Consequence of the Big Blind Ante

Note: I originally ruled this incorrectly. But, after input and discussion with players and other poker room staff, corrected it and now feel like I would be able to rule it properly if encountered again.


House Rule:
"In the event of multiple Players being eliminated during the same hand when prizing is to be decided by the order of elimination, ...if both Players are on the same table, the Player with the most chips at the START of the hand would receive the largest prize."


MTT in the money.
Blinds are 6,000/12,000
Big Blind Ante 12,000

During a hand of play, three players who have all already folded, count their chips and compare stack sizes.

Player 1: "I have 72,000"
Player 2: "I only have 61,000 left"
Player 3: "I have both of you covered. I have 95,000"

The current hand ends, the button is moved and blinds/antes posted.

Player 1 is now the Big Blind. Cards are dealt. The cards and board are irrelevant.
It is a 3-way all-in pre-flop between Player 1, 2 and 3.

Player 3 has the winning hand and, having both Player 1 and Player 2 covered, eliminates them both. But who will receive the larger prize and higher finish between Player 1 and Player 2?

The house rules says "...the start of the hand..." but WHEN does the hand start???

Having encountered this exact scenario in a weekly MTT, I suggest the start of the hand is AFTER the Big Blind Ante has been posted.

Therefore, BEFORE the start of the hand, the stacks were as described above. But at the start of the hand once the Big Blind Ante had been posted, the stack sizes were actually these:

Player 1: 60,000
Player 2: 61,000
Player 3: 95,000

So Player 2 would have more chips than Player 1 and be entitled to the higher finish and larger prize. A unique consequence of using the Big Blind Ante, that a player with less chips could eliminate a player with more chips!

Cheers!!
«13

Comments

  • Card DeadCard Dead Sorry sir, I have 6 Aces!
    Good adjustment Carl. 👍🏻

    I was at the table when this happened and while I disagreed with the ruling at the time, it was definitely a new and ambiguous situation, and understood how the ruling was decided.
  • djgolfcandjgolfcan Flop smasher
    This is what I like about Carl - He is open to feedback, will fall on his sword if he was incorrect or found a better solution to an issue.
    We are very privileged to have a Poker Room Manager so accessible to us.
    Keep up the great work !
  • moosemoose alces alces
    Disagree.

    Hand begins on first riffle. This is an accepted TDA rule. Deal begins when the blinds and antes are posted. Do the blinds and antes go up if a level changes after the first riffle? No.

    Can a player post his blinds and antes before the dealer starts the first riffle to avoid a level change? No.

    Therefore hand begins on the first riffle, BEFORE the blinds and antes are posted. You are redefining the start of a hand from a long accepted point to when the blinds and antes are posted, which is wrong.

    What if a player would have been ahead after the blinds and antes are posted but BEFORE a level change. Now the blinds and antes go up before the dealer starts a riffle and the ante now puts that player below another player after the new levels. A player loses a position in the tournament not through play but because of a level change?

    WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?

    THAT'S WRONG.
  • GogieGogie Senior Member
    I agree with Moose. What's the defining line between the end of one hand and the beginning of another? I suspect one could get really deep into semantics here but I think in the interest of fairness chip stacks should be determined prior to the posting of blinds and antes in cases such as described above.
  • djgolfcandjgolfcan Flop smasher
    Moose brings up a good point and one that has been a pet peeve of mine. There doesn't seem to be a consistent application of when the hand has started from room to room. The hand should start when the cards are riffled, if the clock runs out on a level before the dealer starts pitching cards, it doesn't matter and shouldn't change until the next hand.
  • Toronto PimpToronto Pimp Flop smasher
    moose wrote: »
    Disagree.

    Hand begins on first riffle. This is an accepted TBA rule. Deal begins when the blinds and antes are posted. Do the blinds and antes go up if a level changes after the first riffle? No.

    Can a player post his blinds and antes before the dealer starts the first riffle to avoid a level change? No.

    Therefore hand begins on the first riffle, BEFORE the blinds and antes are posted. You are redefining the start of a hand from a long accepted point to when the blinds and antes are posted, which is wrong.

