Tourney Sanity Check on a Misassigned(?!) Bounty in a PokerStars Tournament (1 Viewer)

[TheOffalo]

Hope someone can help explain what happened here. Unfortunately, I didn't witness this myself, but there was a PokerStars tournament with knockouts where apparently the following happened:

Player A has Player B covered, and Player B has Player C covered. All three are all-in in a hand, and Player B wins the hand. Player C busts out, but Player A survives. PokerStars records a KO for Player A rather than Player B. Does this make sense?

(I was thinking maybe Players B misremembered and C actually covered B, the two of them were in a hand where B cripples but does not bust C, and then in a subsequent hand Player A busts C and gets the KO, but that's not what Player B's recollection was.)

Since I didn't witness this the hand, I'm trying to reconstruct using the PokerStars tournament lobby information:

At the 8-minute mark, the chip charts seem to indicate all three players were in a big hand, with Player B winning, Player C busting, and Player A surviving with a short stack. This supports Player B's recollection of events.

After Player C busted, I did open the game and I could see Players A and B still playing, and the tournament lobby did show Player A with 1 KO rather than Player B. Does this make any sense? Just because A had everyone covered in a 3-way all-in hand, if B wins the hand and C busts, then B should get the KO, correct?

Is PokerStars wrong here, and has anyone else ever experienced this on PS?

 

[TheOffalo]

Figured it out. Overlaid each graph and changed the colors of the lines:

Player C is red, Player B is blue, and Player A is yellow.

How the players described it, the assumption was that B covered C but that was incorrect. At the start of the hand, C actually covered B. When everyone went all-in, there was a side pot between A and C.

So even though B had the best hand and tripled up, he could not take C's last chip so B couldn't win C's bounty. Instead, A must have had a better hand than C and won the side pot, taking C's last chip and winning the bounty.

 

[Samuel]

Interesting - is there anything in the "rules" that says that the main pot is to be sorted before any of the side pots? I think in our games, we usually distribute the side pots before the main? (And should that order be the deciding factor in who gets a bounty?) In the case above, in which pot (main or side) was the majority of Player C's money? IMO, if Player B took more of Player C's money than Player A, then Player B should get the bounty (and vice versa). Doesn't seem right to me otherwise (i.e. IMO, bounty should be paid based on whomever did the most "damage" to a stack rather than an order of payout)...

 

[TheOffalo]

Interesting - is there anything in the "rules" that says that the main pot is to be sorted before any of the side pots? I think in our games, we usually distribute the side pots before the main? (And should that order be the deciding factor in who gets a bounty?) In the case above, in which pot (main or side) was the majority of Player C's money? IMO, if Player B took more of Player C's money than Player A, then Player B should get the bounty (and vice versa). Doesn't seem right to me otherwise (i.e. IMO, bounty should be paid based on whomever did the most "damage" to a stack rather than an order of payout)...

The rules I found talked about taking the "last chip" to win a bounty, not the most chips. C had B covered, so there's no way for B to win C's bounty, even if B took 99.999% of C's chips, B can't bust C.

I think side pot was distributed first. C was all-in for more than B's all-in, so there was a side pot between A and C. A's hand was better than C's so A won the side pot taking C's last chip. Then the main pot is resolved, and at that point it's really only between A and B, and B won.

If C had a better hand than A, then C would have won the side pot and still be alive, with B still tripling up. C still would be crippled since the side pot was really small, A would be hurting, and B would be in a great spot.

 

[Samuel]

Oh, ok, the last of C's chips to be put into play... my old timer's brain was thinking the last of C's chips to be sorted/leave the middle... duhhh

 

[ekricket]

e. IMO, bounty should be paid based on whomever did the most "damage" to a stack rather than an order of payout)...

So it sounds like - using your logic- that the “chip leader” should be the one with the most actual number of chips, not the value of the chips?

I played in a charity tourney where the MC gave a prize at the end of a certain level to “the chip leader”. Sure enough, the lady that had all the $0.25’s (60) got the prize instead of the guy (me) that had the $1000’s and 5000’s, I only had 40 chips so obviously the lady was the “chip leader” in their minds, never mind that the value of my stack was 1000’s of times larger than hers.

