[firegazer]

Thanks, Binkley. I understand.

I was trying to keep track of a number of things at once, in the programme. By keeping track of money in the pot that was contributed by someone who can no longer win it (because they folded), I was also able to easily see if the others, still in the pot, had contributed equal amounts. If ‘Yes, they have’, and they’ve all had a chance to bet, then the betting is over.

I’ve programmed up a number of games, and they are normally pretty easy as far as the basic rules are concerned, and they only get hard when the player strategy starts.

With Poker, I’m finding it quite hard just to get the rules encoded 🙂 I think some of the bits, like side-pots and minimum raises and when an all-in player has triggered a new round of betting, aren’t simple. They seem simple to an experienced player, who has played with them for ages, but when you try to programme them (which demands simple rules), it can take more effort than I expected.

No worries: I’m nearly there. Thanks for your help.

Stay safe, and have a great week,

John

[firegazer]

Thanks for that further explanation. I think I get it, now, and I agree with your comments about the level of dealer skills involved, particularly as any errors are likely to be catastrophic, especially if not caught straight away!

My last example for your consideration is an extension of the last example in your reply, where this time we have one more player going through to the river (now C + D + E). D bets 50, E calls, C folds. D and E showdown. I’m guessing the money C put into the second side pot stays there?

In my programme, I’m keeping track of each pot created by having values for each of the seats/players plus an ‘orphaned’ amount. Amounts for a player mean two things: 1) this player still has a right to this pot, and 2) how many of the chips the player put in (to check if the betting round is over, or how much more this player needs to put in to call).

Here’s my understanding (in a spreadsheet!) of what things look like before and after C folds.

After C folds, the three pots have the same amount, but C has been stripped out of all three pots, and C’s previous bets have been moved to ‘orphaned’ in each pot.

So, this is the same as your last example, but instead of D winning the second pot by dint of C folding, D wins (maybe) by showdown with E.

I think this all works for me, now. The way I was modelling it seemed a good way to do it for the programme, but may have confused me a bit 🙂

Thanks, again.

John

[firegazer]

Thanks for the (clear) reply. That’s very helpful.

If there were 3 players in the side pot, and they continued to bet on the turn (all calling), and then one of them folded in the river betting, I guess those chips from the folded player stay in the side pot, so only winnable by those 2 remaining in the showdown? They wouldn’t be added to the main pot that A is competing for?

So, in my programme, I create a new pot every time a remaining player can’t fully call, or someone bets/raises more than a remaining player who wants to call can match.

Any chips folded before that happens stay in the original (main) pot.

Any chips folded after the new (side) pot is created are added to (left in) the new (side) pot.

If I need to create another side pot later, then folded chips might be spread across the different pots, depending on when those pots were brought into existence(?)

I guess the pots contain both the bet of the all-in player, matching bets from players going on to bet further (in side pots), and any bets from players who folded while that pot was the ‘active’ pot?

Many thanks for any help with this.

Best regards,

John