    What if a player would have been ahead after the blinds and antes are posted but BEFORE a level change. Now the blinds and antes go up before the dealer starts a riffle and the ante now puts that player below another player after the new levels. A player loses a position in the tournament not through play but because of a level change?

    WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?

    THAT'S WRONG.


    not sure what the TBA rules even are but as the games change the rules must change with them.

    I can only speak for myself in saying that I love the big blind ante Which is a rule change from waiting on every dipstick to put out their own little ante and the dealer having to remind the senile old guy every hand who forgot that there even was an ante and the young buck who is trying to sell off his Bre-x shares on his cell phone and just not paying attention to the game.

    For me I don’t really care which way the new rule works out because it will happen so seldom.
  • DataMnDataMn Full PFC Member
    I agree with Moose.

    If you do have a dealer, then the first riffle should decide when the blinds go up.

    Did you take into account the big or small blind when applying the rule previously?
    (You are including the big blind in your posting calculations).


    At the same time, if you do choose to not follow TDA conventions, then the "house rule" for something like this should be clearly posted somewhere. I realize you can't forecast all scenarios before they happen, but I think that Big Blind Ante tournaments have been around for long enough that both "What gets posted first, the blind or the ante" and any (I would say) "weird" elimination scenarios should be clearly decided before a tournament begins.
  • moosemoose alces alces
    not sure what the TBA rules even are but as the games change the rules must change with them.

    I can only speak for myself in saying that I love the big blind ante Which is a rule change from waiting on every dipstick to put out their own little ante and the dealer having to remind the senile old guy every hand who forgot that there even was an ante and the young buck who is trying to sell off his Bre-x shares on his cell phone and just not paying attention to the game.

    For me I don’t really care which way the new rule works out because it will happen so seldom.

    I meant TDA. Just a typo.
  • 13CARDS13CARDS Full PFC Member
    [MENTION=1123]moose[/MENTION]

    If you removed Player 3 from the scenario and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

    In the OP, Player 2 and Player 3 would have 1,000 each in a side pot. And side pots are used when players have a larger stack than someone who is already all-in (Player 1).
  • moosemoose alces alces
    Nothing wrong with the math. Definition of start of the hand is wrong.

    Using a BBA should not change the definition of the start of a hand.

    As well a change in level should not cause a player to lose position in a tournament.

    Hand ends. Level: BBA 500, BB 500, sb 250

    Player 1: 61000
    Player 2: 61600, next BB

    At this level player 2 can pay his ante and start the hand with 100 chips more than player 1. But before the dealer riffles, the blinds go up to 800/800/400. Now after the antes player 2 "starts" the hand with less than player 1. He loses a position because the level went up.

    Without playing a hand?

    Wrong wrong wrong.

    The start of a hand is when the dealer riffles - BEFORE - the blinds and antes are posted.

    Before and after the level change and before the antes are posted player 2 starts the hand with more chips than player 1. If player 1 and 2 are eliminated on the same hand, 2 is ranked higher than 1.

    This is the exact same case as before with individual antes where everyone posts the same ante. Level changes would not affect the positioning of players when multiple players are eliminated on the same hand. Using a BBA should not be any different. Whether or not a player is in the BB does not affect his ranking if the player was eliminated.

    Subtracting a BBA from a player's stack is even more patently unfair in a multi table tournament where whether a player starts in the BB or not could drastically affect his positioning if eliminated. Put one in the BB and another in any other position in a MTT and tell the BB he bubbles the tourney because his ante was subtracted from his stack for positioning. Good luck.
  • Toronto PimpToronto Pimp Flop smasher
    Let’s go back to the old way.... everyone antes individually.

    player 1 has 52000
    player 2 has 51,000
    player 3 has 85,000

    Player 1 is the big blind level is 800-1600 ante 300

    there is a 3 way all in and player 3 knocks everyone out. Who finishes higher ? Player 1 or player 2 ?

    player one had more chips before the riffle but after putting in the big blind he had less chips than player 2. Without putting the big blind in he cannot be dealt in.

    in the past I think player 2 would finish one place higher than player 1 ??

    I am asking if this is correct..... I think it is but most of y’all have much more experience than I do.
  • Toronto PimpToronto Pimp Flop smasher
    Player 1. 52,[URL="tel:000- 1600-300"]000- 1600-300[/URL] = 50,100
    player2. 51,000- 300 = 50,700
    player 3 . 85,000-300 = 84,700

    all of these chip totals are now what’s left before the cards are dealt. It wouldn’t make any sense for player 1 to complain that he started the hand with more chips.....


    maybe this is why I loose at the pokerz, my logic may be fucked up.
  • 13CARDS13CARDS Full PFC Member
    Player 1. 52,[URL="tel:000- 1600-300"]000- 1600-300[/URL] = 50,100
    player2. 51,000- 300 = 50,700
    player 3 . 85,000-300 = 84,700

    all of these chip totals are now what’s left before the cards are dealt. It wouldn’t make any sense for player 1 to complain that he started the hand with more chips.....


    maybe this is why I loose at the pokerz, my logic may be fucked up.

    Pimp....imagine this in real chips on the table. When player 1 shoves all in, his stack goes on top of his big blind, so when you count it, he will still have more, in your scenario.
  • 800OVER800OVER Full PFC Member
    Let’s go back to the old way.... everyone antes individually.

    player 1 has 52000
    player 2 has 51,000
    player 3 has 85,000

    Player 1 is the big blind level is 800-1600 ante 300

    there is a 3 way all in and player 3 knocks everyone out. Who finishes higher ? Player 1 or player 2 ?

    player one had more chips before the riffle but after putting in the big blind he had less chips than player 2. Without putting the big blind in he cannot be dealt in.

    in the past I think player 2 would finish one place higher than player 1 ??

    I am asking if this is correct..... I think it is but most of y’all have much more experience than I do.

    Your blind in this case counts as your chips....so Player 1 would finish higher. IE if player 2 went all in and was called by player 1....player one would still have chips if he lost.
  • 13CARDS13CARDS Full PFC Member
    moose wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with the math. Definition of start of the hand is wrong.

    Using a BBA should not change the definition of the start of a hand.

    As well a change in level should not cause a player to lose position in a tournament.

    Hand ends. Level: BBA 500, BB 500, sb 250

    Player 1: 61000
    Player 2: 61600, next BB

    At this level player 2 can pay his ante and start the hand with 100 chips more than player 1. But before the dealer riffles, the blinds go up to 800/800/400. Now after the antes player 2 "starts" the hand with less than player 1. He loses a position because the level went up.

    Without playing a hand?

    Wrong wrong wrong.

    The start of a hand is when the dealer riffles - BEFORE - the blinds and antes are posted.

    Before and after the level change and before the antes are posted player 2 starts the hand with more chips than player 1. If player 1 and 2 are eliminated on the same hand, 2 is ranked higher than 1.

    This is the exact same case as before with individual antes where everyone posts the same ante. Level changes would not affect the positioning of players when multiple players are eliminated on the same hand. Using a BBA should not be any different. Whether or not a player is in the BB does not affect his ranking if the player was eliminated.

    Subtracting a BBA from a player's stack is even more patently unfair in a multi table tournament where whether a player starts in the BB or not could drastically affect his positioning if eliminated. Put one in the BB and another in any other position in a MTT and tell the BB he bubbles the tourney because his ante was subtracted from his stack for positioning. Good luck.

    The definition has to change, IMHO, to account for the new way of posting the ante.

    And I feel your example is exactly what a tournament is, the consequence of the blinds going up.
  • moosemoose alces alces
    The simple act of posting an ante should not have the potential to change your ranking in a tournament. That's stupid.

    Two people bust in the first hand of a tournament but you're saying the guy who busted in the BB finished last just because he posted an ante? C'mon.
  • studogstudog Junior Member
    I'd like to consider two things that are related but not the same:
    A) when does the hand start, before or after some chips are blinded/anted in
    B) when does the hand start in absolute terms

    The OP is about A. On this, I believe moose is correct, and OP is incorrect. If the hand has not started, there is no requirement to put any chips into the pot. Only when the hand is started, can the current level be checked and the correct amounts for blinds and antes become known, and then they can be posted.

    On B, both of my regular games (one of which I am TD) have adopted a rule about when the hand has started in absolute terms:
    The next hand starts when the betting action of the previous hand is closed.

    This rule is mechanical and deterministic. It avoids all arguments about when binds/antes are posted vs when levels change, it makes anything the dealer is doing irrelevant, it is consistent and fair. It is not perfect as occasionally an all-in hand will distract everyone at the table and then noone knows exactly when the betting action closed vs when the level changed, but, usually it's pretty obvious.

    This rule also works for single and multi-deck games, where "first riff of cards" doesn't make sense in a multi-deck game, as the next deck is likely to be completely shuffled before the previous hand is over.

    Example of timing, using the OP's data:

    P1: 72,000
    P2: 61,000
    P3: 95,000

    SB/SB/BBA: 6,000/12,000/12,000

    Hand N:
    P3 is the big blind.
    Everyone limps.
    Flop. Everyone checks.
    Turn. Everyone checks.
    River. The board is a straight flush to the 9.
    P2 (SB) checks.
    P3 (BB) checks.
    P1 checks.
    Betting action is closed immediately after P1 checks. Hand N+1 starts now. The current level is checked, SB/BB/BBA values are noted, and those are what will be posted, when the next hand gets around to having cards dealt.
    Hand N resolves.
    Players flip their cards. Everyone plays the board, it's a three-way chop!
    Time in the current level runs out, next level begins.
    Someone chops the pot.
    Cards are collected.
    In a single deck game the deck is shuffled.
    Dealer starts dealing cards.
    P1 is BB and posts the BB and BBA, with the values from old level, as this is Hand N+1 which started before the level time ran out.

    The players' stacks at the end of Hand N are whatever they resolve to, which turns out to be the same as their Hand N starting stacks due to the three-way chop, and their stacks at the start of Hand N+1 are their stacks from the end of Hand N, despite the fact that the resolution of Hand N didn't finish until after Hand N+1 had started in absolute terms.

    Back to point A, P2 is the shortest stack at the start of Hand N+1, then P1, then P3. Another three-way all-in, with P3 winning and stacking both P1 and P2. P2 started the hand with the fewest chips, and is out first.

    I don't know what the TDA rules say about when a hand starts, but the mechanical rule works very very well.
  • Toronto PimpToronto Pimp Flop smasher
    13CARDS wrote: »
    Pimp....imagine this in real chips on the table. When player 1 shoves all in, his stack goes on top of his big blind, so when you count it, he will still have more, in your scenario.


    ok, that’s good to know. I need to stick to flipping a penny, heads or tails is much easier.
  • studogstudog Junior Member
    13CARDS wrote: »
    The definition has to change, IMHO, to account for the new way of posting the ante.

    It's not a new way. There's no fundamental difference (beyond who pays how much) between SB+BB, SB+BB+Antes-from-everyone, SB+BB+BBA, any other arrangement. Chips that are forced in are forced in. They don't come from nowhere, they come from players' starting stacks.

    I was wrong about this. Blinds and antes do have a fundamental difference. See below.
  • 13CARDS13CARDS Full PFC Member
    studog wrote: »
    It's not a new way. There's no fundamental difference (beyond who pays how much) between SB+BB, SB+BB+Antes-from-everyone, SB+BB+BBA, any other arrangement. Chips that are forced in are forced in. They don't come from nowhere, they come from players' starting stacks.

    Before, all players entering a pot put in an equal amount, either in blinds, antes and/or bets. Until someone is all-in for an amount less than someone else.
    Utilizing the Big Blind Ante creates some new scenarios that need to be realized and accounted for. Like if a player is short and cannot cover both the BB and the BBA, which is posted first?? According to TDA, BBA is posted first, which can create a situation in which a player, AT BEST, can only break even and not profit from a winning hand. That never exsisted before BBA came to be. But it is also a consequence of using this new format. As such, other things may need to change as well, such as if a player is at risk of being eliminated that player must be considered a shorter stack.

    None of this is written in stone as of yet. I do not think it was brought up at the last TDA Summit last summer. But I have discussed it with reps from WPT and it is being forwarded to Matt Savage for review. I hope it is something that can be clarified, one way or the other.
  • compueasecompuease Administrator
    This is a great thread with some interesting but conflicting ideas.. Hopefully it gets sorted out and everyone operates under the same rules. I don't get to play enough tournaments of a decent size anymore to really matter to me but I can sure see where it does to those who do.
  • 13CARDS13CARDS Full PFC Member
    Is it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

    If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

    Can there be an arguement against this??
  • studogstudog Junior Member
    Hm. I read back over the thread, and I see I didn't read this post carefully enough:
    13CARDS wrote: »
    If you removed Player 3 from the scenario and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

    I... agree. Heads up, P1 posts the BB (12,000), pays the BBA (12,000) into the pot and now has 48,000. P1's shove can only net twice their bet amount (stack 48,000 + BB 12,000 = 60,000) if P2 calls. So yes, a player with a shorter starting stack could eliminate a player with a larger starting stack if they are heads-up. This is surprising and counter-intuitive.

    However, the BBA has to come from somewhere, that somewhere is P1's stack. If P1 and P2 are knocked out during the same hand by P3, P2 is still out before P1. It doesn't matter that P2 potentially could have knocked out P1 if they'd been heads-up, that's not relevant when it's not heads-up.

    The nuance is that antes are not counted as part of one's bet, they are dead money. Blinds are counted as part of one's bet. To that end, I was wrong when I said "There's no fundamental difference (beyond who pays how much) between SB+BB, SB+BB+Antes-from-everyone, SB+BB+BBA, any other arrangement." There is a fundamental difference between blinds and antes; blinds count towards your bet, antes do not.

    In a balanced ante situation where everyone antes the same amount, the effect of not being able to count your ante as part of your bet is negated because your ante is already matched due to the balanced situation.
  • 13CARDS13CARDS Full PFC Member
    studog wrote: »
    However, the BBA has to come from somewhere, that somewhere is P1's stack. If P1 and P2 are knocked out during the same hand by P3, P2 is still out before P1. It doesn't matter that P2 potentially could have knocked out P1 if they'd been heads-up, that's not relevant when it's not heads-up.

    If there are bets and raises and calls each street, with all 3 players, and the all-ins were all after the river, would you count the ante as part of Player 1's stack?? Wouldn't there be a sidepot for Player 2 and Player 3? Doesn't the player in the sidepot get eliminated after the person in the main pot in every other scenario??
  • studogstudog Junior Member
    13CARDS wrote: »
    Utilizing the Big Blind Ante creates some new scenarios that need to be realized and accounted for. Like if a player is short and cannot cover both the BB and the BBA, which is posted first?? According to TDA, BBA is posted first, which can create a situation in which a player, AT BEST, can only break even and not profit from a winning hand.

    Indeed, I am wrong about the fundamental difference between antes and blinds. It's not the BBA ante specifically that's the problem though, it's any unbalanced ante. I've played with a Button Ante before, it would have the same issue.

    I was wondering about posting order, thanks.

    In a balanced ante situation, what happens if a player is short? 6 players, antes are 100,000 and one player only has 40,000 after a crippling cooler. Can the short player win all (5 x 100,000 + 40,000 =) 540,000 in antes? Or they can only win (6 x 40,000 =) 240,000 in matched-antes with the rest of the antes (5 x 60,000 =) 300,000 making a side pot? I am inclined to think the short player can will all 540,000 in antes, since antes are dead money that isn't part of one's bets that's already in the pot. This also is counter-intuitive, you can win more than you should be able to. This problem is solved by making the blind post before the ante.
    13CARDS wrote: »
    As such, other things may need to change as well, such as if a player is at risk of being eliminated that player must be considered a shorter stack.

    In your original scenario P1 and P2 are at risk of elimination by P3. That's different than P1 at risk of elimination by P2. I disagree; risk of elimination does not confer a virtual status of "shorter stack". It just means risk of elimination.
    13CARDS wrote: »
    None of this is written in stone as of yet. I do not think it was brought up at the last TDA Summit last summer. But I have discussed it with reps from WPT and it is being forwarded to Matt Savage for review. I hope it is something that can be clarified, one way or the other.

    Nifty. I didn't realise this was a new area of rules.
  • studogstudog Junior Member
    13CARDS wrote: »
    If there are bets and raises and calls each street, with all 3 players, and the all-ins were all after the river, would you count the ante as part of Player 1's stack??