Try explaining these concepts to people that don’t even play cards.
Insanity. “Most damage” makes me laugh. So if someone takes all but one chip of an opponents in a hand, then in the next hand someone else takes out the player with one chip, should the bounty go to the player in the previous hand who “did the most damage?”

 

[Jawnie]

B tripled up (shortest stack) , A covered C and busted him
Pokerstars right, Player B memory wrong.

 

[Samuel]

So it sounds like - using your logic- that the “chip leader” should be the one with the most actual number of chips, not the value of the chips?

I played in a charity tourney where the MC gave a prize at the end of a certain level to “the chip leader”. Sure enough, the lady that had all the $0.25’s (60) got the prize instead of the guy (me) that had the $1000’s and 5000’s, I only had 40 chips so obviously the lady was the “chip leader” in their minds, never mind that the value of my stack was 1000’s of times larger than hers.

Try explaining these concepts to people that don’t even play cards.
Insanity. “Most damage” makes me laugh. So if someone takes all but one chip of an opponents in a hand, then in the next hand someone else takes out the player with one chip, should the bounty go to the player in the previous hand who “did the most damage?”

My bad, I wasn't clear - "damage" based on $ amount, not number of chips...

I was thinking if a player gets felted by a combination of players in the same hand, then the bounty should go to whomever took more $ from him/her - but my tired brain wasn't thinking about which pot the busted player's last remaining chips went into...

 

[drdr]

Interesting - is there anything in the "rules" that says that the main pot is to be sorted before any of the side pots? I think in our games, we usually distribute the side pots before the main? (And should that order be the deciding factor in who gets a bounty?) In the case above, in which pot (main or side) was the majority of Player C's money? IMO, if Player B took more of Player C's money than Player A, then Player B should get the bounty (and vice versa). Doesn't seem right to me otherwise (i.e. IMO, bounty should be paid based on whomever did the most "damage" to a stack rather than an order of payout)...

Interesting. I've only ever encountered main pots being resolved before side pots. Learnt that from PokerStars long ago. After some head scratching I suppose side pots could be done first, but seems like the more complicated approach. I find it easier to resolve the main pot by considering all live hands, kill the hand that has no stake in the first side pot, then resolve the side pot easier since fewer hands are involved.
Thinking that way would ensure bounties are assigned right/fairly.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Interesting. I've only ever encountered main pots being resolved before side pots. Learnt that from PokerStars long ago. After some head scratching I suppose side pots could be done first, but seems like the more complicated approach. I find it easier to resolve the main pot by considering all live hands, kill the hand that has no stake in the first side pot, then resolve the side pot easier since fewer hands are involved.
Thinking that way would ensure bounties are assigned right/fairly.

Why does it make sense for main pots to go first? Side pots are easier: main pots have everyone involved, easier to do side pots first when you're the dealer. I point to player 3 and 8 and ask them to show first, fold the loser of that side pot and push that side. I then bring the winner with me and ask the next side (or main) to showdown and go from there. This way ensures we handle the people who have a stake in all pots first and narrow it down as we go.

It would be more complicated to shove the main pot then ask a winner of that to muck their hand (if they didnt have enough) so I can handle side pots.

 

[drdr]

Why does it make sense for main pots to go first? Side pots are easier: main pots have everyone involved, easier to do side pots first when you're the dealer. I point to player 3 and 8 and ask them to show first, fold the loser of that side pot and push that side. I then bring the winner with me and ask the next side (or main) to showdown and go from there. This way ensures we handle the people who have a stake in all pots first and narrow it down as we go.

It would be more complicated to shove the main pot then ask a winner of that to muck their hand (if they didnt have enough) so I can handle side pots.

I've never found it more complicated. Maybe we're both set in our ways. Just find it easier/logical. I don't see the point of considering the short stack hand in a side pot that they are not entitled to win. Also makes assigning bounties correctly to non-largest stacks correctly.

Ah... maybe misunderstood? Only kill the short stack hand after resolving the main pot. If a larger stack wins the main pot, obviously you don't kill that hand. You kill the losing short stack hand that lost.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I've never found it more complicated. Maybe we're both set in our ways. Just find it easier/logical. I don't see the point of considering the short stack hand in a side pot that they are not entitled to win. Also makes assigning bounties correctly to non-largest stacks correctly.

