Tourney Surrendering chips during a Bounty Tournament... (2 Viewers)

[JustinInMN]

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).

The only reason there is a difference in this terminology is there is a key piece of information hidden from the player that wins a stack. (Will this player rebuy?) A bounty tournament by it's nature is supposed to encourage players to take risk to eliminate players, that's why it's incentivized.

If you dis-incentivize this (which is what the rule does that puts a distinction between winning all of a players chips and eliminating a player), you might as well not play a bounty tournament. Or at least a decent compromise, bounties are only paid after the freezeout, players that don't rebuy effectively surrender their bounty to the bank and get transferred to the prize pool. But in my example, players C,D, and E having more influence on whether or not A and B get paid for accomplishing the task a bounty tournament is supposed to incentivize does run afoul.

 

[w00zie]

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.

I get your point. For my personal taste this would go too far though – I want my players to be happy but not at any cost.

If someone doesn't like playing a bounty tournament he can attend the next event which is a freezeout or rebuy tourney. All three formats require a different strategy (I know, most recreational players don't apply any strategy at all lol).

 

[JustinInMN]

I get your point. For my personal taste this would go too far though – I want my players to be happy but not at any cost.

If someone doesn't like playing a bounty tournament he can attend the next event which is a freezeout or rebuy tourney. All three formats require a different strategy (I know, most recreational players don't apply any strategy at all lol).

FWIW, I do agree with this and when I host bounty events it's mandatory. That said I have played in bounty optional events too and as long as we know who is in the bounty pool, it's fair, you have this piece of information before engaging in hands with this player. (Though I would say it's exceedingly rare to opt out of the bounty, even at the "optional" events I have attended.)

But I think this helps me spell out my opposition with making a distinction between losing one's chips and being eliminated.. In poker, you know what you stand to win or lose in any decision. The fact that whether or not taking a players chips will lead to a bounty reward is hidden, is a major withholding of information about what a player stands to win when deciding on strategy. Especially, when the answer to that question may have next to nothing to do with poker considerations.

 

[BGinGA]

The only reason there is a difference in this terminology is there is a key piece of information hidden from the player that wins a stack. (Will this player rebuy?) A bounty tournament by it's nature is supposed to encourage players to take risk to eliminate players, that's why it's incentivized.

If you dis-incentivize this (which is what the rule does that puts a distinction between winning all of a players chips and eliminating a player), you might as well not play a bounty tournament. Or at least a decent compromise, bounties are only paid after the freezeout, players that don't rebuy effectively surrender their bounty to the bank and get transferred to the prize pool. But in my example, players C,D, and E having more influence on whether or not A and B get paid for accomplishing the task a bounty tournament is supposed to incentivize does run afoul.

Agree to disagree.

Players who gun for stacks during the re-buy period do so with the full knowledge that they will only collect a bounty chip if the felted player doesn't re-buy to extend their tournament life.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me (and the players in our group). No shenanigans.

 

[BGinGA]

...when I host bounty events it's mandatory. That said I have played in bounty optional events too and as long as we know who is in the bounty pool, it's fair, you have this piece of information before engaging in hands with this player. (Though I would say it's exceedingly rare to opt out of the bounty, even at the "optional" events I have attended.)

Our league events have both a mandatory and an optional bounty (different chips worth different amounts). Re-buys are in effect for the first five blind levels.

The $5 bounty chip is mandatory, and the $10 bounty chip is optional (with 60%-70% participation). Both bountes are tied to the player -- not stacks -- and are collected when a player is eliminated.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The only reason there is a difference in this terminology is there is a key piece of information hidden from the player that wins a stack. (Will this player rebuy?) A bounty tournament by it's nature is supposed to encourage players to take risk to eliminate players, that's why it's incentivized.

If you dis-incentivize this (which is what the rule does that puts a distinction between winning all of a players chips and eliminating a player), you might as well not play a bounty tournament. Or at least a decent compromise, bounties are only paid after the freezeout, players that don't rebuy effectively surrender their bounty to the bank and get transferred to the prize pool. But in my example, players C,D, and E having more influence on whether or not A and B get paid for accomplishing the task a bounty tournament is supposed to incentivize does run afoul.

So what I'm reading, you want the bounty to change how players play - specifically a little more aggressive toward the short stack.

That's a personal preference.

I prefer the night's bonus to have a minimal effect on how players play. Which cycles me back to this comment (that somewhat derails, but now feels relevant)...

