Tourney Best or easiest way to break tables (1 Viewer)

[Alex Lundstrum]

Or, use cash chips as bounties in addition to seating chips.

+1 for just using cash chips for bounties. This alleviates security issues of bounties travelling between tournaments and also answers any question as to the value of the bounty.

I've never run my own MTT, but I've considered the best way of breaking tables in theory. I'd seat tables to 10 players to start, and break tables when there are 9x players left. I'm a fan of seat cards being separate from bounties. When TD collects seat cards, it gives them an easy way of determining how many seats are available and a perfectly fair way of assigning seats to players from broken tables.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Lots of good suggestions and info! Thanks!

I'm hoping Mr. Winberg's musical chairs suggestion was a joke.

The truth is I just wanted to work a Royal Rumble gif into the thread.

 

[TexRex]

Mr. W., I suspected you weren't serious. That's funny -- I love the humor.

I realize this is a slight change of topic, but for those who give out something to represent the bounty, I'd like to know how you handle this. I'll use a hypothetical.

Basic Scenario (with bounty): There are no special bounty rules, so if two or more players knock a third guy out and tie, it's a split bounty. Oscar is the lowest stack. He gets 89o. Flop comes TJQ -- flush highly unlikely. He goes all in.

What do you do in the following situations?

1 -- Andy and Bill call. Both have AKo. Turn and river help no one. They tie, and knock Oscar out. Who gets the single bounty chip?
2 -- Andy, Bill, and Charlie call. All three have AKo. Turn and river help no one. They tie, and knock Oscar out. Who gets the single bounty chip?
3 -- Andy, Bill, Charlie, and Dan call. All four have AKo. Turn and river help no one. They tie, and knock Oscar out. Who gets the single bounty chip?

Comments
The split bounty is rare. We've had only a few. I think I remember one 3-way bounty split, and have never had 4-way come up that I recall, but they are possible.

I've thought of giving out bounties in 1/12. So maybe a bounty has a red chip for example. If it's a whole bounty, they get a red chip. White chips for example are used for partial bounties. If a bounty is split, those 12 chips are divided among those who tie. The challenge I see most bounties I see are $5, $10, or some multiple of $5. I think split bounties would make it more difficult to pay on the spot since the TD might not have change. I actually do keep a few bucks in change in my cash box in a bag just in case. The only times it has come up though, players have donated the "change" to the house

One of the reasons I use paper to record in these cases is because it's very easy to figure out by paper, but having 2 different bounty chips with one of them being a partial seems unwieldy to me. A split bounty seems to me to be 12 good reasons for not using bounty chips if bounty splits are possible.

Paying split bounties in my situation would be more difficult where my tables are in different rooms as a necessity. Until I saw this thread, I don't know that I'd ever given any real thought to paying bounties immediately. I might see it at a break, or even a short stop at the end of a round to pay out bounties.

 

[BGinGA]

In my experience, split bounties are so infrequent (rare, actually) that paying them out immediately causes no undue hardship. Pause the tourney clock for 60 seconds once every 30 games or so? Simpler, and much better than any other alternative, by far.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I give out a chip per player that has the seat and table number on one side and the other side says bounty. I have had these for only two tournaments and have yet to encounter a situation like this, but I have a solution in my rules if it should come up.

WARNING! THIS SOLUTION IS ARBITRARY AND NOT FAIR! Not to be read by the nitty or faint of heart.

If the person being eliminated called an all in, the player who first bet at least that amount gets the bounty.

Example:
A bets 1000
B raises to 2000
C calls
D calls all in (1100)
A calls.

D is eliminated and the rest split the pot with a broadway each. B gets the bounty.

If the person being eliminated bet/raised all in, the first player who called gets the bounty.

Example:
A bets 1000
B raises all in to 1100
C calls 1100
A calls another 100.

A and C split the pot, C gets the bounty.

The thing is that I don't want to handle split bounties. The stakes are low, the bounty is only worth $5, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. If I ever hosted a tourney with higher stakes I would probably split the bounties.

 

[TexRex]

BG, my experience is that split bounties are rare. They may happen more than once every 30 games, but they aren't common for sure.

My issue with paying bounties out immediately is we have tables in separate rooms. I could give dealers some cash to pay bounties on the spot in the other room, and they could call for a time-out if there is a split bounty. But then when we table up we have to remember to get the money back. Right now it's all kept in one place by me near the main table. I'm concerned about moving parts.

Mr. W, one of our bounties the rule is whoever puts the person all in or the first to call their all in wins the bounty. It's a feature of that specific night, but not our other bounty nights. I only do 2 bounty tounaments a year. Some do every tournament as a bounty tournament. That sounds like your rule though you didn't say it that way. That is clean and for those games, the seating chip is also the bounty chip. When I first suggested that some time back, it seemed that wasn't the normal practice. It isn't the normal practice in other bounty games I've played in, but maybe it's more universal than I think. I know my players weren't used to it, though no one has objected.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I know bounties are frequently split in many games and casinos, but in our group the full bounty goes to the player that called with the largest stack. Works for us.

 

[BGinGA]

My issue with paying bounties out immediately is we have tables in separate rooms. I could give dealers some cash to pay bounties on the spot in the other room, and they could call for a time-out if there is a split bounty. But then when we table up we have to remember to get the money back. Right now it's all kept in one place by me near the main table. I'm concerned about moving parts.

I'm not advocating paying bounties immediately -- only in those rare occurrences when it is split. I track bounties for year-end bonuses, so it's easier for me to just collect chips and pay out at the end of the event (or when a player busts out and wants to leave). Also paying out during the rare split is no big deal.

I know bounties are frequently split in many games and casinos, but in our group the full bounty goes to the player that called with the largest stack. Works for us.

I know this approach simplifies things, but seems to be an inherently unfair advantage given to the big stack (who already has a built-in advantage for bounty hunting due to stack size).

For our PCF online tournaments, I typically award the full bounty (if split) to the lowest-finishing player of the two (or three) involved. Spreads the wealth....

If it's a high-low tournament and a player is knocked out by losing both side (one to a player with a better low, and one to a player with a better high), the bounty goes to the high hand winner. Other split-pot games use similar rules for how odd chips in a pot are distributed - either by game-name order or first player following the button.

 

[Gobbs]

I know bounties are frequently split in many games and casinos, but in our group the full bounty goes to the player that called with the largest stack. Works for us.

If you are going to award it by chip stack, shouldn’t it be the other way around - the person with the lowest stack gets the bounty. After all, the shorter stack took the bigger risk in most cases. Shouldn’t that be what gets rewarded?

 

[Jeff]

Collapse tables using the Ticsay method (named after Mr. Ticsay from CT.). Take the first person after the dealer off the collapsing 4 table and insert them in the 1 table in the same position after the dealer. Take the next person off the collapsing 4 and put them in the same their position on table 2, and so on.

 

[SendThatStack]

I thought I read somewhere on here that when balancing tables (lets just say for two tables) you simply take the player closest to the bb and move them to the seat available at the other table thats closest to the bb.

 

[BGinGA]

I thought I read somewhere on here that when balancing tables (lets just say for two tables) you simply take the player closest to the bb and move them to the seat available at the other table thats closest to the bb.

Correct -- move the heavy-table player destined to be the next big blind to the open seat at the short table that will soonest be the big blind.

 

[WedgeRock]

When we balance (not break) in a 2TT, we just move the person from the larger table to the recently vacated seat from the smaller table.

So if Red tables has 7 and Blue table has 6 and Blue tables loses a player in the BB+2 seat, we move BB+2 from the Red table to that seat at the Blue table.

 

[BGinGA]

When we balance (not break) in a 2TT, we just move the person from the larger table to the recently vacated seat from the smaller table.

So if Red tables has 7 and Blue table has 6 and Blue tables loses a player in the BB+2 seat, we move BB+2 from the Red table to that seat at the Blue table.

That works, but a) takes extra time to calculate who moves, and b) doesn't always result in moving a player to the open seat which is more likely to have to act last at the new table.

 

[WedgeRock]

That works, but a) takes extra time to calculate who moves,

Um, we usually know who moves before the next hand is dealt...

and b) doesn't always result in moving a player to the open seat which is more likely to have to act last at the new table.

Is that your goal? I'm more interested in keeping as many people as possible in relatively the same position to the button... That way table balancing near the bubble doesn't give short stacks any advantage (or punish them unnecessarily).

 

[BGinGA]

No, the goal is to a) move players as efficiently as possible (which is best accomplished by always moving the same player instead of a different seat each time), b) minimizing disruption of the normal flow of the game (best accomplished by having the big blind move, since his seat acts last in the new hand), while c) ensuring that the moved player is not punished by his new seat assignment.

