I think you’re completely right and I the the guys who disagree are just talking circles to try to justify their way of doing things. Which is fine, but it doesn’t make it right:
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Tourney Surrendering chips during a Bounty Tournament... (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter TudiscoKid
- Start date
So how does it work if I get knocked out before the rebuy/surrender period is over, and I don’t rebuy?
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
Dave already responded in post #144. If you don't accept that, you wont accept my explanation - it's almost identical. I don't think He and I have agreed on a debate this long, so... congratulations?
"Call" or "Fold" have long been the decisions of an eliminated player. I'd call it quite fair.
The only way I can see this as even remotely "unfair" is if the bounty consists of a significant portion of the buy-in. You seem to have indicated 25% of your buy-in is bounty. Is that correct? That would greatly influence my decisions. Perhaps you are talking about 100% bounty, with no prize pool. That would also influence me. However, even with a 100% bounty (a game I would rather never play in), if I knew the player might rebuy I would play the hand as best I could. i.e - I wouldn't punt with a junk hand in the hopes I got lucky without a significant chip lead.
How is the worst case scenario that people just play their best poker?
Your bounty money is just in the bounty prize pool.
Similar to the way all of the mystery bounty tournaments play in vegas I would assume.
20 entries
$100 buy in, $10 goes toward bounties
4 rebuys, $40 more
$240 bounty money collected
Rebuys r over, 18 players remain.
Now you can do a mystery bounty format or each bounty is worth $13 (240/18)…
It’s an insufficient response that doesn’t make sense. If it seems fair to you guys, fine. But it’s arbitrary and unfair.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
How is eliminating a player unfair?
Eliminated = bounty.
Player is still in = no bounty.
OMG the humanity!!!
Eliminated = bounty.
Player is still in = no bounty.
OMG the humanity!!!
But your “being eliminated from the tournament” is actually “when a player decides to leave.” And that shouldn’t be the same thing.
Would it be a good strategy to be an annoying jerk, to discourage a guy from rebuying, because he just doesn’t want to sit at the table any more? Then he decides to leave and you get the bounty!
Or should you text the player’s significant other, telling them how much money they’re wasting at the poker table, in hopes that he decides to leave and you get the bounty?
bigdonkey
Straight
Player A felts player B at table 1. B rebuys and is subsequently eliminated by A after the rebuild period.
Player C felts Player D at table 2. D rebuys and is moved to a different table and doesn't see C again.
Player E felts Player F. Player F doesn't rebuy.
Player G felts Player H. H rebus and subsequently eliminates G after the rebus period.
PLAYERS A, C and E all avoided getting eliminated by the players they felted. C and E never even had rhe threat of being eliminated by the for different reasons. Player G was eliminated by the player he felted.
Is this "unfair"? The dynamic of the game simply changes in a rebuy tournament. I don't think one is more right or wrong, fair or unfair. Just two different variations of the game that one can chose to or chose not to participate in.
Player C felts Player D at table 2. D rebuys and is moved to a different table and doesn't see C again.
Player E felts Player F. Player F doesn't rebuy.
Player G felts Player H. H rebus and subsequently eliminates G after the rebus period.
PLAYERS A, C and E all avoided getting eliminated by the players they felted. C and E never even had rhe threat of being eliminated by the for different reasons. Player G was eliminated by the player he felted.
Is this "unfair"? The dynamic of the game simply changes in a rebuy tournament. I don't think one is more right or wrong, fair or unfair. Just two different variations of the game that one can chose to or chose not to participate in.
dkersey
Straight
slisk250
Straight Flush
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
This post was nothing more than defining terms. I am very much asking about the fairness of using this definition to decide prize or no prize. That's the question I think is being ducked. Repeating your definition is not a response as to why the definition is a fair marker of prize or no prize. Just shows it is a possible marker.
25% is the most I would do. Usually 35+5 or 40+5 is more common for my hosting.
I made several posts and didn't put it as well as this. But this is the simple thing that bugs me, and it's on the same line as to what bugged us about the original issue. (And to @TudiscoKid 's credit, he has said he sees the need for a change.)
Last edited:
Every player has the right to leave a tournament at any time they choose, either by outright quitting, or by shoving all-in until they lose, or by not exercising an available re-buy option. Players also choose when they want to (or are willing to) be eliminated via bet/call/fold decisions.
Nobody questions if those actions are fair; it's purely the prerogative of the player -- of all players, in fact. So none of those related "player's choice" arguments hold much water imo.
And I'm not ducking anything. I simply see no inherent unfairness in awarding a prize to players who eliminate other players from the tournament. It is the entire premise of any tournament to eliminate players -- even in non-bounty events. And in those non-bounty events, a player is also rewarded for eliminating a player -- directly, by taking ownership of their chips, and indirectly, by gaining increased equity (as fewer obstacles remain between the player and the money payouts). In a bounty tournament, it's just another prize awarded to the player who eliminates another player.
