Tourney Splitting pots after color-ups (1 Viewer)

[DZPoker]

The other split pot question being discussed right now made me think of a wrinkle that I’ve always wondered about but never had to deal with: what do you do if you end up with one extra of the lowest denom chip currently on the table.

Ex: you’ve already colored up to where $500 is the lowest denom on the table and need to split a $1500 pot. Do you re-introduce smaller chips to split the third $500 or use suit-ranking or flip a coin or...?

($500 chips and $1500 pot used for ease)

 

[ekricket]

Player in worst position gets the extra. Typically closest to the dealer going clockwise.

 

[DZPoker]

Player in worst position gets the extra. Typically closest to the dealer going clockwise.

Thanks for the quick reply!! Sure doesn’t seem fair but I’ll take it!

 

[BGinGA]

The other split pot question being discussed right now made me think of a wrinkle that I’ve always wondered about but never had to deal with: what do you do if you end up with one extra of the lowest denom chip currently on the table.

Ex: you’ve already colored up to where $500 is the lowest denom on the table and need to split a $1500 pot. Do you re-introduce smaller chips to split the third $500 or use suit-ranking or flip a coin or...?

($500 chips and $1500 pot used for ease)

Depends on what kind of split pot:

• If hi/lo, then high gets the extra chip.
• If identical hands, then worst position (first following the dealer) gets the extra chip.
• If no positional differences (stud, etc.), then I don't remember. I'd have to look it up.

 

[Chipandchair]

Leave it in the pot as a sweetener for the next hand

 

[Bluegrass Poker]

The host gets it and can add it to his stack. LOL.

 

[Jambine]

Depends on what kind of split pot:

• If hi/lo, then high gets the extra chip.
• If identical hands, then worst position (first following the dealer) gets the extra chip.
• If no positional differences (stud, etc.), then I don't remember. I'd have to look it up.

^That^
For 7CS split (Roberts Rules)
SECTION 10 - SEVEN-CARD STUD HIGH-LOW
7. Splitting pots is determined only by the cards, and not by agreement among players.
8. When there is an odd chip in a pot, the chip goes to the high hand. If two players split the pot by tying for both the high
and the low, the pot shall be split as evenly as possible, and the player with the highest card by suit receives the odd chip.
When making this determination, all cards are used, not just the five cards used for the final hand played.
9. When there is one odd chip in the high portion of the pot and two or more high hands split all or half the pot, the odd
chip goes to the player with the high card by suit. When two or more low hands split half the pot, the odd chip goes to
the player with the low card by suit.

 

[DZPoker]

Thanks all!!

 

[BGinGA]

^That^
For 7CS split (Roberts Rules)
SECTION 10 - SEVEN-CARD STUD HIGH-LOW
7. Splitting pots is determined only by the cards, and not by agreement among players.
8. When there is an odd chip in a pot, the chip goes to the high hand. If two players split the pot by tying for both the high
and the low, the pot shall be split as evenly as possible, and the player with the highest card by suit receives the odd chip.
When making this determination, all cards are used, not just the five cards used for the final hand played.
9. When there is one odd chip in the high portion of the pot and two or more high hands split all or half the pot, the odd
chip goes to the player with the high card by suit. When two or more low hands split half the pot, the odd chip goes to
the player with the low card by suit.

Ah, yes! High card by suit using all 7 cards. I've seen it done just once in my entire poker life. Had to look it up then, too.

 

[JustinInMN]

Ex: you’ve already colored up to where $500 is the lowest denom on the table and need to split a $1500 pot. Do you re-introduce smaller chips to split the third $500 or use suit-ranking or flip a coin or...?

($500 chips and $1500 pot used for ease)

Thanks for the quick reply!! Sure doesn’t seem fair but I’ll take it!

I will point out this is a pretty extreme example of there only being 3 chips of the smallest denomination in a pot, causing one player to win twice what the other player wins.

In a button game with two blinds, the only way this could happen in practice is if the blinds were 1 chip - 1 chip and three players are in for one chip each and then two of these players end up with the same hand. One player with the winning hand then wins the odd chip from the losing player and the other player with the winning hand breaks even.

Even at this extreme, over time these situations will even out by consistently awarding the chip to the player that acted earliest.

In a tournament the only time you should have such a level in your structure would be at the very start. Levels after color ups should usually start at 2-and-4 chips (or in slower structures even 3-and-6 chips) of the new lowest chip in play. In a 2-and-4 chip level there should always be at least 8 chips in a pot. In a 3 and 6 chip structure, a two way chop between a limper and the big blind and a folded small blind would be 15 chips. Splitting two ways means 8 chips for one player and 7 for the other.

Bottom line, splitting a 3 chip pot two ways should be extremely rare. Most odd chips will represent a discrepancy of less than 10% of the pot.

 

[DZPoker]

I will point out this is a pretty extreme example of there only being 3 chips of the smallest denomination in a pot, causing one player to win twice what the other player wins.

In a button game with two blinds, the only way this could happen in practice is if the blinds were 1 chip - 1 chip and three players are in for one chip each and then two of these players end up with the same hand. One player with the winning hand then wins the odd chip from the losing player and the other player with the winning hand breaks even.

Even at this extreme, over time these situations will even out by consistently awarding the chip to the player that acted earliest.

In a tournament the only time you should have such a level in your structure would be at the very start. Levels after color ups should usually start at 2-and-4 chips (or in slower structures even 3-and-6 chips) of the new lowest chip in play. In a 2-and-4 chip level there should always be at least 8 chips in a pot. In a 3 and 6 chip structure, a two way chop between a limper and the big blind and a folded small blind would be 15 chips. Splitting two ways means 8 chips for one player and 7 for the other.

Bottom line, splitting a 3 chip pot two ways should be extremely rare. Most odd chips will represent a discrepancy of less than 10% of the pot.

The last line of my OP says I was using $500 and $1500 for ease...the likelihood of that actually happening doesn’t change the answer I was looking for (which has been provided by several already!).

Very well written post explaining how unlikely it would be though!

 

[JustinInMN]

The last line of my OP says I was using $500 and $1500 for ease...the likelihood of that actually happening doesn’t change the answer I was looking for (which has been provided by several already!).

Very well written post explaining how unlikely it would be though!

Right, I did see that and just wanted to point out there is a spot where that could happen, and to address your concern that a split pot that is 67/33 is rather "unfair." But in most cases, it will be within 55/45. The only time it wouldn't is situation where there just isn't action beyond preflop limping.

 

[mtl mile end]

I realize that the example was for ease of understanding, but it is an impossible situation to have three chips of the lowest denom in a contested NLHE pot.

This impossibly extreme example has an extreme outcome, T1000 for one player, T500 for the other. In any real life situation, the split simply gives the OOP winner an extra SB.

EDIT: didn't read above example. Yes, I guess it could happen in two equal blind game?

 

[JustinInMN]

the split simply gives the OOP winner an extra SB.

Specifically this is true in 1-and-2 chip blinds. And again, that should be pretty rare in tournaments. After color ups the first level of the new lowest chip in play should be 2-and-4 chips. (Meaning an odd chip is half a small blind and whatever fraction a single chip would be of 3-and-6 blinds, 4-and-8 blinds, etc...)

I really like this thread, it really forced thought on how one could even build an odd number of chips in a pot, to deteine how "unfair" awarding an odd chip would be. It really requires an odd number of players putting in an odd number of chips. But we determined in a two way split, the worst case scenario is 2:1 for a pot with 3 chips in it. Any pot with 11 chips in it would be less than 55:45, any pot with 25 chips in it would be a 52:48 split. A pot with 51 chips would be less than 51:49.

 

[DZPoker]

Specifically this is true in 1-and-2 chip blinds. And again, that should be pretty rare in tournaments. After color ups the first level of the new lowest chip in play should be 2-and-4 chips. (Meaning an odd chip is half a small blind and whatever fraction a single chip would be of 3-and-6 blinds, 4-and-8 blinds, etc...)

I really like this thread, it really forced thought on how one could even build an odd number of chips in a pot, to deteine how "unfair" awarding an odd chip would be. It really requires an odd number of players putting in an odd number of chips. But we determined in a two way split, the worst case scenario is 2:1 for a pot with 3 chips in it. Any pot with 11 chips in it would be less than 55:45, any pot with 25 chips in it would be a 52:48 split. A pot with 51 chips would be less than 51:49.

I’m not sure why you’ve latched onto the spread being why I feel it’s unfair but that doesn’t matter to me. I feel it’s unfair for someone’s seating position on that given hand to mean they ‘win’ in the split, however large or small. Will I lose any sleep over it? Nope. Will it make a difference in that game? Most likely not. But I still don’t think it’s fair!

That really wasn’t the point though...I was just looking for what the standard practice was in a situation I didn’t know how to handle! Seriously, that was it! Again, the $500/$1500 was just to easily explain the scenario!

Nevertheless, very nice math even if you did ignore all the scenarios that a player being all-in can hypothetically create...including the ‘dreaded’ $500/$1500 situation itself in a side-pot !

 

[CrazyEddie]

In poker, pragmatism trumps fairness (but only just barely - fairness is always the aim!). "What's the best way to resolve this situation as fairly as possible in a situation that admits of little satisfaction to all parties, while doing so quickly so as to get back to the game?"

Hence the odd-chip rule. It's (nearly) arbitrary and hence unfair, but it becomes fair by applying it consistently.

 

[JustinInMN]

Hence the odd-chip rule. It's (nearly) arbitrary and hence unfair, but it becomes fair by applying it consistently.

I mean I am sure the reason for your "nearly" is that it makes sense in a positional game to reward the player with the least positional advantage in this situation.

(In stud as already point out, which is not a positional game, in the sense that upcards determine action, not order from the button, it makes sense to award based on cards dealt.)

It's preferable to put up with this inequity to (re)introducing small chips with no other purpose.

 

[BGinGA]

^^ Exactly. The player with inferior position theoretically had to play 'better' to overcome his positional handicap. Awarding the odd chip to the player with superior position would be even more unfair.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I feel it’s unfair for someone’s seating position on that given hand to mean they ‘win’ in the split, however large or small. Will I lose any sleep over it? Nope. Will it make a difference in that game? Most likely not. But I still don’t think it’s fair!

I see what you mean. One can always argue fairness, it's different for different people. I agree with the points made above, that it's fairer for the oop player to get it than vice versa because he/she has been at a disadvantage. Would high card have been fairer? Maybe... I'm just here because after looking at the thread title, I'd like to point out that the same rule applies before color-ups as well.

 

[DZPoker]

I'm just here because after looking at the thread title, I'd like to point out that the same rule applies before color-ups as well

Agreed, but with the smaller denom chips still on the table. My point of specifying after the color-up was more about whether you’d re-introduce the lower denom chips to break the single large chip to get closer to an equitable split (which seemed tedious but more fair)...that’s all.

Duly Noted though!!

 

[CrazyEddie]

In the olden days before Robert's Rules were published, casinos and cardrooms and saloons would keep a pair of heavy-duty shears on hand which they would use to cut the odd chip in half.

True Fact!