Tourney Surrendering chips during a Bounty Tournament... (2 Viewers)

[GetUrShineBox]

One of my favorite niche topics!
I’ve always said the only significant difference is how they’re raked, so for they typical home tournament there’s practically no difference. But as this thread has shown, if you’re playing a bounty tournament, then the difference is significant.

I just can't get on board with the "significant" difference.
As @BGinGA stated earlier there are several different ways to run a bounty tournament. Each rebuy/re-entry can include a bounty or not, it's still a rebuy/re-entry (meaning someone is paying to get back in the game). That rebuy/re-entry is going towards the prize pool and thus increases the amount of entries by 1 so to me there is no difference except the possible seat change. But I've been wrong before and not opposed to being called wrong again. lol

Lets just say I agree with @JustinInMN and I think you are on board with, that we like @BGinGA's bounty tournament #2 structure in his post where when you knock someone out whether its the first, 2nd, or last time you get their bounty and all rebuys/re-entries get a new bounty chip.

 

[Taghkanic]

Slightly OT, but a single-rebuy format is another compromise to pacify both camps.

It means that few if any players have a short night.

Also means that deeper-pocketed players can’t abuse those who really don’t want to flip coins endlessly against those willing to shove light and rebuy over and over again.

As far as bounties, I used to do it where rebuys didn’t get a bounty.

But now that I think about it, the bounty mainly penalizes the person rebuying… Since the rebuyer can’t win his own bounty unless s/he wins the whole tournament.

… And then I’m not clear if those who don’t give rebuyers a new bounty subtract the value of the bounty from the rebuy cost…

 

[GetUrShineBox]

To address your query above in bold (emphasis mine):

The answer is both economics and catering to a larger group of players.

A single-bounty re-buy event is less expensive for participants than when the bounty chip is tied to stacks (and must be repurchased if re-buying a stack).

Additionally, players tend to fall into two groups: those who prefer and/or like bounty tournaments, and those who don't. Adding a bounty to a tournament appeases the first group, and limiting their forced bounty cost exposure to a single purchase is more palatable to the second group.

It's also why some tournaments are ran as bounty-optional events, and why re-buys are optional -- catering to different player preferences and desires.

Additionally, players tend to fall into two groups: those who prefer and/or like bounty tournaments, and those who don't. Adding a bounty to a tournament appeases the first group, and limiting their forced bounty cost exposure to a single purchase is more palatable to the second group.

I'm shocked that you have players that just flat out don't like bounty tournaments. I would think that if its the added expense they don't like then they would be happy to finish out of the money and collect two bounties to recoup some costs.
Are you keeping the buy ins the same as the non bounty tournaments you run?
Again call me simple but a $40 non bounty tournament I'm playing almost exactly the same as a $35+$5 bounty. The $5 is not substantial enough for me to make a loose call.
On the other hand if the tournament is $200+$100 bounty I would probably make a call that I wouldn't make if a short stack shoved on my BB with no other callers, but I get the sense that your games wouldn't put a big emphasis on the bounty portion.

 

[JustinInMN]

Slightly OT, but a single-rebuy format is another compromise to pacify both camps.

It means that few if any players have a short night.

Which in fairness is what I think @BGinGA was describing.

As far as bounties, I used to do it where rebuys didn’t get a bounty.

But now that I think about it, the bounty mainly penalizes the person rebuying… Since the rebuyer can’t win his own bounty unless s/he wins the whole tournament.

… And then I’m not clear if those who don’t give rebuyers a new bounty subtract the value of the bounty from the rebuy cost…

At least it means possession of a bounty chip means the bounty is available to be won. (And if doing optional bounty, only able to be won by another player in the bounty pool.)

But that's been my problem, if a re-entry prevents one from losing the chip, then the information as to whether or not the bounty can be won is unclear, that's my fundamental issue.

I understand the definitions, I understand the rule can be enforces. I think it opens the door to too much selectivity to the point of palpable unfairness.

 

[GetUrShineBox]

Which in fairness is what I think @BGinGA was describing.



At least it means possession of a bounty chip means the bounty is available to be won. (And if doing optional bounty, only able to be won by another player in the bounty pool.)

But that's been my problem, if a re-entry prevents one from losing the chip, then the information as to whether or not the bounty can be won is unclear, that's my fundamental issue.

I understand the definitions, I understand the rule can be enforces. I think it opens the door to too much selectivity to the point of palpable unfairness.

But that's been my problem, if a re-entry prevents one from losing the chip, then the information as to whether or not the bounty can be won is unclear, that's my fundamental issue.

This is the main part I agree with.
I knock 6 players out and they all rebuy, then I get cooler'd later on on the bubble and win nothing. You knock 1 person out and they don't rebuy and don't make the money either but you get that one bounty and won more money than I did. When I hear/see bounty tournament I think I'm getting money for stacking players.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Slightly OT, but a single-rebuy format is another compromise to pacify both camps.

It means that few if any players have a short night.

Also means that deeper-pocketed players can’t abuse those who really don’t want to flip coins endlessly against those willing to shove light and rebuy over and over again.

As far as bounties, I used to do it where rebuys didn’t get a bounty.

But now that I think about it, the bounty mainly penalizes the person rebuying… Since the rebuyer can’t win his own bounty unless s/he wins the whole tournament.

… And then I’m not clear if those who don’t give rebuyers a new bounty subtract the value of the bounty from the rebuy cost…

Should that have been stated?

All my rebuy events are limited to a single rebuy. We call this the "Robbie Rule", after a player that rebought a significant number of times and won the tournament, but profited less money than the min-cash. At the time, we allowed unlimited rebuys (until the end of the rebuy period), and most (probably all) of us had less disposable income than Robble. His shove or fold methods intimidated some players, and was detrimental to attendance. I liked Robbie, so I wouldn't uninvite him, but I did cap the rebuys to 1.

Robbie quit attending after the rule went into effect.

After implementing the rule, I have come to the conclusion that I also do not like unlimited rebuys. However, at the stakes I play for in casinos, there are always unlimited rebuys.

 

[ngmcs8203]

This is the main part I agree with.
I knock 6 players out and they all rebuy, then I cooler'd later on on the bubble and win nothing. You knock 1 person out and they don't rebuy and don't make the money either but you get that one bounty and won more money than I did. When I hear/see bounty tournament I think I'm getting money for stacking players.

In this scenario are you not keeping their bounties? My bounty tourney with rebuys and fresh bounties: if you get knocked out your bounty stays with the person who knocks you out and if you re-buy you get a new one. If you have a stack of bounties and get knocked out you only lose your bounty, not the ones you collected.

 

[GetUrShineBox]

Should that have been stated?

All my rebuy events are limited to a single rebuy. We call this the "Robbie Rule", after a player that rebought a significant number of times and won the tournament, but profited less money than the min-cash. At the time, we allowed unlimited rebuys (until the end of the rebuy period), and most (probably all) of us had less disposable income than Robble. His shove or fold methods intimidated some players, and was detrimental to attendance. I liked Robbie, so I wouldn't uninvite him, but I did cap the rebuys to 1.

Robbie quit attending after the rule went into effect.

After implementing the rule, I have come to the conclusion that I also do not like unlimited rebuys. However, at the stakes I play for in casinos, there are always unlimited rebuys.

Robbie quit attending after the rule went into effect.

Wow! I don't blame you for doing what you did. Its a shame if you really like the guy. Oh well

 

[ekricket]

Which in fairness is what I think @BGinGA was describing.



At least it means possession of a bounty chip means the bounty is available to be won. (And if doing optional bounty, only able to be won by another player in the bounty pool.)

But that's been my problem, if a re-entry prevents one from losing the chip, then the information as to whether or not the bounty can be won is unclear, that's my fundamental issue.

I understand the definitions, I understand the rule can be enforces. I think it opens the door to too much selectivity to the point of palpable unfairness.

They aren’t trying to be fair. They are trying to ensure their players have a good time.
Most players are not aware of any “unfairness” so it’s moot to them - whatever keeps their people happy.
Likes matter to these people more than being fair. A significant portion of the population is like this so it’s not a crazy or out of line position.
It’s just a different way to play a game. Imagine it’s a beta eurogame, and the rules kinda make sense but there comes a point where a mechanism in the game is poorly defined and you have to make it up on the fly and crunch it in, no matter how clunky.

 

[BGinGA]

I'm shocked that you have players that just flat out don't like bounty tournaments. I would think that if its the added expense they don't like then they would be happy to finish out of the money and collect two bounties to recoup some costs.

Some playing styles are more geared towards bounty collection success than others. An experienced and/or aggressive player is more likely to win more bounties than an old man coffee, a tight tournament ABC type, or a less-experienced player.

Maybe that's why @upNdown doesn't like 'em.

 

[JustinInMN]

Again call me simple but a $40 non bounty tournament I'm playing almost exactly the same as a $35+$5 bounty. The $5 is not substantial enough for me to make a loose call.

Correct, and it's all circumstance of course. I am sure there are combinations of stack sizes, time pressure, and whatnot that might influence you even in this situation. But obviously the effects are more substantial in terms of how big a portion of the buy in is for the bounty.