Perhaps looking at a re-load tournament structure may provide some insight. In these events, half (or other predetermined portion) of every player's buy-in stack is initially withheld. If a player is felted and loses their initial stack, they 're-load' the balance of the withheld chips and continue play -- and in the case of a bounty tournament, the felted player retains their bounty chip, because they have not yet been eliminated from the tournament. It's essentially a forced re-buy/add-on that is pre-paid and enforced automatically for all players.
And what happens if the player decides to quit rather than to continue with the balance of their pre-bought chips? Good question, and yes, I've seen this scenario actually occur -- either the player decided it wasn't worth the effort with a miniscule stack (in the case where a much smaller percentage of the original buy-in chips were withheld) or the player wasn't feeling well (essentially causing them to perform poorly) and decided to withdraw rather than suffer further (both physically and mentally). I would argue that the reasons for quitting are irrelevant.
In both cases, the bounty chip was awarded to the player deemed responsible for their exit by winning their initial stack (this was not my event, btw). One could certainly present a strong arguement that since the player(s) voluntarily quit while still having chips that were bought and paid for, the remaining re-load chips should be put into play and subsequently be blinded-out, with the player's bounty chip awarded to the player who eliminates the remaining chip stack (which is how I would handle it, were it my event). Alternatively (and easier for the director and remaining players), the re-load chips could never be put into play at all, with the value of the bounty added to the prize pool (although this should be a formal rule already in place, and not a real-time TD decision).
Compare that to a re-buy single-bounty tournament (vs pre-buy/re-load), where the player has the option to extend their tournament life (but is under no obligation to do so). By choosing to not re-buy (reasons being irrelevant, as it is his right to do so), the player is eliminated from the event as a direct result of the player who won their last remaining chips. Thus that player is responsible for the player elimination, and should be awarded the player's bounty chip.
I still fail to see how this could be considered to be "unfair". Unfair to whom? If every bounty chip in play is awarded to a player who eliminates another player, everybody stands on common ground. Eliminate a player, collect their bounty chip. Simple.
Nobody questions if those actions are fair; it's purely the prerogative of the player -- of all players, in fact. So none of those related "player's choice" arguments hold much water imo.
And I'm not ducking anything. I simply see no inherent unfairness in awarding a prize to players who eliminate other players from the tournament. It is the entire premise of any tournament to eliminate players -- even in non-bounty events. And in those non-bounty events, a player is also rewarded for eliminating a player -- directly, by taking ownership of their chips, and indirectly, by gaining increased equity (as fewer obstacles remain between the player and the money payouts). In a bounty tournament, it's just another prize awarded to the player who eliminates another player.
Perhaps looking at a re-load tournament structure may provide some insight. In these events, half (or other predetermined portion) of every player's buy-in stack is initially withheld. If a player is felted and loses their initial stack, they 're-load' the balance of the withheld chips and continue play -- and in the case of a bounty tournament, the felted player retains their bounty chip, because they have not yet been eliminated from the tournament. It's essentially a forced re-buy/add-on that is pre-paid and enforced automatically for all players.
And what happens if the player decides to quit rather than to continue with the balance of their pre-bought chips? Good question, and yes, I've seen this scenario actually occur -- either the player decided it wasn't worth the effort with a miniscule stack (in the case where a much smaller percentage of the original buy-in chips were withheld) or the player wasn't feeling well (essentially causing them to perform poorly) and decided to withdraw rather than suffer further (both physically and mentally). I would argue that the reasons for quitting are irrelevant.
In both cases, the bounty chip was awarded to the player deemed responsible for their exit by winning their initial stack (this was not my event, btw). One could certainly present a strong arguement that since the player(s) voluntarily quit while still having chips that were bought and paid for, the remaining re-load chips should be put into play and subsequently be blinded-out, with the player's bounty chip awarded to the player who eliminates the remaining chip stack (which is how I would handle it, were it my event). Alternatively (and easier for the director and remaining players), the re-load chips could never be put into play at all, with the value of the bounty added to the prize pool (although this should be a formal rule already in place, and not a real-time TD decision).
Compare that to a re-buy single-bounty tournament (vs pre-buy/re-load), where the player has the option to extend their tournament life (but is under no obligation to do so). By choosing to not re-buy (reasons being irrelevant, as it is his right to do so), the player is eliminated from the event as a direct result of the player who won their last remaining chips. Thus that player is responsible for the player elimination, and should be awarded the player's bounty chip.
I still fail to see how this could be considered to be "unfair". Unfair to whom? If every bounty chip in play is awarded to a player who eliminates another player, everybody stands on common ground. Eliminate a player, collect their bounty chip. Simple.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
Did you really just ask if it would it be a good strategy, to walk into a friends house, and be an annoying jerk for a fraction of a buy-in?
If that's what you are asking, I'd say no.
Per TDA rules:
Penalties will be given for soft play, abuse, disruptive behavior, or cheating.
Enforcement options include but are not limited to verbal warnings, one or more “missed hand” or “missed round” penalties, and disqualification. For missed rounds, the offender will miss one hand for every player (including him or her) at the table when the penalty is given multiplied by the number of penalty rounds. Repeat infractions are subject to escalating penalties. Players away from the table or on penalty may be anted or blinded out of a tournament.
So if you are really contemplating being such "an annoying jerk" that my players do not want to play, I can say with absolute certainty that you would be shown the door. Enjoy that bounty money, you are not welcome back.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
We may need to discuss this at the next meetup we see each other at. Something is obviously being lost in the text.
GetUrShineBox
Flush
But this is poker. You either win or get knocked out. It’s not the other player’s problem that someone is down to 1 BB or 10 BBs when knocking you out.
GetUrShineBox
Flush
I didn’t read every post in this thread so apologies if if I repeat something here.
Maybe I don’t understand and maybe I just think more old school. “A chip and a chair” Why would anyone want to surrender? Why not just pick your spots, play short stack poker, and try to double or triple up. If I bust I rebuy, oh well, it happens. Surrendering your chips to save your bounty is like taking your ball and going home when things don’t go your way. The world is already getting too soft don’t make your poker games soft too.
If you are going to have the ability to surrender it should never be after the rebuy period. This might be the most unfair rule ever unless I’m misinterpreting it. I go all in for 25,000 in chips, villian calls me with 25,100 in chips. I win he has 100 chips and can surrender and take his bounty money and go home? But if he wins I lose my bounty?
I just assumed surrendering your stack could only be done during the break period when rebuys end and the freeze begins. However this to me also seems unfair because a person with less chips than me can now get more chips than me but I didn’t get to win their chips bc they surrendered them. Would an optional add on rather than surrender solve this problem?
My solution
Get rid of surrenders.
But If you’re going to continue with surrendering Don’t do surrenders and bounties during the same tourney. (Someone else mentioned this)
Again apologies if this has already been said answered.
Maybe I don’t understand and maybe I just think more old school. “A chip and a chair” Why would anyone want to surrender? Why not just pick your spots, play short stack poker, and try to double or triple up. If I bust I rebuy, oh well, it happens. Surrendering your chips to save your bounty is like taking your ball and going home when things don’t go your way. The world is already getting too soft don’t make your poker games soft too.
If you are going to have the ability to surrender it should never be after the rebuy period. This might be the most unfair rule ever unless I’m misinterpreting it. I go all in for 25,000 in chips, villian calls me with 25,100 in chips. I win he has 100 chips and can surrender and take his bounty money and go home? But if he wins I lose my bounty?
I just assumed surrendering your stack could only be done during the break period when rebuys end and the freeze begins. However this to me also seems unfair because a person with less chips than me can now get more chips than me but I didn’t get to win their chips bc they surrendered them. Would an optional add on rather than surrender solve this problem?
My solution
Get rid of surrenders.
But If you’re going to continue with surrendering Don’t do surrenders and bounties during the same tourney. (Someone else mentioned this)
Again apologies if this has already been said answered.
Unfair might not be the best choice of words. But it at least feels arbitrary.
I can’t understand why anybody would choose to make a bounty tournament a rebuy format as you describe. Re-entry makes sense - you get stacked, you lose your bounty, you can try again if you want. But with rebuy, you’re giving the player the choice when to surrender his bounty (and yes, to whom) and that’s not really what bounties are about.
GetUrShineBox
Flush
The reason I don’t 100% agree w this method is that yes, I may have not “eliminated” that player but if you look at it from a standpoint of that player I “knocked out” is now a brand new player with a brand new stack. I was responsible for getting an extra buy in into the tournament.
So at the end of the day whether there is 18 buy ins amongst 12 players or 18 buy ins amongst 18 players “felting” someone should get you their bounty.
When you look at the results from a WSOP event or any non freeze out the term “Entries” is used not “Players”. So 1 player that rebuys 4 times will be 5 entries. Why should only his last entry county for the bounty? We don’t know who will rebuy and who will not. All elimination of the “entries” should be treated equal bc they all equally contributed to the prize pool. Just my take.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
Bounty Hunter: I'm here to collect my bounty.
Bail Bondsman: Where's the jumper?
Bounty Hunter: I got him, but he got away
Bail Bondsman: So, no bounty for you.
Bounty Hunter: But I had him. I mean, another hunter cornered him, shot him, and crippled him, but I picked him up. I deserve the bounty.
