Home Game Rules: Split Pot Bounty? (1 Viewer)

MathijsVS

Flush
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
1,792
Location
Aalst
Hi everyone

As Belgium's still in lockdown, I've been talking a lot about the first home game when it's over, including the option to add bounties.

This brought up an interesting question: which player gets the bounty if the winning hand is a split?

Are there official rulings? What are some of your house rules? Let me know :)
 
Already a detailed thread on this topic.

Most split the bounty amount, some award it to the bigger stack (an error imo), and others award it to the smaller stack. If a split-pot game, the high hand wins it.

There is? I did a quick search on "split pot bounty" and all I got was a debate on whether Bounty chips were "in play" or were an accounting tool.

The high hand idea seems the fairest, but also doesn't cover all bases. eg. Winning hand is a 10-A straight, both players have K-Q as hole cards, who wins?
Awarding it to the bigger/smaller stack feels extremely arbitrary and I kind of agree that it's an error.
Splitting the bounty seems like the fairest option, but I don't see that being easy to track. Keeping the bounty chips is easy, not gonna order frac-bounty chips as well :p
 
Already a detailed thread on this topic.

Most split the bounty amount, some award it to the bigger stack (an error imo), and others award it to the smaller stack. If a split-pot game, the high hand wins it.
Got it, thanks! :)
In that thread you'll see that I do it yet another way: I award it to the person who first called the eliminated player's all in, or first bet the amount that covered the eliminated player.

Splitting is fairer, but I don't split. My way is a tad less arbitrary than basing it on stack sizes. ;)

So far it seems to be about as likely a scenario as me winning the WSOP main event, because both have happened exactly the same amount of times.
 
I think a split is by far the preferred way to do so but most important is to make sure the rule is layed out before the game. Lots of times a player will call an all in based in part of the bounty potential. If you had the smaller stack size going into the hand you'd hate to call only to find out that you award the bounty to the big stack (yes not that big a deal since you did still split the pot for the hand but you get the point.)
 
We have been awarding to the largest stack. But splitting is ok also, unless the bounty is $5, because making change is a headache. Who has any quarters?
 
We have been awarding to the largest stack. But splitting is ok also, unless the bounty is $5, because making change is a headache. Who has any quarters?
In Sweden it's "who has any cash?". :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:Everyone uses a Venmo-type app and settles electronically, so in Sweden only old people and criminals use cash. ;)
 
Splitting it is probably the preferred way by players, but definitely not the preferred way for tournament directors. I do not like splitting bounties. In the past, I have awarded it to the smaller stack, which seems more fair than awarding it to the bigger stack. (NOTE: I only remember this happening once.) The smaller stack took a bigger risk and deserves it more. I've always felt that was still a bit arbitrary, but bigger risk, bigger reward at least makes sense from a logic standpoint.

I do not remember seeing Mr Winberg's method the first time - awarding it to the first person to call the all-in. I'm going to have to consider that. If the action simply goes that one person moves all-in, two players call, and the two players split the pot, I have no problem awarding the bounty to the first person to call - that makes sense to me. I don't know that it's more or less arbitrary than awarding it to the small stack, but I like it (I don't know why). However, if the action goes something like:
  • Player 1 Raises the BB to 1,000 (2.5x)
  • Player 2 Calls 1,000
  • Player 3 Moves All-In for 1,050
  • Player 4, with 400 in the Big Blind, Calls 650
  • Player 1 Calls for 50
  • Player 2 Calls for 50
If Players 1 and 4 end up splitting the pot with the same hand and knocking out Player 3. I'm not sure Player 4 deserves the bounty. While technically the first to call the all-in, Player 1 was the first to put in the bulk of the chips to cover Player 3. Is Player 4 really deserving of the bounty? Is that even more arbitrary than awarding it to the smaller stack?
 
However, if the action goes something like:
  • Player 1 Raises the BB to 1,000 (2.5x)
  • Player 2 Calls 1,000
  • Player 3 Moves All-In for 1,050
  • Player 4, with 400 in the Big Blind, Calls 650
  • Player 1 Calls for 50
  • Player 2 Calls for 50
Then yes, player 4 gets the bounty the way I do it. Basically, the first player to wager the amount that covers the eliminated player, be it a call, bet or raise.
Is Player 4 really deserving of the bounty?
No ;)
Is that even more arbitrary than awarding it to the smaller stack?
No idea! :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:

For me, it's just a rule to avoid splitting, it has nothing to so with fairness. If you want fair, then don't play poker :D

...and I forgot to mention....I am old people!!!!! :tup:
Better that than a criminal!

Edit: On second thoughts, even though player 4 perhaps doesn't deserve the bounty, player 1 definitely doesn't! That's a really stupid amount to raise if my rule is in place! Know the rules and adapt! :)
 
Last edited:
I think a reason for doing it this way is that from a certain point of view, the first player that wagered an amount that covered the eliminated player was the one who initiated the elimination. The rest just tagged along! And yes, I know in practice this is just a load of BS. But in practice this almost never happens, so if you're gonna have 1 injust rule then it's this one.
 