 

[GetUrShineBox]

In this scenario are you not keeping their bounties? My bounty tourney with rebuys and fresh bounties: if you get knocked out your bounty stays with the person who knocks you out and if you re-buy you get a new one. If you have a stack of bounties and get knocked out you only lose your bounty, not the ones you collected.

This is what the discussion is about.
Some of us love and agree with your structure and like your format.
What we don't like is when you only collect the bounty after the person doesn't rebuy anymore. So in my scenario, since those players rebought I did not collect their bounty because they technically were not eliminated.

 

[ngmcs8203]

This is what the discussion is about.
Some of us love and agree with your structure and like your format.
What we don't like is when you only collect the bounty after the person doesn't rebuy anymore. So in my scenario, since those players rebought I did not collect their bounty because they technically were not eliminated.

Oh I thought this topic devolved into a weird morph of hypothetical bounty game rules and I lost where people stood on the topic pages ago

 

[JustinInMN]

They aren’t trying to be fair. They are trying to ensure their players have a good time.
Most players are not aware of any “unfairness” so it’s moot to them - whatever keeps their people happy.
Likes matter to these people more than being fair. A significant portion of the population is like this so it’s not a crazy or out of line position.
It’s just a different way to play a game. Imagine it’s a beta eurogame, and the rules kinda make sense but there comes a point where a mechanism in the game is poorly defined and you have to make it up on the fly and crunch it in, no matter how clunky.

I gotcha, this makes some sense. I think people come to my games because they know I believe in fairness first and I am well structured for a home game without having to be heavy-handed. So just a different perspective on priorities.

 

[ekricket]

Correct, and it's all circumstance of course. I am sure there are combinations of stack sizes, time pressure, and whatnot that might influence you even in this situation. But obviously the effects are more substantial in terms of how big a portion of the buy in is for the bounty.

Lol I do very well in tournaments. But typically I’ll win a 20 person event and have at most three bounty’s, one of them being mine.
It’s a distraction for others, so I let it distract them, I just play to win. And I do.
Not bragging, I’m just highlighting a “side effect” of tournaments like this.
Players get wrapped up in the bonuses, and tournament players like me love it. Players struggle to manage their stack and things like this just pile it on in their minds. They can’t even handle proper bet sizing so they have to rely on a safety net to enjoy the evening.

I’m not knocking these things, they have their place and time.
Social games where most players don’t understand poker strategy need these things to attract players. I’m not making that up, everybody that supports any variant of these has repeatedly made the same point - they NEED these things to fill seats. So for those games it’s great I guess.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think it opens the door to too much selectivity to the point of palpable unfairness.

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.

When I hear/see bounty tournament I think I'm getting money for stacking players.

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.

 

[upNdown]

Some playing styles are more geared towards bounty collection success than others. An experienced and/or aggressive player is more likely to win more bounties than an old man coffee, a tight tournament ABC type, or a less-experienced player.

Maybe that's why @upNdown doesn't like 'em.

That’s fair. I do tend to play cash games much more aggressively than tournaments. It’s not a lack of experience, but an abundance of it. Understand, when I play tournaments I’m usually driving over an hour to get there and buying in near the top of my comfort zone. So because of those factors, I’m much more interested in making the final table than I am in amassing a massive stack like Deeb. I saw an analysis of Sean Deeb’s tournament play over the years and yeah, he’s agressive as F, and either he gets knock out early or he wins the thing. I get it. But I’m not driving two hours to Foxwoods to get knocked out in level 2, you know?

 

[upNdown]

Lol I do very well in tournaments. But typically I’ll win a 20 person event and have at most three bounty’s, one of them being mine.
It’s a distraction for others, so I let it distract them, I just play to win. And I do.
Not bragging, I’m just highlighting a “side effect” of tournaments like this.
Players get wrapped up in the bonuses, and tournament players like me love it. Players struggle to manage their stack and things like this just pile it on in their minds. They can’t even handle proper bet sizing so they have to rely on a safety net to enjoy the evening.

I’m not knocking these things, they have their place and time.
Social games where most players don’t understand poker strategy need these things to attract players. I’m not making that up, everybody that supports any variant of these has repeatedly made the same point - they NEED these things to fill seats. So for those games it’s great I guess.

You and Hellmuth. He won his 17th bracelet this summer in a single day $10k turbo with 642 entries.
He said that going into the final table he’d onlly collected one or two bounties.

 

[GetUrShineBox]

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.

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.

