, so why don't you shut the fuck up, stop acting like you've made it to a WSOP final table when really you are just a mediocre idiot who thinks he is god's gift to poker.

All I did is state one interpretation, which was meant to be humorous. If you don't agree, fine, but don't hurl insults at me like a fucking faggot.

Are you drunk? Serious question.

[madawgz]

you can play poker in a casino with other real players? wtf since when

[Nom_is]

Originally Posted by chadglni

Are you drunk? Serious question.

Are you player B? Serious question.

Waste of time.

[D]

Originally Posted by rhizome

That's the right answer. It's pretty simple. They agree to pool their money together (and I assume split the profit fairly). Initially they both put $200 on the table but later on both accepted player B's extra $200 contribution. This means total pool is $600 with $400 of it contributed by player B. It is player A's responsibility to now hand over $333 of the $500 pool to player B leaving him with $167 and a net loss of $33. And player B will have $333 and a net loss of $67. The whole thing was handled poorly - once player B wanted to buy-in again, player A should have either said I don't want a part of it or contributed $100.

This is the way it should be handled, I'd think.

I say this as a poker player, and student of logic. "A" both initiated the idea of pooling funds, and gave the go-ahead on the rebuy. He/She either takes a small loss with B, or should be marked as someone not of their word, IMHO.

[CyberAgeGary]

A more simple way to do this would be, if player b has 400 invested, player a should add another 200 bucks to the total amount, which would make it 700 bucks, so you would split that in half...

Gary
icq 275532012

[D]

Ya... I was just thinking that way would be a "friendlier" alternative, Gary...

simply allow "A" to match "B"'s rebuy after the fact.

You both take a loss of $50 bucks.

Better luck next time.

[dig420]

Originally Posted by D_hodough

This is the way it should be handled, I'd think.

I say this as a poker player, and student of logic. "A" both initiated the idea of pooling funds, and gave the go-ahead on the rebuy. He/She either takes a small loss with B, or should be marked as someone not of their word, IMHO.

technically this is correct, but the simplest and more commonly done way is to simply split the winnings 50/50

[elitetec]

Try to quit playing POKER. And all you problems will be gone.

[BlueWire]

since you were in it together to improve your odds you guys should look at yourselves as ONE person really....I'm not saying that was a smart move on your guys' part...but it was the agreement nonetheless.

SO...you guys collectively put in 600...you came out with 500. You guys as a team lost $100 depsite A winning 300. So you each should take a loss of 50 bucks

[Vitasoy]

Originally Posted by cool1

even split of the $300 profit

Yep that's what I'd do.. 50/50 on the winnings