Edit: On second thoughts, even though player 4 perhaps doesn't deserve the bounty, player 1 definitely doesn't! That's a really stupid amount to raise if my rule is in place! Know the rules and adapt! :)

I shouldn't have insinuated there were only 4 people at the table - just 4 players in the action. If it was a full table, 2.5x is a pretty standard bet pre-flop and I'd much rather him make his standard bet and call the little extra when Player 3 moves all in than wasting time asking for a chip count so that he can make the bet 1,050 instead of 1,000 when Player 3 has no intention of ever calling.
 
Live poker: Put the "bounty chip" with the pot and push it with the chips. If the pot with the bounty is chopped, we would award it to closest position after the bounty.
 
This happened in the first ever tournament I hosted, and I made the ruling to split the bounty.

Point being, great question and make sure you set that expectation at the start. I didn’t do that as I didn’t really think it would ever happen. Luckily the 50-50 split was unanimously accepted.
 
In Sweden it's "who has any cash?". :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:Everyone uses a Venmo-type app and settles electronically, so in Sweden only old people and criminals use cash. ;)

Makes me wonder my friend, since you only accept cash money for your tournaments... A while back when you talked me in to buying some stuff...chips, cards, etc. Talk was how awesome poker evenings i could host with them and what a nice return i could get on my money from everybody that attended. Seen none of that. Nothing! Havn't been close to hostig a game. So i guess my question is, was that in fact some sort of a ponzi-scheme you were selling on me?! :mad::(
 
Makes me wonder my friend, since you only accept cash money for your tournaments... A while back when you talked me in to buying some stuff...chips, cards, etc. Talk was how awesome poker evenings i could host with them and what a nice return i could get on my money from everybody that attended. Seen none of that. Nothing! Havn't been close to hostig a game. So i guess my question is, was that in fact some sort of a ponzi-scheme you were selling on me?! :mad::(
I own stocks in Sunfly, MSK, and Mon Tapis de Jeux, muahahaha!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HMK
Just split the damn thing. Both winners are equally responsible for the player's elimination. Anything else is just a lame excuse to avoid doing the 'right' thing, and creating rules where none are needed.

New Rule - All bounties will be split unless one of the players is a cranky old man who often looks like Moses. When this happens, the bounty will be awarded to the player with the best looking chip stack(s). The tournament director shall judge chip stacking based on creativity, organization, symmetry, and compliance with the rules. The tournament director's decision to award the entire bounty to the cranky old man who often looks like Moses is final.
 
New Rule - All bounties will be split unless one of the players is a cranky old man who often looks like Moses. When this happens, the bounty will be awarded to the player with the best looking chip stack(s). The tournament director shall judge chip stacking based on creativity, organization, symmetry, and compliance with the rules. The tournament director's decision to award the entire bounty to the cranky old man who often looks like Moses is final.
Hey! Why should @HMK always get the bounty?? :mad:
 
Haha, i'm not sure I fit the description...now if it was "a big awesome looking man with an aura of clearly superior poker skills about him, a beard in progress and... let's call it a Bruce Willis style hair cut" you would just have to surrender that bounty token to me at buy-in.
 
I think a reason for doing it this way is that from a certain point of view, the first player that wagered an amount that covered the eliminated player was the one who initiated the elimination. The rest just tagged along! And yes, I know in practice this is just a load of BS. But in practice this almost never happens, so if you're gonna have 1 injust rule then it's this one.
Not if the all-in player is calling off all of his chips, rather than shoving and getting called. In that instance, a player who bet/raised first prior to the all-in initiated the elimination, not the first subsequent player who (also) called.

Just split it, no BS or injustice required.
 
Not if the all-in player is calling off all of his chips, rather than shoving and getting called. In that instance, a player who bet/raised first prior to the all-in initiated the elimination, not the first subsequent player who (also) called.

Just split it, no BS or injustice required.
This is one "Flaw" in using bounty chips I suppose. Though easily rectified by taking the bounty out of play and then paying the split amount immediately.

I use cash chips for bounties :). Had to chop a 5 last tournament because this situation came up. Nothing else seems "fair" to me. And it's so rare because you have to have a tie in the main pot for this situation to apply.
 
Not if the all-in player is calling off all of his chips, rather than shoving and getting called. In that instance, a player who bet/raised first prior to the all-in initiated the elimination, not the first subsequent player who (also) called.
Took you long enough?? I've been waiting over three years for your reply!!

If you look how I worded it:
the first player that wagered an amount that covered the eliminated player
(i.e., "wagered") you can see that we're saying the same thing. The player who bet/raised enough so the the all in player needs to call all in is in fact the first person to "wager an amount that covers the eliminated player".
 
Took you long enough?? I've been waiting over three years for your reply!!

If you look how I worded it:

(i.e., "wagered") you can see that we're saying the same thing. The player who bet/raised enough so the the all in player needs to call all in is in fact the first person to "wager an amount that covers the eliminated player".
Yeah, one of my 3-year old posts got a like, and then I read your old post.

Your more recent response (in another thread) stated that you award the bounty to the first person who calls the all-in player's bet with enough chips to cover. That seems wrong in some circumstances.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom