Tourney Surrendering chips during a Bounty Tournament... (1 Viewer)

[GetUrShineBox]

So, in closing...If you're surrendering your chips you're surrendering your bounty too. Glad we had this discussion!

In the famous words of Rainman.... "Surrendering Sucks." Or was it KMart? I can't remember.

 

[ekricket]

This is where it is good as a host to keep records on everybody. Yes, all in my game are friends, but I have a spreadsheet that tracks how players finish when they are seated at the same table. The spreadsheet will show me if players do better together than separately. Not that someone can't sneak a shot by the goalie, but at least it's something to protect the games integrity.

I’m truly intrigued. How do you differentiate between a calling station sitting to a persons right, and that person printing money because of it?
I thought about this, and there are certain players that if they sit to my right I’m going to do much better than normal. Not because of collusion but because they are bad players and call and call and since I always have position I can play them like a violin, limiting my losses and exploiting their bad poker. How do you differentiate this from collusion?
You could see this when the bad player plays against a good player, but two bad players together would not stand out. So it would look like the bad player was colluding sometimes and sometimes not?
Can you share the red flags you have so we can maybe look out for similar ones? Data driven red flags, not hunches or feelings.

 

[JustinInMN]

But that same information (or lack of) is equally available (or equally unavailable) to all players. Nobody has an edge or unfair advantage. It's unclear for everybody.

Yes, I see that is the crux of the disagreement. I think this whether or not a bounty chips is available for collection is clearly information to which the player should be entitled to at all times, akin to a player's chip count. The optional withdrawl subject to a number of possibly-non poker factors solely determined by a player that just lost all their chips is a grey box that I find unfair as hiding chips in a cash game or tournament.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Data in the spreadsheet also tracks position. However, polling that data requires a manual step.

In your example, if you are the only player playing the weak player "like a violin", it would throw a warning in the spreadsheet. If you only can play well against this player (and tend to be average otherwise) it would be grounds to separate you and the other player. Not accusatory, but enough of a warning that the program will not seat you together.

Unfortunately, I will not share how the data is compiled (and converted into numbers so the program can use the data). Any system can be exploited. Knowing how the system is built makes it easier to do. The spreadsheet does not play hunches, all decisions are data driven. The only part I play in the process (other than having written the formulas) is inputting the data. This requires detailed data on who knocks who out. An extra chore for Mrs Zombie and I, but since I quit watching baseball, I needed somewhere to channel my desire for sports stats.

 

[upNdown]

Data in the spreadsheet also tracks position. However, polling that data requires a manual step.

In your example, if you are the only player playing the weak player "like a violin", it would throw a warning in the spreadsheet. If you only can play well against this player (and tend to be average otherwise) it would be grounds to separate you and the other player. Not accusatory, but enough of a warning that the program will not seat you together.

Unfortunately, I will not share how the data is compiled (and converted into numbers so the program can use the data). Any system can be exploited. Knowing how the system is built makes it easier to do. The spreadsheet does not play hunches, all decisions are data driven. The only part I play in the process (other than having written the formulas) is inputting the data. This requires detailed data on who knocks who out. An extra chore for Mrs Zombie and I, but since I quit watching baseball, I needed somewhere to channel my desire for sports stats.

I am continually impressed, fascinated, and horrified by all of your data.

 

[JustinInMN]

Personally, I have always considered bounty events to be somewhat unfair /unjust in general, when one player can do the heavy work and cripple a player yet another finishes off the crumbs and collects the bounty.

Yes, but you have (or at least are entitled to) the knowledge of who covers who before taking action. If an all in doesn't cover the player, you would factor that in with the fact there is no bounty in it for you.

Now I get the culture of your game is the expectation is that there is almost never a bounty in it for the player that takes a stack unless they are on their last entry or the freezout has begun. That is the reason you probably don't hear from the players the complaint I am lodging.

It is important that everyone knows the rules. Since we rarely do bounties, ours are done verbally at the beginning of the tournament. You might have shown up thinking you were getting money for taking a insignificant chip from a player that doesn't get up from the table, but if you are paying attention, you will know you need to eliminate them before the first card is dealt.

Again, I am not questioning that the rules are known ahead of time to everyone. I am saying it's problematic to apply the rules equally when the payment of a prize very much depends on a choice from a player that was just defeated.

 

[ekricket]

In your example, if you are the only player playing the weak player "like a violin", it would throw a warning in the spreadsheet. If you only can play well against this player (and tend to be average otherwise) it would be grounds to separate you and the other player. Not accusatory, but enough of a warning that the program will not seat you together.

Lol, what if everyone but one person did better when seated to the left side of them?
It’s not an impossible scenario btw. I think it’s pretty common. Do those two people always have to sit together and whoever is to their left has a double scoop of position over weak players?

 

[TheRealTeddyKGB]

Play cash. Problem solved.

I hear about people disagreeing with the fact that someone can surrender and cash out the Bounty, but isn't the point of surrendering to keep the Bounty when rebuying?

I've made it in my rules that you can surrender and rebuy a new stack, AND you get to keep the Bounty so you don't have to buy it again.
Giving it away to the winner of next hand seems odd to me, like too easy, or it could just incentivize players to do stupid all ins preflop to get the bounty.

 

[Poker Zombie]

How many instances of collusion have you found over the years?

We typically have 10-15 players for our games. There are 4 couples that play semi regular. We’ve never had a hint of trouble. You should think about moving to a better part of the US or get more honorable players maybe? That’s crazy to be so suspicious of your players, unless that’s the norm over there.
It’s a smaller world out here. You have to trust people, not the rules or laws that are supposed to restrict them (um, there’s nobody to enforce them).
I realize it’s not the same everywhere and that’s sad.

I just like statistical data. Putting it to use isn't bad, right?

We have had 1 confirmed instance of soft-play since we started collecting data in 2009. She owned up to it. It was a new player that really didn't know it was wrong.

It’s a smaller world out here. You have to trust people, not the rules or laws that are supposed to restrict them (um, there’s nobody to enforce them).
I realize it’s not the same everywhere and that’s sad.

Gee, that must be swell. Just thinking of all the time you must save because nobody ever has to cut the deck makes me jelly. Splashing the pot is also super-fun, and since nobody would short change pots out there I guess you guys get to do that all the time. Wow.

Also, credit for where credit is due. You ae derailing an already derailed thread.

 

[JustinInMN]

Play cash. Problem solved.

FINALLY! This should not have taken 8 pages for someone to state my true belief on this.

Problem is most players around here prefer tournaments for whatever reason. I feel like "Fast" Eddie Felson lamenting the rise of 9-ball in "The Color of Money." It's hard to fight what's popular.

 

[ekricket]

I am continually impressed, fascinated, and horrified by all of your data.

I’m a Chemical Engineer who worked a career in research and development. Good data is near impossible and worth more than gold. Ordinary data is easily misused and used more for correlation than causation. That’s ok, but rarely does correlation take all the relevant information into account.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Lol, what if everyone but one person did better when seated to the left side of them?
It’s not an impossible scenario btw. I think it’s pretty common. Do those two people always have to sit together and whoever is to their left has a double scoop of position over weak players?

Nope. That would be silly. When someone is that bad, we invite them over for a private (free) poker session where we show cards at the end of each hand and explain how and why we make the decisions we do.

These people are my friends. If they're bad at poker, I want them to get better. One of our Hall of Fame players was voted in because he was a good player that taught others how to get better.

 

[ekricket]

Playing with spouses opens the door to too much selectivity to the point of palpable unfairness. Soft play, chip dumping. You stand on the lookout and ban players that do so.

Also, credit for where credit is due. You ae derailing an already derailed thread.

Umm ok. Whatever.

 

[KHarp1]

As mentioned, there are obviously several different ways to run a bounty tournament, but, that leads us to this...8 pages, and counting, of getting very little resolution to a problem. It seems like the biggest contention is the semantics of "bounty" being synonymous with "eliminated."

Seems like, for the sake of bounty tournaments, that serious consideration should be given that "in that precise moment" that a player is "all in" and lose, they have been eliminated from the tournament...at that moment. What happens after that is immaterial to what happens previously. That player, at that moment, is eliminated. Therefore, their bounty was surrendered. If that player chooses to re-enter then they should buy another bounty.

Before you make a decision, think of it this way, when I play in tournaments I can watch the board and see the number of entrants. Player pool often doesn't grow by actual number of physical bodies, yet, the number of entrants increases by each rebuy. Not increasing the actual number of physical heads, but, increases the amount of entry units that have been purchased. For the sake of bounties, it seems painfully obvious, to me, that the bounty should be surrended with each all-in pot, winner gets it. Loser has to buy another if they want to try again. Because, again, there is no guarantee of rebuy, what happened in that moment was the end until that player actually gives money to the casino to buy back in.

Go ahead, all you degens, flame away. Take that simplistic answer and run it through the maze for another 8 pages.

 

[ekricket]

As mentioned, there are obviously several different ways to run a bounty tournament, but, that leads us to this...8 pages, and counting, of getting very little resolution to a problem. It seems like the biggest contention is the semantics of "bounty" being synonymous with "eliminated."

Seems like, for the sake of bounty tournaments, that serious consideration should be given that "in that precise moment" that a player is "all in" and lose, they have been eliminated from the tournament...at that moment. What happens after that is immaterial to what happens previously. That player, at that moment, is eliminated. Therefore, their bounty was surrendered. If that player chooses to re-enter then they should buy another bounty.

Before you make a decision, think of it this way, when I play in tournaments I can watch the board and see the number of entrants. Player pool often doesn't grow by actual number of physical bodies, yet, the number of entrants increases by each rebuy. Not increasing the actual number of physical heads, but, increases the amount of entry units that have been purchased. For the sake of bounties, it seems painfully obvious, to me, that the bounty should be surrended with each all-in pot, winner gets it. Loser has to buy another if they want to try again. Because, again, there is no guarantee of rebuy, what happened in that moment was the end until that player actually gives money to the casino to buy back in.

Go ahead, all you degens, flame away. Take that simplistic answer and run it through the maze for another 8 pages.

Honestly I think it’s two camps.

One that thinks that poker should be as fair as possible and whatever baggage that comes with whatever bonuses is worth it to attract their players. Maybe it’s less fair but more fun.
The other thinks that poker should be as fair as possible and there should be no baggage and that’s worth it to attract their players. Maybe it’s more fair but more serious.

Two different games. Both are fine. Just know which one you are playing in and you’ll be ok.

 

[GetUrShineBox]

As mentioned, there are obviously several different ways to run a bounty tournament, but, that leads us to this...8 pages, and counting, of getting very little resolution to a problem. It seems like the biggest contention is the semantics of "bounty" being synonymous with "eliminated."

Seems like, for the sake of bounty tournaments, that serious consideration should be given that "in that precise moment" that a player is "all in" and lose, they have been eliminated from the tournament...at that moment. What happens after that is immaterial to what happens previously. That player, at that moment, is eliminated. Therefore, their bounty was surrendered. If that player chooses to re-enter then they should buy another bounty.

Before you make a decision, think of it this way, when I play in tournaments I can watch the board and see the number of entrants. Player pool often doesn't grow by actual number of physical bodies, yet, the number of entrants increases by each rebuy. Not increasing the actual number of physical heads, but, increases the amount of entry units that have been purchased. For the sake of bounties, it seems painfully obvious, to me, that the bounty should be surrended with each all-in pot, winner gets it. Loser has to buy another if they want to try again. Because, again, there is no guarantee of rebuy, what happened in that moment was the end until that player actually gives money to the casino to buy back in.

Go ahead, all you degens, flame away. Take that simplistic answer and run it through the maze for another 8 pages.

I tried this thought process in my post #168 but it didn't have the affect I thought it would, lol. I agree with you.
Entries are entries it doesn't matter how many actual people it took to come up with those entries. All of those entries started with equal starting stacks and have an equal chance to win with that start stack so why if a player knocks that start stack out should they not get a bounty? Some see it at unfair but others just don't and chalk it up to the structure of that tournament and I don't think anyone is going to change their mind. (Although I keep checking in hopes someone else says they agree and see our points)

 

[KHarp1]

Honestly I think it’s two camps.

One that thinks that poker should be as fair as possible and whatever baggage that comes with whatever bonuses is worth it to attract their players. Maybe it’s less fair but more fun.
The other thinks that poker should be as fair as possible and there should be no baggage and that’s worth it to attract their players. Maybe it’s more fair but more serious.

Two different games. Both are fine. Just know which one you are playing in and you’ll be ok.

Not sure I'm completely following you here, but, maybe we should just start saying that a bounty chip is attached to a players stack of chips instead of the player. If the term bounty is used to imply that there is a price on the collection of something, or, someone, then it seems that we should define that. I'm going to take a long shot guess and say that the original bounty tournament wasn't a rebuy-re-entry tournament.
And, I think along with what you're saying, people weren't happy with that and started looking for ways to get around it, looking for a softer landing. Probably after their AA got busted by someone they can't stand, or, a casino owner that was looking for more ways to get money in play from its patrons.

 

[Poker Zombie]

maybe we should just start saying that a bounty chip is attached to a players stack of chips instead of the player.

You can say that. Or you can say it is attached to the player's elimination.

Two different ways. I've played both. I do not feel "cheated" if the bounty is attached to the player's elimination, but there are some people who never played that way that somehow think that someone would be cheated.

8 pages of players that have played both formats trying to convince players that only played one that it really works. Nobody is slighted - any more than the player that takes 95% of an opponent's stack only to have the last chip and bounty go to someone else (and I have heard grumblings about the latter, but never about the rebuy).

 

[ekricket]

You can say that. Or you can say it is attached to the player's elimination.

Two different ways. I've played both. I do not feel "cheated" if the bounty is attached to the player's elimination, but there are some people who never played that way that somehow think that someone would be cheated.