    Yes. The ante was always part of P1's starting stack, it's just not part of P1's betting.
    13CARDS wrote: »
    Wouldn't there be a sidepot for Player 2 and Player 3?

    Yes, there is a side pot. So, yes also, if P2 wins the three-way all in, P2 eliminates P1, and doubles through P3. So the counter-intuitiveness of a shorter stack eliminating a larger stack is present all the time, not just in heads-up play. That's even more counter-intuitive.
    13CARDS wrote: »
    Doesn't the player in the sidepot get eliminated after the person in the main pot in every other scenario??

    As you said, new ways means having to account for new scenarios. IMHO the correct way to look at this is: the side pot elimination is and has always been merely a proxy for the real rule of elimination order: stack size. Now with an unbalanced ante, a shorter stack can eliminate a larger stack. That didn't used to be possible, but now is. Thus, we can no longer rely on side pot elimination as an accurate proxy for the real rule about elimination order and instead must always use the real rule, which is stack size. Which means, not only can a shorter stack eliminate a larger stack, a player eliminated in a side-pot isn't always out after a player eliminated in the main pot. A second counter-intuitive result.
  • Toronto PimpToronto Pimp Flop smasher
    13CARDS wrote: »
    Is it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

    If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

    Can there be an arguement against this??

    it would make sense that the Ante is not counted in the player’s stack. Player would be left with 1,000.

    agree.

    hopefully someone brings this up at the TDA meeting this year.
  • GottagetGottaget Full PFC Member
    Is it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

    If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

    Can there be an arguement against this??

    Respectfully, I am not seeing how this scenario is related to the scenario in the original post.

    What needs to be defined clearly to solve the question in the OP is simply when does the hand start?

    moose stated this should not be changed because of the introduction of the BBA.

    In your original scenario I would expect the stack count at the start of the hand to include all chips in a players stack at the first riffle, before any blinds or antes are posted.
  • GottagetGottaget Full PFC Member
    Is it possible to get consensus on this part, as a kind of Step 1 to sorting out the disagreement???

    If you removed Player 3 from the scenario in the OP and made it a heads-up pot between Player 1 and Player 2, and Player 2 ended up with the winning hand, Player 2 would eliminate Player 1. Definitively. You would not count the ante as part of his stack. There is no scenario, using the chipstacks, blinds and antes I described in the OP, that Player 1 could ever eliminate Player 2. If Player 1 ended up with the winning hand, Player 1 would "double up" and Player 2 would be left with 1,000 in chips.

    Can there be an arguement against this??

    Just to clarify why I don’t feel this is related to your OP and shouldn’t have any bearing on your decision. - This is a description of how many tournament chips would be awarded to the winner of the hand after all action is complete. Antes have never been included in a chip count after they are paid. The same would be true if player 3 eliminated players 1&2 in a three way all in.

    Your OP question is not about that. It is asking how to determine finishing positions in the scenario where 2 players are eliminated during the same hand. Nobody is disputing that the answer to that question is whichever player had a larger stack at the beginning of the hand gets the higher position. As I said in my last post it’s really a simple question of when does the hand begin, before or after blinds/antes are posted? This answer to that is what is being disputed.

    It has been established in the TDA rules that the start of the hand is at the first riffle, before blinds/antes are posted. This is supported by the other rules I mentioned above. It is your contention that this needs to be changed because of the introduction of the BBA. I believe that conflicts with current accepted practice and is unnecessary. Further, until the current accepted practice is changed by the TDA I don’t believe the ruling in the OP post is correct.
  • 13CARDS13CARDS Full PFC Member
    What if we work backwards.
    Why was that rule even needed before?
    What was it indicating?

    I suggest it was explaining that the player with the larger stack gets the higher finish because that player was never at risk of elimination.

    Maybe the rule should have always said:
    ""In the event of multiple Players being eliminated during the same hand when prizing is to be decided by the order of elimination, ...if both Players are on the same table, the Player not at risk of elimination by the other at the start of the hand would receive the largest prize."

    That wording would cover both the old way (individual antes) and the new way (Big Blind Ante) and redefining the start of the hand would NOT be neccessary.

    All of the posts about changing the start of the hand really made me look at this in other ways. Thank you to everyone that posted!!!!

    Is that a better way to approach this???
Sign In or Register to comment.