Of course, I would pay attention and know the rules, I'm no stranger to playing poker. I just meant in general if I hear someone is running a $100 + $20 bounty with rebuys I would assume that rebuys would be the full $100 + $20 and that I'm collecting $20 bounties as I go along whether the player I knocked out rebuys or not. I've actually never played in an event like the way you run it. Don't get me wrong, I'd still play in it. lol

 

[ekricket]

You and Hellmuth. He won his 17th bracelet this summer in a single day $10k turbo with 642 entries.
He said that going into the final table he’d onlly collected one or two bounties.

I have his poker table attitude here too, lol

 

[GetUrShineBox]

You and Hellmuth. He won his 17th bracelet this summer in a single day $10k turbo with 642 entries.
He said that going into the final table he’d onlly collected one or two bounties.

But maybe its because all those people he knocked out rebought and he didn't get their bounties because they weren't eliminated. Sorry I had too

 

[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.

I worry more about people that work together. They have to maintain work relationships so they treat each other differently, often dumping chips to win favor. Siblings and best friends from high school are worse, they have their secret signals and words that mean something between them but not to others.

 

[BGinGA]

But that's been my problem, if a re-entry prevents one from losing the chip, then the information as to whether or not the bounty can be won is unclear, that's my fundamental issue.

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.

I understand the definitions, I understand the rule can be enforced. I think it opens the door to too much selectivity to the point of palpable unfairness.

I think you are over-thinking it; and maybe somewhat seeing monsters under the bed where none actually exist in reality.

So long as bounty collection is clearly defined as a result of eliminating a player from competition, all players are operating from the exact same place. Nobody is making a re-buy decision based on 'who gets my bouny?' And if a player chooses to not re-buy, it's a win situation for all remaining players, with now one less player in the hunt for prize money (and subsequent bounty chips).

Under the construct of the established rules, can you identify a scenario in which a player is harmed, or one that otherwise exhibits a palpable unfairness due to the single-bounty format?

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.

 

[Taghkanic]

However, at the stakes I play for in casinos, there are always unlimited rebuys.

With exceptions, I’d say that even most desultory daily casino tournaments are larger than 95% of home tourneys.

And the rebuyer rarely gets seated back at the same table.

So the effect of the aggro rebuyer gets diluted/spread around.

In a two-table home tourney you’re dealing with that guy almost every game.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Social games where most players don’t understand poker strategy need these things to attract players. I’m not making that up, everybody that supports any variant of these has repeatedly made the same point - they NEED these things to fill seats. So for those games it’s great I guess.

Players who played in the 2022 WSOP Bounty tournament Event #68

Poker pro Matt Glantz
GGPoker sponsored Patrick Tardif
Two time bracelet winner Nathan Gamble
Bracelet winner Leo Margets

Yes, clearly bounties are only for social players.

Bounties do distribute the wealth. Many losers find themselves having paid a discount to enter, even more break even on their bounty cost by knocking out one player before they are eliminated themselves. Very few will reach the pay tables without pulling in a few bounties of their own. I am not generally a fan of bounties, because they rarely amount to more than a buy-in without a pay-table finish. If anything, I would think that bounties deter more casual players than they attract. They probably appeal to more aggressive players, because OMC limping to a min-cash isn't collecting much, and hyper aggressive players are not compatible for casual players (though the hyper-aggro players should love the casual players).

 

[jdub]

His shove or fold methods

I would post and fold most hands until the re-buys were over. I absolutely HATE this style of play. Go hit the slots if that's your jam and leave the poker players alone.

 

[ekricket]

Players who played in the 2022 WSOP Bounty tournament Event #68

Poker pro Matt Glantz
GGPoker sponsored Patrick Tardif
Two time bracelet winner Nathan Gamble
Bracelet winner Leo Margets

Yes, clearly bounties are only for social players.

Bounties do distribute the wealth. Many losers find themselves having paid a discount to enter, even more break even on their bounty cost by knocking out one player before they are eliminated themselves. Very few will reach the pay tables without pulling in a few bounties of their own. I am not generally a fan of bounties, because they rarely amount to more than a buy-in without a pay-table finish. If anything, I would think that bounties deter more casual players than they attract. They probably appeal to more aggressive players, because OMC limping to a min-cash isn't collecting much, and hyper aggressive players are not compatible for casual players (though the hyper-aggro players should love the casual players).

They would have played in any tournament format offered. They do. Just because great players play in bounty tournaments doesn’t mean bounty tournaments are great.

You will have to show me that they only played in that format because they believed it was an advantage to them, not just because it was a tournament that fit into their schedule.

Edited to add:
I know hundreds of shitty players that play bounty tournaments. Does that make the format shitty?

 

[Poker Zombie]

I worry more about people that work together. They have to maintain work relationships so they treat each other differently, often dumping chips to win favor. Siblings and best friends from high school are worse, they have their secret signals and words that mean something between them but not to others.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[dpeks13]

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