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. )

We rotate multiple bonuses - enough that it could be a topic of another thread (and I think it has been). Unless otherwise noted, bonuses are $20 in a $30 game.

Some of the more typical bonuses have been...

• Bad Beat - the player that goes to the showdown with the best losing hand of the night wins the bonus.
• High Hand - the player that shows the best winning hand of the night
• Sack Leader - collect a tiny football for each player eliminated. This is just a bounty with a tiny football as the bounty chip, because it was the 1st week of football season.
• Zombie Poker Classic bonus - a jackpot for the last game of the year, which is about 5% of every initial buy-in over the course of the year. It is awarded to the highest finishing player that has attended over 50% of the year's events.

Some more inventive bonuses...

• Lucky Hands - The first hand of each level is the "lucky hand". A special chip (with a shamrock on it) is added to that pot. Whoever collects the most tokens, wins the bonus.
• Bring-in Bonus (Limit game) - collect a token each time you were forced to be the bring-in, while showing a 10 or less.
• Single player bounty - If a player wins 2 games in a row, they are the only player with a bounty token. Eliminate them, win the bonus. If the player rebuys, they are not eliminated. Yeah, this sounds a little unfair. Suck-it. You just binked 2 MTTs in a row. Also the bonus was paid twice to the player with the bounty, because they won their 3rd in a row.
• 2 hearts beat and won (beat as one) - receive a token for each time you win a hand and both hole-cards are hearts.
• Second chances - The highest finishing player that also used their rebuy wins the bonus.
• Tax Day - 1 token won for each hand lost at showdown holding 3 of a kind or better.
• Teacher's Day - Everybody got a "show 'em" chip. You could use the chip to make a folded player show (after the hand was complete), who would receive the chip. They could save or use the chip. The player with the most chips at the end of the night won the bonus.
• Zombie Derby (Kentucky Derby Day) - Pick the players you think will win/place/and show (finish 1st, 2nd and 3rd). I built a pari mutuel-style pool complete with odds. The player with the most "money" won on their picks won the bonus.
• Hot Streak (after consecutive 100° days) - First to win 3 hands in a row wins the bonus.
• End of the world (last day of the Mayan calendar) - the player with the largest chipstack when one player is eliminated (rebuy does not count as eliminated).
• Worst Qualifying Hand - This was our first Omaha game , and I wanted to demonstrate how hand values are very different in Omaha. It was played limit, to protect the newbies vs the seasoned Omaha players. To win the bonus, you needed to have the worst winning hand at a showdown. There needed to be the equivalent of at least 10 big bets in the pot (different tables played different stakes). 4.5 hours of play, 2 tables (13 players), Fixed Limit Omaha. I'll let you guess what hand was so shitty and still won at showdown.

 

[Poker Zombie]

While I have not hosted an optional bounty, it sounds to be no different than a side bet, facilitated through the host.

Good for players that want more gambol, irrelevant to players that simply want to play for the lowest stakes possible.

 

[BGinGA]

I get your point. For my personal taste this would go too far though – I want my players to be happy but not at any cost.

If someone doesn't like playing a bounty tournament he can attend the next event which is a freezeout or rebuy tourney. All three formats require a different strategy (I know, most recreational players don't apply any strategy at all lol).

No additional cost as far as I can see.

I don't like turning players away if they can be easily accommodated.

 

[jdub]

Does the amount transfer to the prize pool?

100% of all funds contributed by players are returned to the players.

This tournament is a promo for the tavern. Rake is not permitted because the tavern does not have a casino license. They make their money on drinks and food.

 

[ekricket]

100% of all funds contributed by players are returned to the players.

This tournament is a promo for the tavern. Rake is not permitted because the tavern does not have a casino license. They make their money on drinks and food.

For the bounties that go into the prize pool, how are they awarded? Like does first get $2, second $1, and third $1 etc….or is it divided equally among all finishers?

 

[ngmcs8203]

For the bounties that go into the prize pool, how are they awarded? Like does first get $2, second $1, and third $1 etc….or is it divided equally among all finishers?

Just add it to the value to the total prize before splitting it up.

 

[ekricket]

Just add it to the value to the total prize before splitting it up.

That doesn’t seem right I guess, unless you are chopping the prize equally. First place typically gets the lions share, but when you are mucking around with the entry pay structure just for grins it seems, I guess you can just muck around the payout structure too. Who cares, it’s just a carnival game!!