8 pages of players that have played both formats trying to convince players that only played one that it really works. Nobody is slighted - any more than the player that takes 95% of an opponent's stack only to have the last chip and bounty go to someone else (and I have heard grumblings about the latter, but never about the rebuy).

If the player chooses not to rebuy after the rebuy period is over, doesn’t his bounty belong to the last person who took his stack? If the felted player chooses not to rebuy, then the last player who took his chips did actually eliminate him from the tournament. Even if it’s a half hour later that the felted guy makes his decision - the player that took his last chip eliminated him if he doesn’t rebuy.

He may be “knocked out, or knocked down” temporarily, but if he doesn’t re-enter then he was “eliminated”.

 

[Poker Zombie]

If the player chooses not to rebuy after the rebuy period is over, doesn’t his bounty belong to the last person who took his stack? If the felted player chooses not to rebuy, then the last player who took his chips did actually eliminate him from the tournament. Even if it’s a half hour later that the felted guy makes his decision - the player that took his last chip eliminated him if he doesn’t rebuy.

He may be “knocked out, or knocked down” temporarily, but if he doesn’t re-enter then he was “eliminated”.

Rebuy decisions should be made before the next hand is dealt. You retain the seat and the position (button, blind, UTG, whatever). I already explained that, in this thread.

So no, a player cannot make their decision a half-hour later (unless you don't mind waiting 30 minutes for a player to make a decision). I cant even imagine the difficulties handling that in a MTT.

Should we break down from 3 tables to two? No, Kevin needs 2 levels to decide if he's spending another $30. You guys will have to play short-handed.

No - rebuy or no rebuy. There is no wait, no "I'll decide after the blinds pass". There are between 6 and 9 players at your table waiting for you, plus the TD, plus the stat recorder. That's roughly half the room waiting for you. You think you can take 30 minutes?

 

[BGinGA]

If the player chooses not to rebuy after the rebuy period is over, doesn’t his bounty belong to the last person who took his stack? If the felted player chooses not to rebuy, then the last player who took his chips did actually eliminate him from the tournament. Even if it’s a half hour later that the felted guy makes his decision - the player that took his last chip eliminated him if he doesn’t rebuy.

He may be “knocked out, or knocked down” temporarily, but if he doesn’t re-enter then he was “eliminated”.

That is correct. Except the busted player doesn't get a half-hour to decide on re-,buying, it must be made immediately or the player is eliminated.

 

[KHarp1]

Geez! @Poker Zombie you're assuming I've only played one way? What on earth makes you think that? Because I've played multiple ways is why I stated that most of these games are likely created by the casino, to generate more money for them, or, degens that didn't like the way they lost. If the only way you can explain how a guy gets felted and doesn't lose his bounty is that he didn't lose because he can get back in, well, that kind of sounds made up, you know, like a casino that was looking for ways to maximize profit, or, a degen that didn't want to quit when he was beat.

Anyone can play any way they choose, just not in my game. They want a different band they can go somewhere else.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Geez! @Poker Zombie you're assuming I've only played one way? What on earth makes you think that? Because I've played multiple ways is why I stated that most of these games are likely created by the casino, to generate more money for them, or, degens that didn't like the way they lost. If the only way you can explain how a guy gets felted and doesn't lose his bounty is that he didn't lose because he can get back in, well, that kind of sounds made up, you know, like a casino that was looking for ways to maximize profit, or, a degen that didn't want to quit when he was beat.

Anyone can play any way they choose, just not in my game. They want a different band they can go somewhere else.

My bad. Your message...

but, maybe we should just start saying that a bounty chip is attached to a players stack of chips instead of the player.

...made it sound like it should only be attached to the stack.

As to the remainder of your post,
I really don't know how the bounty got started. We already know that casino tournament play is designed to give a little guy a shot at a huge win, which is less likely in a cash game. Each "adjustment", be they antes, bounties, rebuys or late buy-ins with 10-12 BB, - all encourage increased aggression. Since the casino loses money every second after you paid your entry fee, aggression is beneficial for the house. Many skilled home game players like these additions, especially if there is a cash game to follow.

 

[CSW]

Strategy is also somewhat different for both events. Having the bounty tied to stacks (#2) actually encourages aggressive all-in/call behavior during the re-buy period.

Some of our events use dual bounty chips, one of each type (and worth different amounts). I actually prefer that over either of the two 'standard' versions I listed.

Can you explain this a bit further @BGinGA? I’m really interested in this because I prefer the idea of every knockout resulting in a bounty payout, but I also agree with some of the logistical and strategic points made in this thread. If there is a dual bounty option that threads the needle, I’d be really interested.

(Apologies if this is already explained later in this thread. I’m still making my way through this very lively conversation!)