It's a pretty common practice for moving players, so I don't understand the latent hostility. As I said, your method works too; it's just not as efficient.

The most important aspect is always doing it the same way every time.

 

[WedgeRock]

I don't understand the latent hostility.

I'm not sure where you picked that up from, but I assure you it was not intended.

I just don't see it as inefficient. And if there is any scintilla of inefficiency, it's seems worth it as it is balanced with a healthy does of fairness to the short stacks.

 

[BGinGA]

Lol, but 'not as efficient' does not equal 'inefficient', except comparatively.

Your method requires two calculations/decisions (what seat position relative to the button busted out, and which player is in that same relative position on the must-move table). But if the next big blind player always moves, there is no decision to make or calculate..... gotta be faster and more efficient, since that player simply gets up and moves immediately.

Regarding fairness to the short stacks, I agree that either of the methods is far superior to a random draw of who gets moved or to what position. But always moving the big blind player to the same position on the new table (or as close as possible) never results in an 'unfair' move.

 

[CdnBeerLover]

Regarding fairness to the short stacks, I agree that either of the methods is far superior to a random draw of who gets moved or to what position. But always moving the big blind player to the same position on the new table (or as close as possible) never results in an 'unfair' move.

Unless I'm mis-understanding it, if UTG busts at table 1 and the BB from table 2 is moved there to balance, doesn't that result in that player paying the BB twice in a row as that player now becomes the BB again on the next deal at table 1? That would suck for them if they were short-stacked, and even more if BB antes were in effect. With @WedgeRock 's method, that wouldn't happen, as UTG from table 2 would move instead.

 

[WedgeRock]

Your method requires two calculations/decisions (what seat position relative to the button busted out, and which player is in that same relative position on the must-move table).

But its only one calculation (BB+2, or whatever) done at both tables.

It goes.something like this.

Red Table:
"We need a player, BB+2."

Blue Table:
[BB+2 gets up and moves to the red table.]

 

[BGinGA]

Unless I'm mis-understanding it, if UTG busts at table 1 and the BB from table 2 is moved there to balance, doesn't that result in that player paying the BB twice in a row as that player now becomes the BB again on the next deal at table 1? That would suck for them if they were short-stacked, and even more if BB antes were in effect. With @WedgeRock 's method, that wouldn't happen, as UTG from table 2 would move instead.

No -- it is the player who is the *next* big blind (current hand utg) who moves. If a hand is currently in progress, the current utg player moves immediately (unless involved in the hand), or immediately afterwards, and is seated in the first open seat that will see the big blind soonest. Nobody ever posts twice on a row.

 

[BGinGA]

But its only one calculation (BB+2, or whatever) done at both tables.

It goes.something like this.

Red Table:
"We need a player, BB+2."

Blue Table:
[BB+2 gets up and moves to the red table.]

No matter how you slice it, that's still two decisions (vs none).

 

[WedgeRock]

I guess we're going to agree to disagree.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I guess we're going to agree to disagree.

I have a better idea:

Spoiler

 

[BGinGA]

I guess we're going to agree to disagree.

Well, of course you can disagree. But your method also violates the TDA, RRoP, and WSOP rules regarding balancing tables, unless they've changed them recently. Still works, though.

 

[SendThatStack]

Is there any issue or downside to not redrawing for a FT? On a two table tourney I am thinking of just having it so table 2 draws for seats at table 1 and thats the FT.

 

[toynoob]

Is there any issue or downside to not redrawing for a FT? On a two table tourney I am thinking of just having it so table 2 draws for seats at table 1 and thats the FT.

That is not how you should so it. The Dynamics for that original table 1 would play as a advantage over all the table 2 players. Pause the tournament and draw for seats. Everyone starts fresh with no advantages

 

[Sprinsd]

How do you determine who moves if your tournament is expanding from 1 table to 2 tables due to late entry? For instance, 9 players at a table and 2 more late register?

 

[toynoob]

How do you determine who moves if your tournament is expanding from 1 table to 2 tables due to late entry? For instance, 9 players at a table and 2 more late register?

I would start with 2 tables, and when they confirm not to be coming you combine.

 

[Sprinsd]

I would start with 2 tables, and when they confirm not to be coming you combine.

Start a table with 4 players? Seems low but IF you know players will be joining soon maybe that is ok.....