Ah... maybe misunderstood? Only kill the short stack hand after resolving the main pot. If a larger stack wins the main pot, obviously you don't kill that hand. You kill the losing short stack hand that lost.

Sure. Ill try to explain my method better.

Side pots dont contain the short stack. Tell everyone to keep their hands down, only point to those who can win the side pot, in theory two biggest stacks who turn over their hands to showdown. Whoever loses that cant win the main pot anyways so I can muck them except for the winner. Push that side pot to the winner.

After that side pot is done and I only have one winning hand, I then point to those from next side/main pot to showdown. Th ey then flip their hands. This also lets them fold if they see a hand that beats theirs on an early pot. If its an insane 5 way all in and someone shows quads in the first side pot, people should fold out with lesser making my job easier.

That way I dont make any decisions about mucking a winning hand just to run the next pot. I move down the line until main, then winner takes that and I get tipped for being a hottie widda body.

 

[drdr]

Sure. Ill try to explain my method better.

Side pots dont contain the short stack. Tell everyone to keep their hands down, only point to those who can win the side pot, in theory two biggest stacks who turn over their hands to showdown. Whoever loses that cant win the main pot anyways so I can muck them except for the winner. Push that side pot to the winner.

After that side pot is done and I only have one winning hand, I then point to those from next side/main pot to showdown. Th ey then flip their hands. This also lets them fold if they see a hand that beats theirs on an early pot. If its an insane 5 way all in and someone shows quads in the first side pot, people should fold out with lesser making my job easier.

That way I dont make any decisions about mucking a winning hand just to run the next pot. I move down the line until main, then winner takes that and I get tipped for being a hottie widda body.

Think the outcome is the same, just we start from opposite ends of the main+sides order. So long as an eye is kept on who busts who at any particular pot/sidepot, then bounties can be awarded correctly (to bring it back to OP).
Sorry if it seems I was hassling you. Wasn't my intention. I just got interested because I have never seen that order before.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Think the outcome is the same, just we start from opposite ends of the main+sides order. So long as an eye is kept on who busts who at any particular pot/sidepot, then bounties can be awarded correctly (to bring it back to OP).
Sorry if it seems I was hassling you. Wasn't my intention. I just got interested because I have never seen that order before.

Na just discussing, no hassle. Where have you seen your method done?

 

[drdr]

Na just discussing, no hassle. Where have you seen your method done?

Thought was the norm/standard. My home game of 18 years, with the method imitating PokerStars from early to late 2000s, and my local casino up to around late 2010s. Don't recall ever seeing your method used.

 

[BGinGA]

PokerStars resolves side pots first; as does every other online or brick/mortar casino I've ever seen.

 

[drdr]

PokerStars resolves side pots first; as does every other online or brick/mortar casino I've ever seen.

Had a feeling you'd chime in
Indeed, seems to be the norm from some general googling. Looks like a review for the home game is in order. Tip of the hat to NotRealNameNoSir for his patience.

 

[TheOffalo]

Yeah everywhere I’ve played resolves the side pot first. It’s also stated in the TDA rules to award side pots first. (I do understand that TDA doesn’t have explicit pot-awarding order rules but examples stated that involve side pots all say to award side pots first.

—

Rule 16: Face Up for All-Ins. “All hands will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete”. This rule means that all downcards of all players will be turned up at once when at least one player is all-in and there is no chance of further betting action by the other player(s). Do not wait for the showdown to turn the cards up; do not wait for side pots to be divided before turning up the all-in who is only in for the main pot; if betting action is finalized on any street prior to the showdown, turn the cards up at that point and then run out the remaining cards.

Example 1. NLHE. Two players remain. On the turn, Player A (the shorter stack) pushes all-in and is called by B. Turn both A and B’s downcards up at this point, then burn and turn the river and proceed to showdown.

Example 2. NLHE. Three players remain.

Pre-flop, Player A (the shortest stack) pushes all-in and is called by both B and C. Do not turn cards up yet because B and C both have chips so further betting action is possible.

On the flop B and C check; betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet.

On the turn B pushes all-in and C calls. Turn all hands up now (A, B, and C) because no further betting is possible. Burn and turn the river then proceed to showdown. Award the side pot between B and C first, then award the main pot. Notice: you do not keep A’s cards face down until the side pot between B and C is awarded.

