Bomb Pots Need a Discussion
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
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
Where it is sanctioned, antes are collected pre flop.
So, if it's not sanctioned in this manner, don't play.
Low buy-in, rebuy format tournaments are great in my opinion.
This year's WSOP mixed holdem/PLO will be interesting.
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
They cant and they wont. I've played in a 'gentleman's bomb pot' where there is a mutual agreement that everyone bets 5BB preflop dark. But eventually this is how they wanted to play every hand and I protested because I didnt come to play at the circus. Their reaction? UTG just open ships 500 dark to teach me a lesson, everyone else is kinda confused but one of them calls, of course I fold and dude gets stacked by KK and rage quits. Now they all blame me for it, whatever. Game went on normal after that.
We’ve all seen all kinds of angles. Why would you think some a-hole might not do exactly what I described, especially if he was not a regular at that game and was prepared to walk away afterwards? I agree, most of the time when there’s a bomb pot, such things don’t happen. But there are idiots out there, and my point was that there is nothing that could be done by the room to enforce the bomb pot since the a-hole did not violate any rules.
We’ve all seen all kinds of angles. Why would you think some a-hole might not do exactly what I described, especially if he was not a regular at that game and was prepared to walk away afterwards? I agree, most of the time when there’s a bomb pot, such things don’t happen. But there are idiots out there, and my point was that there is nothing that could be done by the room to enforce the bomb pot since the a-hole did not violate any rules.
Would it be influencing action if a dealer/floor supervisor announced, prior to the bombpot, that "some a-hole" is liable to be in noncompliance with the unregulated poker variant, and that one should play at their own risk?
Would it be ethical to not announce this information?
Again, don't play bomb pots if they're not an ante format. Just stop.
In my opinion you should be playing 1, double-board variant, and 2, a reverse button format so that it doesn't happen on dealer change, but instead happens each time the dealer button and bomb pot button meet.
The 2nd part ensures that everyone plays bomb pots from all positions, weak and strong, in a regimented, balanced manner.
We’ve all seen all kinds of angles. Why would you think some a-hole might not do exactly what I described, especially if he was not a regular at that game and was prepared to walk away afterwards? I agree, most of the time when there’s a bomb pot, such things don’t happen. But there are idiots out there, and my point was that there is nothing that could be done by the room to enforce the bomb pot since the a-hole did not violate any rules.
In your scenario, wouldn't you do all the action in the dark to avoid this exact scenario? You would have UTG blind raise to 10 then all the players calling blind. If BB decides to blind shove his $300 stack, go ahead and everyone will look at their hand to see if they want to call. Even if BB doesn't put in the blind shove and just refuses to blind call, he does it once, has to act first, and then everyone else can play bomb pot if he folds or react based on their hand to BB's action. At best in this situation, he is saving $8 if it is a 1/2 game vs everyone else's blind bets and playing for the dead money in the worst possible position. I really don't see how this would be an advantage. And if someone does this, everyone should refuse to play any games with that player so they basically are out of poker.
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.
Sure. I do highly recommend playing the best hands and folding the worst hands as a good strategy in most poker games. I just don't see how, even with collusion thrown into the mix, that this strategy gets more of an edge in double board bomb pot NLHE versus normal NLHE. It seems like it should be less of an edge for all the reasons I listed. So why bother colluding in a higher variance game with less of an edge where you showdown more hands and are thus more likely to get caught? It makes zero sense.
Another point, though someone should check my math: in Hold 'Em, winning twice as often from the same bankroll is great when blind bets are deducted only 1.5/9ths of the time. But in bomb pots, you blind bet 100% of the time, usually about what in the normal variant is 3 or 4 big blinds, so winning twice as often is less of an edge. Right?
(Our hypothetical criminal masterminds would also be paying max rake and, at least in legit New Hampshire games, being raked twice, once for each board... and chopping pots most of the time, and getting scooped a lot if you try to take every other hand to showdown, but I repeat myself.)
Would it be influencing action if a dealer/floor supervisor announced, prior to the bombpot, that "some a-hole" is liable to be in noncompliance with the unregulated poker variant, and that one should play at their own risk?
Would it be ethical to not announce this information?
Again, don't play bomb pots if they're not an ante format. Just stop.
In my opinion you should be playing 1, double-board variant, and 2, a reverse button format so that it doesn't happen on dealer change, but instead happen
Interestingly, this part is not necessarily true. Where I play you can play or sit out whichever bomb pots you like. I actually have played the ones where I was in late positions and sat out the ones where I was in early position. I was not penalized, and no one even called me out for doing it, although if I were a regular who did it all the time maybe they would have.
Sure. I do highly recommend playing the best hands and folding the worst hands as a good strategy in most poker games. I just don't see how, even with collusion thrown into the mix, that this strategy gets more of an edge in double board bomb pot NLHE versus normal NLHE. It seems like it should be less of an edge for all the reasons I listed. So why bother colluding in a higher variance game with less of an edge where you showdown more hands and are thus more likely to get caught? It makes zero
You don't seem to know what playing best hand means.
Ultimately, I think missing in this conversation is why bomb pots are spreading to more rooms. Rec players tend to like them. They create more luck and they are a form of poker that isn't "solved". It mixes up the table, it allows people to explore PLO often without fully playing PLO, and think rooms should continue to do things that attract players. If there is collusion, the room should have good security and ban those players. Poker isn't going to grow if the game never evolves and I think double board PLO bomb pots are a great way to make a more enjoyable experience for players who want some extra gamble.
Interestingly, this part is not necessarily true. Where I play you can play or sit out whichever bomb pots you like. I actually have played the ones where I was in late positions and sat out the ones where I was in early position. I was not penalized, and no one even called me out for doing it, although if I were a regular who did it all the time maybe they would have.
You can do what you're describing with or without the reverse button structure.
It is amazing how some seemingly tight Players lose sight of their typical poker strategy when involved in a BP.
1) Your Pot Odds are only half 'normal' since any chips put in the pot are split. So the flush/OESD chasers are -EV most times.
2A) Players 'protection' bet other Players out of the hand, thus eliminating profit. A third Player is necessary for additional profit, eh?
2B) Players that end up chopping a side lose 25% of all 'additional' chips put into the pot. Some of that can be recovered from the dead money in the pot.
3) 'Smart' Players will make a Donk polarizing bet OTR when HU to try to steal. Players end up risking 1-3x pot in order to get 50% of the pot .. this is more applicable to PLO, but there are some NL Boards where 2-5 combos of holdings will scoop or get a chop on at least one Board while holding the nuts on the other .. which makes Players worry they are calling $100 to win $40 so to speak. GL
Ultimately, I think missing in this conversation is why bomb pots are spreading to more rooms. Rec players tend to like them. They create more luck and they are a form of poker that isn't "solved". It mixes up the table, it allows people to explore PLO often without fully playing PLO, and think rooms should continue to do things that attract players. If there is collusion, the room should have good security and ban those players. Poker isn't going to grow if the game never evolves and I think do
And just like that the room is going to be able to identify the collusion.
I do agree with your other points.
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 bi
So, you think potential colluders are more likely to collude bc of the increased money in the pot?
Because your other reason doesn’t have anything to do with the bomb pot. Colluders would know 10 cards on every flop, bomb pot or not
So, you think potential colluders are more likely to collude bc of the increased money in the pot?
Because your other reason doesn’t have anything to do with the bomb pot. Colluders would know 10 cards on every flop, bomb pot or not
Just to steelman the argument, I believe Mason is saying that it’s because they get to see the cards before any money besides the ante gets put into the pot. And the pot being larger means that the collusion has a higher reward.
I think the problem is that this argument would work as well for like, high stakes mixed games as well. And for the most part it’s an argument that can be empirically tested. I just don’t think that most players even understand how to play bomb pots. So the idea that there is this gigantic problem with collusion hasn’t been broadly confirmed by the people who play bomb pots a lot.
So, you think potential colluders are more likely to collude bc of the increased money in the pot?
That's correct. There will now be a lot of money in the pot before they have to make any decisions.
By the way, I'm the only one who even brings up stuff like this to discuss. Why are you so hostile?
MM
A history lesson for those who don't know:
Bomb pots started out as a variant of "time pots:" a way to streamline time collection each half hour at dealer changes.
The old style time pot just involved the winner of the hand paying time for everyone. This works great if there are enough fishy players that people will play for a pot not worth playing for. But not so well if most people understand what's going on.
An intermediate step, as I recall, was the "time flop," where time was paid by seat number according to the first card <10 on the flop. Time flops are always quicker than paying time individually and also totally fair to everyone. This is still the best option IMO.
The original bomb pot was in a NLHE game of mostly regulars, with a separately rotating "bomb" button so people wouldn't preferentially get good or bad position in bomb pots. This aspect has been lost, so it's really easy to angle by sitting out unless you have a good seat.
Seeing as how the original purpose of bomb pots was to create a better "time pot" to speed up time collection, the popularity of double board Omaha (super slow game) seems to defeat this purpose. And I don't see any value in doing bomb pots in games small enough to be pot-raked.
Double board ultimate high/ultimate lo, 15/30 5-card Omaha 8 or better game is awesome, saw a guy win 5/8ths of a 4- figure pot. Yeah he 1/8th'ed em, lol.
Itgets dicey when A2xx8, weak hi gets scooped by 67xxx, better hi.
But I have A2!!!
one of the rooms I play in does it every dealer change double board , you can sit out if you want and if 4 or more sit out they won't deal it.
I just use it a bathroom break time or streatch time.
If I wanted to play bingo I'd go to the bingo hall !
The old style time pot just involved the winner of the hand paying time for everyone. This works great if there are enough fishy players that people will play for a pot not worth playing for. But not so well if most people understand what's going on.
While it is obviously silly to play for a pot worth nothing, they could have simply added some amount to the ante on top of the time cost. Draw for position to make it completely fair. A benefit of this is those who have come to understand what's going on can play for the actual pot while the blissfully ignorant continue to overbet the inflated pot in their heads. You lose time it takes to draw for position and then hand shuffle, but instead of the time being paid by an unlucky loser, it is paid by the winner of an actual pot. Everyone is happy.