 

[ngmcs8203]

That doesn’t seem right I guess, unless you are chopping the prize equally. First place typically gets the lions share, but when you are mucking around with the entry pay structure just for grins it seems, I guess you can just muck around the payout structure too. Who cares, it’s just a carnival game!!

Why not? If the house adds money to the payout to make it a guaranteed prize pool what’s the difference here? Nobody knocked out the surrendered bounty. It’s just a few more bucks added to the total your able to win.

 

[JustinInMN]

So what I'm reading, you want the bounty to change how players play - specifically a little more aggressive toward the short stack.

That's a personal preference.

I think this characteristic of a "preference" is grossly unfair. if the goal of entering a tournament is to maximize value, obvious bounties provide another means of that and logically adjustments will follow.
I think you are trying to frame it as something only I observe, and only I would change strategy. I don't think that's correct in the slightest.

The second means of collecting is certainly a "design feature" of a bounty tournament, not a coincidence for attempting to win the tournament.

 

[JustinInMN]

That doesn’t seem right I guess, unless you are chopping the prize equally. First place typically gets the lions share, but when you are mucking around with the entry pay structure just for grins it seems, I guess you can just muck around the payout structure too. Who cares, it’s just a carnival game!!

I mean if the announced prizes are something like 40%-25%-20%-15% and I have 15 entries at $40 and a $5 bounty does it really matter if I divide them according to the prize pool or equally accross?

 

[ekricket]

I mean if the announced prizes are something like 40%-25%-20%-15% and I have 15 entries at $40 and a $5 bounty does it really matter if I divide them according to the prize pool or equally accross?

No, absolutely not. I was just goofing around with my morning coffee, asking the stupidest question I could think of just to fit in here and be relatable.

More joking ok? It’s Wednesday, lighten up everybody!!!

 

[JustinInMN]

No, absolutely not. I was just goofing around with my morning coffee, asking the stupidest question I could think of just to fit in here and be relatable.

More joking ok? It’s Wednesday, lighten up everybody!!!

Appropriate haha react left to aid in your cause.

 

[KHarp1]

@ngmcs8203 OP was in reference to a home game...I realize this has gotten off track, but, I don't know of any home games that add actual cash to a prize pool.

Most anything a casino does is to benefit the casino. They may dress it up as something for the average guest, but, it most assuredly is designed to put money in their account, not ours. If I'm running a home game and decide to have a bounty tournament this weekend, it's not going to be an optional bounty, you're either in for a bounty tournament, or not. In my tournament, if a guy goes all in and loses, he forfeits that bounty to the winner of that pot. If he/she rebuys then they rebuy with another bounty. Makes it very simple.

If we start talking about casinos then we'll have a hundred different ways in which it's ran, if not more.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think this characteristic of a "preference" is grossly unfair. if the goal of entering a tournament is to maximize value, obvious bounties provide another means of that and logically adjustments will follow.
I think you are trying to frame it as something only I observe, and only I would change strategy. I don't think that's correct in the slightest.

The second means of collecting is certainly a "design feature" of a bounty tournament, not a coincidence for attempting to win the tournament.

Just the opposite, and I stated as much in an earlier post. Different hosts will experience different results. The larger the bounty, the more it would influence a decision to call an all-in. Same with the amount of the rebuy - if the buy-in is all you are willing to risk in a night, the cost to rebuy will discourage your rebuy. I have also said that I prefer to have bonuses that do not affect how the game is played. This is largely because I run a learning game, and it can be uncomfortable for newer players to have to play a different game each month. You prefer a bounty to change how the game is played, and when you should or shouldn't jam. I prefer to play with a singular objective to finish first.

Neither one is inherently "better". It is "preference". Probably prefered by those that like a more aggressive game, but with the ability to spread out the prize pool to more players.

I think a lot of people do not contemplate how many ways there are to just play Hold'em tournaments. Antes change play. Bounties change play. Rebuys change play. Top-heavy prize pools change play.

I don't think (and have not observed) any aggression change because the shorter-stack might rebuy. People have tanked and asked "will you show", or other questions to help with their decision. Nobody has tanked and asked "will you rebuy". @BGinGA runs tournaments both ways, and appears that he doesn't think that it alters gameplay or decisions either.

I understand your concern, but I think you're tilting at windmills.

 

[ngmcs8203]

@ngmcs8203 OP was in reference to a home game...I realize this has gotten off track, but, I don't know of any home games that add actual cash to a prize pool.

Most anything a casino does is to benefit the casino. They may dress it up as something for the average guest, but, it most assuredly is designed to put money in their account, not ours. If I'm running a home game and decide to have a bounty tournament this weekend, it's not going to be an optional bounty, you're either in for a bounty tournament, or not. In my tournament, if a guy goes all in and loses, he forfeits that bounty to the winner of that pot. If he/she rebuys then they rebuy with another bounty. Makes it very simple.

If we start talking about casinos then we'll have a hundred different ways in which it's ran, if not more.

Yea I know. I was just posing a similar instance where the payout structure doesn’t change. If we add the surrendered bounty money to the tourney pool but payout % stays the same, it shouldn’t matter.

 

[JustinInMN]

You prefer a bounty to change how the game is played, and when you should or shouldn't jam. I prefer to play with a singular objective to finish first.

It is undeniable that adding a bounty can change the goal to finish first. And to be frank, the only way to design a tournament that properly incentivizes singular objective is to finish first is to play winner-take-all. Standard tournament strategy obviously changes at the bubble and I would argue most players absolutely sacrifice chances to finish first to increase chances to finish in the money. And yes, if winning 25% of your buy in back right now to bust a player means sacrificing some chance at first, some players are going to do it, by instinct or otherwise.

I think a lot of people do not contemplate how many ways there are to just play Hold'em tournaments. Antes change play. Bounties change play. Rebuys change play. Top-heavy prize pools change play.

Agreed, but all of these things have no bearing on a personal decision as to whether or not leave the game after losing chips changing prizes.

I understand your concern, but I think you're tilting at windmills.

To be honest, I don't feel you have adequately responded to the scenarios I laid out before other than your belief that bounties don't change strategy much.

So let's please revisit this, I am adding another dimension and asking two direct questions. Please answer best you can.

A wins all of C's chips. C rebuys (again because E is doing well and is C's ride), A gets no bounty.
Next hand B wins all of D's chips next hand. D decides to quit. B gets to collect a bounty.

Say some time passes between the last event and the next event we are now 10 minutes before the rebuy period ends.
F wins all of C's chips. E's not doing well all of a sudden so C decides to quit here, F gets to collect a bounty.

So if you think I am "tilting at windmills" as you put it, then directly respond to these questions, please.

1) Why is it fair that B gets a bounty and A doesn't for essentially accomplishing the same thing, and the distinction is completely made based on a decision neither A nor B could make?

2) Why is it fair the E gets a bounty and A doesn't for essentially accomplishing the same thing, but the distinction is that C made one decision in the first place, and a different decision in the second place?

@BGinGA runs tournaments both ways, and appears that he doesn't think that it alters gameplay or decisions either.

Look I know you are both very respectable and experienced hosts, but I am trying to get you to think about what you are defending here.

But bottom line to me bounties should be paid for every stack no matter what, not tied to the individual to stay out of these possible conflicts. A possible alternative that would be the one fair format I could see that ties bounties to players and not stacks would be to only pay bounties after the freeze-out, leftover funds applied to the main prize pool.

 

[JustinInMN]

@ngmcs8203 OP was in reference to a home game...I realize this has gotten off track, but, I don't know of any home games that add actual cash to a prize pool.

Most anything a casino does is to benefit the casino. They may dress it up as something for the average guest, but, it most assuredly is designed to put money in their account, not ours. If I'm running a home game and decide to have a bounty tournament this weekend, it's not going to be an optional bounty, you're either in for a bounty tournament, or not. In my tournament, if a guy goes all in and loses, he forfeits that bounty to the winner of that pot. If he/she rebuys then they rebuy with another bounty. Makes it very simple.

If we start talking about casinos then we'll have a hundred different ways in which it's ran, if not more.

Actually, I am pretty sure I have never seen a casino offer an optional bounty. Meaning you have criticized copying casinos and then advocated for the policy that's pretty standard for casino bounty tournaments. (Always mandatory, never optional.)

 

[BGinGA]

If I'm running a home game and decide to have a bounty tournament this weekend, it's not going to be an optional bounty, you're either in for a bounty tournament, or not. In my tournament, if a guy goes all in and loses, he forfeits that bounty to the winner of that pot. If he/she rebuys then they rebuy with another bounty. Makes it very simple.