Example 3. NLHE. Three players remain.

Pre-flop, Player A (the shortest stack) pushes all-in for 700 and is called by both B and C who have several thousand each left. Do not turn cards up yet because B and C both have chips so further betting action is possible.

On the flop B and C check; betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet.

On the turn B bets 1000 and C calls. Since both B and C still have chips and the river remains to be dealt, betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet.

On the river both B and C check. Turn all hands up now (A, B, and C) because betting is over and the hand is moving to showdown. Award the 2000 side pot between B and C first, then award the main pot. Notice: do not keep A’s cards face down until the side pot between B and C is awarded.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Had a feeling you'd chime in
Indeed, seems to be the norm from some general googling. Looks like a review for the home game is in order. Tip of the hat to NotRealNameNoSir for his patience.

Not a problem at all, this is why we ask questions and chat here.

 

[BGinGA]

Indeed, seems to be the norm from some general googling. Looks like a review for the home game is in order.

Fwiw, I've found that establishing a consistent practice of pot placement can also help ease side-pot management. We keep the main pot in the 'normal' central pot location, but any subsequent side pot(s) are placed in front of the player who is ineligible to win it.

So the side-pot located in front of the shortest all-in stack is resolved first (with any losing hands mucked by the dealer), and ending with the main pot being resolved with only the live hands remaining that can still win it.

 

[drdr]

Yeah everywhere I’ve played resolves the side pot first. It’s also stated in the TDA rules to award side pots first. (I do understand that TDA doesn’t have explicit pot-awarding order rules but examples stated that involve side pots all say to award side pots first.

—

Rule 16: Face Up for All-Ins. “All hands will be tabled without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete”. This rule means that all downcards of all players will be turned up at once when at least one player is all-in and there is no chance of further betting action by the other player(s). Do not wait for the showdown to turn the cards up; do not wait for side pots to be divided before turning up the all-in who is only in for the main pot; if betting action is finalized on any street prior to the showdown, turn the cards up at that point and then run out the remaining cards.

Example 1. NLHE. Two players remain. On the turn, Player A (the shorter stack) pushes all-in and is called by B. Turn both A and B’s downcards up at this point, then burn and turn the river and proceed to showdown.

Example 2. NLHE. Three players remain.

Pre-flop, Player A (the shortest stack) pushes all-in and is called by both B and C. Do not turn cards up yet because B and C both have chips so further betting action is possible.

On the flop B and C check; betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet.

On the turn B pushes all-in and C calls. Turn all hands up now (A, B, and C) because no further betting is possible. Burn and turn the river then proceed to showdown. Award the side pot between B and C first, then award the main pot. Notice: you do not keep A’s cards face down until the side pot between B and C is awarded.

Example 3. NLHE. Three players remain.

Pre-flop, Player A (the shortest stack) pushes all-in for 700 and is called by both B and C who have several thousand each left. Do not turn cards up yet because B and C both have chips so further betting action is possible.

On the flop B and C check; betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet.

On the turn B bets 1000 and C calls. Since both B and C still have chips and the river remains to be dealt, betting is still possible so don’t turn the cards up yet.

On the river both B and C check. Turn all hands up now (A, B, and C) because betting is over and the hand is moving to showdown. Award the 2000 side pot between B and C first, then award the main pot. Notice: do not keep A’s cards face down until the side pot between B and C is awarded.

All true. I've also already reviewed the TDA. Was annoyed it didn't specify outside examples. But Roberts Rules does explicitly state side pot award order.

 

[drdr]

Fwiw, I've found that establishing a consistent practice of pot placement can also help ease side-pot management. We keep the main pot in the 'normal' central pot location, but any subsequent side pot(s) are placed in front of the player who is ineligible to win it.

So the side-pot located in front of the shortest all-in stack is resolved first (with any losing hands mucked by the dealer), and ending with the main pot being resolved with only the live hands remaining that can still win it.

Yep. We do similar. Have found many players at my game get somewhat confused with multiway pots and consistent pot placement is a must. We don't play bounties, but if we introduce them will be extra wary of awarding for multiple side pots.