Bail Bondsman: ...and he got away
Bounty Hunter: Well, the rules say that he was allowed to go to the hospital. He got better and then ran away. I hear he's got a monster stack now on 7th street.
Bail Bondsman: So he got away, and poses a major threat. You are definitely not getting paid, unless you bring him in.
Bounty Hunter: That's UNFAIR!
Bail Bondsman: Where's the jumper?
Bounty Hunter: I got him, but he got away
Bail Bondsman: So, no bounty for you.
Bounty Hunter: But I had him. I mean, another hunter cornered him, shot him, and crippled him, but I picked him up. I deserve the bounty.
Bail Bondsman: ...and he got away
Bounty Hunter: Well, the rules say that he was allowed to go to the hospital. He got better and then ran away. I hear he's got a monster stack now on 7th street.
Bail Bondsman: So he got away, and poses a major threat. You are definitely not getting paid, unless you bring him in.
Bounty Hunter: That's UNFAIR!
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
You are mistaking the difference between Re-entry and Rebuy. Rebuys get the same seat at the same table. Same person, same position. If you were about to be the button or the blind, you get it now. You are not eliminated, but you must pay more money if you wish to continue.
No money, you're out and your bounty gets collected. If you pay the money, you keep your bounty.
GetUrShineBox
Flush
That’s a good point. Maybe I just look at rebuy and re-entry as the same because at the end of the day the total “buy ins” whether initial, rebuys, or re-entries all count the same toward the prize pool.
To play devils advocate, what if I’m at a casino how do I know after I go back to the cage and “re-enter” they don’t put me back in the same exact seat? It could happen before a break or there is a dealer change and I don’t nt miss a hand at that table. In this case are-entry is exactly the same as a rebuy no?
I think it really all comes down to how you look at “entries”. I look at a rebuy or re-entry the same as I would look at a brand new player entering the tournament late bc they are all bringing a new stack that I need to eliminate in order to win the tournament.
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
Yes, if you go to the cage and re-enter, you will get a different seat.
Could you get the same seat and not miss a hand? Theoretically. But you would need the stars to line up.
- The tournament would have to be full, and your seat the only one open.
- There would have to be no alternates.
- You would have to be knocked out on the last hand before break.
- The dealer would need to notify the floor that there was a seat open, the floor would need to enter it into the system, the cage would need to take your money and give you your seat, and you would have to get back to your seat - all before the break ended.
- You would need to be willing to rebuy this late. At a casino, it is not unusual to be down to 10 or 12 BB when play resumes after the break. The casino would be happy for you to give them another block of rake for you to shove/fold, and then show you to a cash game table.
GetUrShineBox
Flush
Yes I know it’s a long shot but that wasn’t really my point. It was more the fact that I just don’t think there is a huge difference between a rebuy and a re-entry.
Do you not even slightly agree?
Do you not even slightly agree?
If you were very short and likely to be eliminated, it would be an angle to reduce your losses.
Do not like
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.
High hand bonuses awarded to a single hand involve way, way more luck than collecting a lot of much smaller bounties across multiple hands.
HHs reward a huge jackpot to the one person who got the most amazing run-out on a single hand.
Bounties go to multiple players in smaller amounts, and thus are more fair and less bingo-y.
To make anything like a high hand jackpot from bounties, you’d have to stack a ton of players repeatedly.
HHs reward a huge jackpot to the one person who got the most amazing run-out on a single hand.
Bounties go to multiple players in smaller amounts, and thus are more fair and less bingo-y.
To make anything like a high hand jackpot from bounties, you’d have to stack a ton of players repeatedly.
Last edited:
ngmcs8203
Flush
I was assuming most would surrender if they are under the threshold at the break where everyone is adding on. Or if they don’t enjoy playing short stack poker and want to just get a restart.
When I hosted tournaments regularly, I found that bounties definitely helped keep the overall player pool happier, and coming back.
When someone gets knocked out of a tournament, it never feels good.
But it feels less bad when you get even 5-10% of your buyin back in the form of a bounty that you earned.
And sometimes it more significantly mitigates the bitterness of someone who was running really well, amassing a bunch of bounties, but then ran into a couple coolers.
(I was doing $120 buyins with $10 bounties. No bounty if you rebought.)
When someone gets knocked out of a tournament, it never feels good.
But it feels less bad when you get even 5-10% of your buyin back in the form of a bounty that you earned.
And sometimes it more significantly mitigates the bitterness of someone who was running really well, amassing a bunch of bounties, but then ran into a couple coolers.
(I was doing $120 buyins with $10 bounties. No bounty if you rebought.)
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Well in poker, you don't get to shoot your opponents to make sure they don't return to the game. So this is just ridiculous now.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Similar threads