That's certainly one way to do it..... but it's not the only way to do it. There are many legitimate ways to run a bounty tournament, with or without re-buys. The players in our group enjoy exploring various tournament options. Yours just might, too -- if given a chance to do so.

 

[BGinGA]

It is undeniable that adding a bounty can change the goal to finish first. And to be frank, the only way to design a tournament that properly incentivizes singular objective is to finish first is to play winner-take-all. Standard tournament strategy obviously changes at the bubble and I would argue most players absolutely sacrifice chances to finish first to increase chances to finish in the money. And yes, if winning 25% of your buy in back right now to bust a player means sacrificing some chance at first, some players are going to do it, by instinct or otherwise.



Agreed, but all of these things have no bearing on a personal decision as to whether or not leave the game after losing chips changing prizes.



To be honest, I don't feel you have adequately responded to the scenarios I laid out before other than your belief that bounties don't change strategy much.

So let's please revisit this, I am adding another dimension and asking two direct questions. Please answer best you can.

A wins all of C's chips. C rebuys (again because E is doing well and is C's ride), A gets no bounty.
Next hand B wins all of D's chips next hand. D decides to quit. B gets to collect a bounty.

Say some time passes between the last event and the next event we are now 10 minutes before the rebuy period ends.
F wins all of C's chips. E's not doing well all of a sudden so C decides to quit here, F gets to collect a bounty.

So if you think I am "tilting at windmills" as you put it, then directly respond to these questions, please.

1) Why is it fair that B gets a bounty and A doesn't for essentially accomplishing the same thing, and the distinction is completely made based on a decision neither A nor B could make?

2) Why is it fair the E gets a bounty and A doesn't for essentially accomplishing the same thing, but the distinction is that C made one decision in the first place, and a different decision in the second place?


Look I know you are both very respectable and experienced hosts, but I am trying to get you to think about what you are defending here.

But bottom line to me bounties should be paid for every stack no matter what, not tied to the individual to stay out of these possible conflicts. A possible alternative that would be fair would be to only pay bounties after the freeze-out, leftover funds applied to the main prize pool.

Q #1
It's fair, because it's NOT "essentially accomplishing the same thing". If the stated objective (and resulting reward) is "player elimination", then players play accordingly.
Q #2
see Q #1 answer above.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between "losing your stack" and "being eliminated from the tournament". They are NOT the same thing. You can lose your stack, re-buy, and still win the tournament or cash in-the-money. Winning is impossible if eliminated from the tournament, and cashing depends entirely on when one is eliminated in relation to the prize structure.

All players have the exact same knowledge:
a) a felted player may optionally choose to extend their tournament life
b) a player who eliminates another player from the tournament collects their bounty chip

Why (or why not) a player chooses to (or not to) re-buy and extend their tournament life (and theoretically retain/defend the intrinsic value of their already-paid-for bounty chip) is totally irrelevant.

Your solution of only activating bounty chips after the end of re-buys has it's own set of issues. At first glance, it appears to have the exact same effect -- players lose their bounty chip when eliminated. But players who bust and do not re-buy had no bounty chip to lose, and any player eliminating a busted player who did not re-buy was NOT compensated for eliminating a player (and imo, unfairly, compared to those who bust players after re-buys end). Lastly, this approach requires that a secondary "bounty chip purchase" step be added after the re-buy period ends. This is all far worse -- and obviously unfair -- than the alternative of players retaining their bounty chip until eliminated.

 

[BGinGA]

I think a lot of people do not contemplate how many ways there are to just play Hold'em tournaments. Antes change play. Bounties change play. Rebuys change play. Top-heavy prize pools change play.

I don't think (and have not observed) any aggression change because the shorter-stack might rebuy. People have tanked and asked "will you show", or other questions to help with their decision. Nobody has tanked and asked "will you rebuy". @BGinGA runs tournaments both ways, and appears that he doesn't think that it alters gameplay or decisions either.

For what it's worth, I have seen savvy players ask an all-in player "Are you going to re-buy?" before making a call/fold decision. Possibly gunning for a bounty chip can make a difference.

And naturally, the correct response from a saavy all-in player should always be "Of course!", even if lying. Unless they hold the nuts, in which case they would want to encourage their opponent to call thinking the bounty chip was up for grabs.

It's just one more level of metagame strategy.

 

[JustinInMN]

It's fair, because it's NOT "essentially accomplishing the same thing". If the stated objective (and resulting reward) is "player elimination", then players play accordingly.

