Tourney Surrendering chips during a Bounty Tournament... (3 Viewers)

[GreekRedEye]

Its just that, simply, it's optional. If you knock someone out that has a bounty chip then you collect their bounty, on the other hand, is someone chose not to buy a bounty then you collect only the pot and no bounty. Non bounty players don't collect bounties, at least in the games I've played.

So what happens to the bounty chip when a non bounty player knocks out a bounty player?

 

[RagingAZN]

This thread has got me thinking about the tourneys we run. We run a $25 bounty rebuy tournament with $15 going to the main prize pool and $10 bounty.

Rebuys are for a full stack and bounty which cost $25.

We usually have the issue where in the last level before rebuys are allowed, short stacks start going nuts which is fun but also makes it a bit of a crapshoot (which to be fair, all my players don’t care as we’re all just super casual players who don’t even know how to spell poker!)

This works out OK if you win but last week we had the situation where a player was left with only a few BB’s after the last hand before the break. Instead of a surrender, what are your thoughts on allowing a one-time addon of the starting stack for $15 (this is the entry fee minus bounty value)

This would mean you wouldn’t have to go crazy before the break.

 

[KHarp1]

If I recall correctly, they get their bounty money back. Which is why I don't like an optional bounty... it's either a bounty tournament, or, it's not.

 

[BEANO52]

Yep, I've already changed this rule.

Now, I'm interested to know how the Bounty can be optional in your games, can you elaborate?

Sure, it's optional meaning you don't have to purchase and when you don't buy a bounty you don't participate or collect.

So what happens to the bounty chip when a non bounty player knocks out a bounty player?

You get your $5 back (usually just sell the bounty to anyone at the table participating for bounties for $5).

I'll add, only 1 in 20 or probably Less don't get the bounty. Usually the same people that are generally early out and don't rebuy. They just enjoy the camaraderie on Friday nights.

 

[Poker Zombie]

People will never get better at poker when they have safety nets. And since they don’t get better, and they lose and rebuy and lose, they conclude that tournament poker sucks. Because they are enabled.

I've been hosting since 2007. Most games have rebuys and surrender (to rebuy) safety nets. Some haven't gotten better. One couple now drives from Arkansas to middle Tennessee (4 hours, if there's no incident on the highway).

I am pretty sure that they have not concluded that tournament poker sucks. I can say that without a rebuy option, they would not make the trip.

I actually actively dislike #1 because being awarded the bounty completely depends on a decision by a player that lost all his chips. Seems like this opens up a lot of avenues for unfairness and personal bias.

I think #2 is far more common, the only controversy is what to do with surrendered bounties, but a lot of good ideas in this thread about that, of course.

I see your point on #1. In my experience, the decision to rebuy has no effect on who eliminated the player or if the player would receive the bounty. In fact the only conversations I have heard when debating a rebuy were between people that carpooled to the game. If a spouse KOed their partner and the bounty could be given to the spouse or retained with a rebuy, the player is more likely to retain their bounty and rebuy, because their partner has more chips.

Different hosts may experience different results. The amount ot the bounty, the blind structure, and the cost of a rebuy could all be factors that would sway a decision to rebuy.

 

[Poker Zombie]

This thread has got me thinking about the tourneys we run. We run a $25 bounty rebuy tournament with $15 going to the main prize pool and $10 bounty.

Rebuys are for a full stack and bounty which cost $25.

We usually have the issue where in the last level before rebuys are allowed, short stacks start going nuts which is fun but also makes it a bit of a crapshoot (which to be fair, all my players don’t care as we’re all just super casual players who don’t even know how to spell poker!)

This works out OK if you win but last week we had the situation where a player was left with only a few BB’s after the last hand before the break. Instead of a surrender, what are your thoughts on allowing a one-time addon of the starting stack for $15 (this is the entry fee minus bounty value)

This would mean you wouldn’t have to go crazy before the break.

In my experience, the vast majority of players will want the add-on, including the larger stacks. This turns a $25 game into a $40 game.

Not a terrible idea, but keeping you informed as to how it will actually play, how it will affect the game length, and it impacts the amount of chips needed.

 

[JustinInMN]

I see your point on #1. In my experience, the decision to rebuy has no effect on who eliminated the player or if the player would receive the bounty. In fact the only conversations I have heard when debating a rebuy were between people that carpooled to the game. If a spouse KOed their partner and the bounty could be given to the spouse or retained with a rebuy, the player is more likely to retain their bounty and rebuy, because their partner has more chips.

Different hosts may experience different results. The amount ot the bounty, the blind structure, and the cost of a rebuy could all be factors that would sway a decision to rebuy.

Even if it doesn't come from a place of bias, it still seems palpably unfair that the difference between collecting a bounty prize or not could have to do with any of the real world decidedly non-poker factors you listed above.

I am surprised players haven't noticed or said anything. Maybe because most rebuys are automatic before the freezeout?

If this weren't the case, I would expect you would hear more complaints.

 

[jdub]

I play at a low stakes tournament that provides for a surrender if you retain just one chip at the first break. The way the surrender works at this tournament is that you hand over your depleted stack with bounty, pay another entry fee, and get a brand new stack with bounty.

This tournament is a bounty tournament. Lots of posts don't like the surrender. I don't see what the trouble is. There isn't terribly much difference in tournaments between two re-buys versus a re-buy plus a surrender. Surrenders happen fairly often. I never thought about it before, but you do end up paying a second time for a bounty chip, but retain only one bounty chip. The alternative is to tough it as a short stack out and hope you can double up.

Some players will surrender if their stack is 50%. Some players will surrender if their stack is 25%. Some players don't surrender. No one in this game has ever said an unkind word about the format.

 

[GreekRedEye]

I have found, especially with newer players, that having some luck-centric bonuses will help with player retention. As such, I have kept some whimsical bonuses and some typical bonuses (the bonus changes each night). I support a new group doing something to make more payers "winners".

Besides bounties and high hand, what are some other bonuses you have used that work and the players enjoy. ( and please don't say random numbers under their chairs. )

 

[TudiscoKid]

I'm curious to know what the buy-in/bounty ratio everyone has.

Mine has a 500 pesos (I live in Mexico) (30 USD) buy-in, and a 150 pesos (9 USD) Bounty. It's been working pretty well, I think the ratio is pretty balanced.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Besides bounties and high hand, what are some other bonuses you have used that work and the players enjoy. ( and please don't say random numbers under their chairs. )

Last winner bounty, first win with Queens on mothers day get a cut, heart flush in February.

 

[TudiscoKid]

Last winner bounty, first win with Queens on mothers day get a cut, heart flush in February.

I like that idea of themed side games!
So how do you decide who wins that? And how do you build that "Jackpot"?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I like that idea of themed side games!
So how do you decide who wins that? And how do you build that "Jackpot"?

Its whatever we decide. Usually the first one to win; if its a tournament we just scalp some off, some percentage.

If its a cash game sometimes we'll rake a bit out of pots and pay it off whenever it hits.

 

[JustinInMN]

This tournament is a bounty tournament. Lots of posts don't like the surrender. I don't see what the trouble is. There isn't terribly much difference in tournaments between two re-buys versus a re-buy plus a surrender. Surrenders happen fairly often. I never thought about it before, but you do end up paying a second time for a bounty chip, but retain only one bounty chip. The alternative is to tough it as a short stack out and hope you can double up.

I think there are more in favor of the surrender as you describe it than not. However I think the question we are wrestling with is what to do with the bounty chip that was turned in and not won by a player?

Does the amount transfer to the prize pool?

 

[BGinGA]

Even if it doesn't come from a place of bias, it still seems palpably unfair that the difference between collecting a bounty prize or not could have to do with any of the real world decidedly non-poker factors you listed above.

I am surprised players haven't noticed or said anything. Maybe because most rebuys are automatic before the freezeout?

If this weren't the case, I would expect you would hear more complaints.

It's pretty rare in our group for a player to not re-buy when felted prior to the end of the re-buy period (typically about 1 hour into a 4-hour event), but it does happen.

But I really can't grasp your concern over the 'unfairness' issue. Everyone is bound by the same parameters: bounty chips are won by eliminating a player from the tournament, and a felted player may choose to extend his tournament life by re-buying. Where's the problem?

I'm curious to know what the buy-in/bounty ratio everyone has.

Mine has a 500 pesos (I live in Mexico) (30 USD) buy-in, and a 150 pesos (9 USD) Bounty. It's been working pretty well, I think the ratio is pretty balanced.

In my experience, most home game bounty events are usually around 80% prize pool and 20% bounty ($80/$20, $40/$10, $20/$5 etc.)

But there is no hard rule -- some bounty events I've played in (or ran) have had the bounty percentage much lower than 20% ($55/$5) or much higher (50% èach, or even 100% bounty-only with no separate prize pool).


I also want to point out that 'stack-surrender' as a re-buy option is not the same thing as quitting or resigning from the tournament.

 

[w00zie]

Its just that, simply, it's optional. If you knock someone out that has a bounty chip then you collect their bounty, on the other hand, is someone chose not to buy a bounty then you collect only the pot and no bounty. Non bounty players don't collect bounties, at least in the games I've played.

I don‘t like that idea. Why have a bounty tourney if some players don’t have a bounty on their head? I‘d rather make it a freezeout or regular rebuy tourney then.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Maybe because most rebuys are automatic before the freezeout?

Most players rebuy, but not all. There is no more feeling of "unfairness" than there is when you call down an all-in with a big stack, only to find out your opponent had just a couple more chips than you.

You could say Poker is inherently unfair. The lucky guy always wins.

 

[KHarp1]

I don‘t like that idea. Why have a bounty tourney if some players don’t have a bounty on their head? I‘d rather make it a freezeout or regular rebuy tourney then.

This was not an opinion, rather an explanation as to what happens in this particular situation. I agree with you, as stated in an earlier post, that a tournament should either be a bounty tournament, or, not.

 

[doublebooyah85]

So I elimainted surrenders by allowing add-ons at halftime. Same cost as a rebuy. Only can be done at the break when rebuys are over. Seems to work well.

People are no longer tripping over themselves to go all in bc they know they can just add on. There’s maybe 1-2 degens who really would go all in w a short stack just for the opportunity to rebuy + add on. Most would just be content getting an add-on and being back into the hunt.

This also gives credibility for bounties still. If u get knocked u get their bounty. No surrender.

Good solution? @BGinGA See anything wrong with it other than it devalues the first 90 min of poker with more chips being added.

Usually we get 12-14 entries, 2-4 rebuys, 2-4 add-ons.

 

[GreekRedEye]

However I think the question we are wrestling with is what to do with the bounty chip that was turned in and not won by a player?

Summarizing various answers throughout the thread:

1. Player can cash out his own bounty (the original arrangement by OP @TudiscoKid that he was unhappy with).
2. Add it to the prize pool (suggested by @BGinGA ).
3. Leave stack and bounty on table and blind it out (suggested by @KHarp1 ).
4. Give it to house or dealer (by @KHarp1 ).
5. Pass out bounty chips after rebuys/surrender period is over (by @doublebooyah85 ).
6. This is not a real problem to worry about (by @upNdown ).
7. You should not be playing bounty tournaments in the first place (by @ekricket ).

Did I miss any?

 

[doublebooyah85]

Summarizing various answers throughout the thread:

1. Player can cash out his own bounty (the original arrangement by OP @TudiscoKid that he was unhappy with).
2. Add it to the prize pool (suggested by @BGinGA ).
3. Leave stack and bounty on table and blind it out (suggested by @KHarp1 ).
4. Give it to house or dealer (by @KHarp1 ).
5. This is not a real problem to worry about (by @upNdown ).
6. You should not be playing bounty tournaments in the first place (by @ekricket ).

Did I miss any?

Pass out bounty chips once rebuy surrender period is over.

 

[GreekRedEye]

Pass out bounty chips once rebuy surrender period is over.

Thanks. Edited my post to add it.

 

[JustinInMN]

But I really can't grasp your concern over the 'unfairness' issue. Everyone is bound by the same parameters: bounty chips are won by eliminating a player from the tournament, and a felted player may choose to extend his tournament life by re-buying. Where's the problem?

The problem is the reward for winning a players' entire stack depends on decisions made by the player that lost his chips based on factors that are completely beyond the winning players' strategic consideration.

Let's say A wins C's stack, but C decides to rebuy, say because C is riding with E and E has a bunch of chips to invoke @Poker Zombie ' s example, so no bounty reward for A correct?

Next hand B wins D's stack and D decides to be done. So B does get a bounty reward, correct?

Why does B deserve to be rewarded more than A does solely due to decisions that C and D (and with some influence E) made that have nothing to do with strategic decisions that A or B could have made?

 

[JustinInMN]

Summarizing various answers throughout the thread:

1. Player can cash out his own bounty (the original arrangement by OP @TudiscoKid that he was unhappy with).
2. Add it to the prize pool (suggested by @BGinGA ).
3. Leave stack and bounty on table and blind it out (suggested by @KHarp1 ).
4. Give it to house or dealer (by @KHarp1 ).
5. Pass out bounty chips after rebuys/surrender period is over (by @doublebooyah85 ).
6. This is not a real problem to worry about (by @upNdown ).
7. You should not be playing bounty tournaments in the first place (by @ekricket ).

Did I miss any?

Since you asked I did throw out a couple longer-shot ideas in post #6

A third possibility is a surrendering player buys the additional bounty chip, keeps his original, but now has to pay two bounty chips upon elimination. The advantage of this approach is that bounty funds remain bounty funds, but the player gets the benefit of having kept both paid chips in the event he wins first place.

A fourth possibility would be to put the surrendered bounty chip in the next pot at the table where the player surrendered. That way everyone that was that player's table at least has a chance at it (including the surrendering player.)

 

[BGinGA]

Why have a bounty tourney if some players don’t have a bounty on their head? I‘d rather make it a freezeout or regular rebuy tourney then.

Because some players enjoy bounty tournaments (for a variety of reasons), and some players don't enjoy playing in (and paying for) a separate bounty in a tournament (for a variety of different reasons).

Making the bounty purchase optional caters to both groups of players without forcing anyone to play in a format structure they don't prefer.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The problem is the reward for winning a players' entire stack depends on decisions made by the player that lost his chips based on factors that are completely beyond the winning players' strategic consideration.

Let's say A wins C's stack, but C decides to rebuy, say because C is riding with E and E has a bunch of chips to invoke @Poker Zombie ' s example, so no bounty reward for A correct?

Next hand B wins D's stack and D decides to be done. So B does get a bounty reward, correct?

Why does B deserve to be rewarded more than A does solely due to decisions that C and D (and with some influence E) made that have nothing to do with strategic decisions that A or B could have made?

Yes, that is correct. The goal in tournament poker is to be the last player standing. In your example, Player A did not reduce the number of players in the tournament. His only "reward" is that the prize pool is now larger, as C has rebought.

Player B collects the reward because the player was eliminated. Everybody is closer to the end-goal, and he collects the reward.

 

[ekricket]

Summarizing various answers throughout the thread:

1. Player can cash out his own bounty (the original arrangement by OP @TudiscoKid that he was unhappy with).
2. Add it to the prize pool (suggested by @BGinGA ).
3. Leave stack and bounty on table and blind it out (suggested by @KHarp1 ).
4. Give it to house or dealer (by @KHarp1 ).
5. Pass out bounty chips after rebuys/surrender period is over (by @doublebooyah85 ).
6. This is not a real problem to worry about (by @upNdown ).
7. You should not be playing bounty tournaments in the first place (by @ekricket ).

Did I miss any?

Just to clarify:

I’m not against bounty tournaments at all. When PROPERLY run they are fine.

What this person was running was not a bounty tournament. It was a carnival game

I can’t believe his players didn’t know better.

 

[ekricket]

Since you asked I did throw out a couple longer-shot ideas in post #6

I think we are missing the bigger picture. These people don’t know jack shit about poker. They should go back to basics before they start warping shit they know nothing about.

In this particular case, just this one is all I’m talking about, they should stop playing bounty tournaments and all other shit until they know the poker hand rankings at a minimum.

I’m starting to think that we are giving advice to a bunch of 12 yr olds who got some chips.

 

[BGinGA]

The problem is the reward for winning a players' entire stack depends on decisions made by the player that lost his chips based on factors that are completely beyond the winning players' strategic consideration.

Let's say A wins C's stack, but C decides to rebuy, say because C is riding with E and E has a bunch of chips to invoke @Poker Zombie ' s example, so no bounty reward for A correct?

Next hand B wins D's stack and D decides to be done. So B does get a bounty reward, correct?

Why does B deserve to be rewarded more than A does solely due to decisions that C and D (and with some influence E) made that have nothing to do with strategic decisions that A or B could have made?

The root problem with your analysis:

There is no reward for "winning a player's stack".

There is, however, a reward for eliminating a player from the tournament (and thus getting one step closer to the money).

 

[JustinInMN]

Yes, that is correct. The goal in tournament poker is to be the last player standing. In your example, Player A did not reduce the number of players in the tournament. His only "reward" is that the prize pool is now larger, as C has rebought.

Player B collects the reward because the player was eliminated. Everybody is closer to the end-goal, and he collects the reward.

But A and B are denied key strategic information that is what makes bounty tournaments different than regular tournaments. Both did the most they could do to try and collect a reward, yet the rewards are different.

Now again, I will concede it sounds like rebuys are almost automatic anyway, so that's probably why it hasn't been in an issue in your game or @BGinGA 's. And if that's the culture, then players should just not be taking risks to win stacks before the freezout as they would in any non-bounty tournament.

But that to me seems to defeat the whole point of a bounty tournament.