It's not fair because the only distinction is the goal of "player elimination" is a decision by the defeated player.

Earlier in this thread you were (rightfully) opposed to a player cashing out that bounty because it's "no longer available" to be won. Well to me, a player deciding to re-enter is saying to the person that just took the last chip "this bounty isn't available to you." I get the take "my bounty and run" approach is egrigeous, and while I accept tying a bounty to a player isn't as bad for magnitude, it seems to be in the same direction.

 

[BGinGA]

It's not fair because the only distinction is the goal of "player elimination" is a decision by the defeated player.

Earlier in this thread you were (rightfully) opposed to a player cashing out that bounty because it's "no longer available" to be won. Well to me, a player deciding to re-enter is saying to the person that just took the last chip "this bounty isn't available to you." I get the take "my bounty and run" approach is egrigeous, and while I accept tying a bounty to a player isn't as bad for magnitude, it seems to be in the same direction.

Read my above post -- it also adds additional strategy components. How can that be bad?

For the most part, any knock-outs of all-in players during the re-buy period do not collect a bounty chip --- unless a player has already been felted and goes bust a second time after re-buying resulting in their elimination. And that happens more often than a player opting to not re-buy.

"You can take my chips, but not my tournament life!" Well, at least not the first time.

 

[JustinInMN]

it also adds additional strategy components. How can that be bad?

In fairness, I guess it comes down to how seriously we take the knowledge of what's at stake being in the decision making fabric of the game. Every poker decision should be rooted in what can be won or lost. Having the decision as to whether or not a player wins a bounty resting on factors that are admittedly far outside the bounds of gameplay and for the sole benefit of the defeated player at the expense of the winning player is an issue to me, obviously not to you or @Poker Zombie

For the most part, any knock-outs of all-in players during the re-buy period do not collect a bounty chip --- unless a player has already been felted and goes bust a second time after re-buying resulting in their elimination. And that happens more often than a player opting to not re-buy.

And I do begrudgingly concede the point that this the main reason you don't hear complaints. But I have to tell you, I imagine player A would be justified in feeling screwed over for the two good reasons I laid out, and the only response I have heard is that it's fair because the host says so.

LATE EDIT:
Actually the last sentence here very much changes my understanding and addresses my complaint. If bounties are only collected during the freezout or on the elimination after his entries are exhausted, that makes more sense to me. (The important thing the player with more chips knows the answer exactly as to whether or not the elimination is worth a bounty.) Does this mean you are not awarding bounties for eliminating players that have not reached their limit but decline to use their final rebuy? In that case, I like this rule so much better. (Though that does leave us with the question of what happens to the unclaimed bounty, but your method of adding it to the main prize pool is fair.)

 

[BGinGA]

In fairness, I guess it comes down to how seriously we take the knowledge of what's at stake being in the decision making fabric of the game. Every poker decision should be rooted in what can be won or lost. Having the decision as to whether or not a player wins a bounty resting on factors that are admittedly far outside the bounds of gameplay and for the sole benefit of the defeated player at the expense of the winning player is an issue to me, obviously not to you or @Poker Zombie


And I do begrudgingly concede the point that this the main reason you don't hear complaints. But I have to tell you, I imagine player A would be justified in feeling screwed over for the two good reasons I laid out, and the only response I have heard is that it's fair because the host says so.

LATE EDIT:
Actually the last sentence here very much changes my understanding and addresses my complaint. If bounties are only collected during the freezout or on the elimination after his entries are exhausted, that makes more sense to me. Does this mean you are not awarding bounties for elminiating players that have not reached their limit but decline to use their final rebuy? In that case, I like this rule so much better. (Though that does leave us with the question of what happens to the unclaimed bounty, but your method of adding it to the main prize pool is fair.)

I really can't state it any clearer than this:

If you eliminate a player from the tournament, you collect their bounty chip. Doesn't matter how, or when, or why.... and re-buys do not alter that.

It's got nothing to do with 'stacks' -- that's a different bounty tournament format entirely. And one that requires more cash.

 

[JustinInMN]

I really can't state it any clearer than this:

If you eliminate a player from the tournament, you collect their bounty chip. Doesn't matter how, or when, or why.... and re-buys do not alter that.

It's got nothing to do with 'stacks' -- that's a different bounty tournament format entirely. And one that requires more cash.

Okay I guess I understand. And I am seeing that for reasons of culture, the difference isn't huge. But there is still an avenue for unfairness here that I can see at least.