Who Gets The Odd Chip?

Comments

  • Isn't it supposed to be closest to the Dealer's right?

    This would mean:

    Seat #1
    Seat #4
    Seat #2
  • Make a rule where odd chips are given to the dealer ;)
  • 13CARDS wrote: »
    If so, then Scenario #1, you would give the extra $1 to the small blind?

    Isn't the Small Blind on the LEFT? The Cutoff would get it in #1. Unless the beers have kicked in, and I read it wrong . . .
  • Doesn't the extra chip go to the first position clockwise from the dealer button, ie in this case 3,3,2..
  • So it's first on the left? Or first on the left AFTER the Blinds? I bow to superior (okay ANY) wisdom on this.
  • Anybody want to bet that 13Cards will inform us we are wrong and that Fallsview has a more sophisticated method for solving this conundrum?

    Namely, they flip a coin . . .
  • 13CARDS wrote: »
    Scenario #1
    Dead Button in Seat #2.
    Heads Up showdown. Seat #1 (cutoff) and Seat #3 (small blind).
    Chopped Pot.
    $101 Pot.
    Who gets the extra $1 ?

    Seat 3
    Scenario #2
    Button in Seat #2.
    Heads Up showdown. Seat #3 (small blind) and Seat #4 (big blind).
    Chopped Pot.
    $101 Pot.
    Who gets the extra $1 ?
    Seat 3
    Scenario #3
    Heads Up Play.
    Button & small blind in Seat #1. Big blind in Seat #2.
    Showdown, chopped pot.
    $101 Pot (after rake)
    Who gets the extra $1 ?
    Seat 2

    Extra chips are given to players based on betting position... if you act first... you get the first extra chip.
  • i won't dance for you puppet master
  • Of course, we are assuming that the game is Hold 'Em.

    If it is one of the split pot games (Omaha Hi/Low, Seven Card Stud 8 or better etc.)
    Then the extra chip goes to the person containing the winning high hand.

    If the game is Hold'em then the answers should be 3,3,2 since the extra chip is rewarded starting to the left of the button.
  • I'm curious as to the 'why'....I thought it was positionally based as well. (question #1 going to seat #1 means there must be some other reason right?)
  • 13CARDS wrote: »
    In Scenario #3, the small blind acts first, which would make your response contradictory.

    Alright... act first on river... to clarify... the rule is written so as to reward the player(s) with the worst position.

    Glad to see you're going to enlighten us with your wisdom as to why this rule should be changed. I'm giddy with anticipation!!
  • So, as most people thought, you are just being contradictory to the rules that 99% of the poker world lives by. (The other 1% usually being because they don't know any better).

    The whole premise of giving the chip to the first player after the button is that they have the worst position for most of the hand. If there has to be a determination, that is as good as any - and is the industry standard.

    This is the reason why most of the people on here don't like you 13cards - if you had come on and said "I think this rule should change, and here's why" then we could have a good discussion. But, like it was said earlier in this thread, you just like playing puppet master.

    Oh well, at least it means that the automatic assumption that most people have about your rulings are that they are wrong.
  • 13CARDS wrote: »
    Most responses seem to go with player closest to the button going clockwise, fair?

    If so, what is the reasoning behind this? Why should that player get the extra chip and not the other player? Does it matter? Is it just a way to be consistent?

    Robert's Rules for Poker (which while not 'official' are the basis of pretty much all poker rooms rule sets) state that:

    5. If two or more hands tie, an odd chip will be awarded as follows:
    (a) In a button game, the first hand clockwise from the button gets the odd chip.
    (b) In a stud game, the odd chip will be given to the highest card by suit in all high games, and to the lowest card by suit in all low games. (When making this determination, all cards are used, not just the five cards that constitute the player's hand.)
    (c) In high-low split games, the high hand receives the odd chip in a split between the high and the low hands. The odd chip between tied high hands is awarded as in a high game of that poker form, and the odd chip between tied low hands is awarded as in a low game of that poker form.
    (d) All side pots and the main pot will be split as separate pots, not mixed together.

    ----

    So unless you have a good reason for trying to be different this is how it would be done in the vast majority of locations.
  • Shenanigans! Trick question! Let's face it, this is an arbitrary situation, and the only correct answer would be the one used consistently(?) by the house. Left...Right...First to act...Toke box (MY correct and only solution). There is no "logical" solution, only the "house rule". No mathematical laws apply in this situation... TOKES FOR THE CREW, Thank you very much Ladies and Gents, post yer blinds, cards in the air...
  • DataMn wrote: »
    This is the reason why most of the people on here don't like you 13cards - if you had come on and said "I think this rule should change, and here's why" then we could have a good discussion. But, like it was said earlier in this thread, you just like playing puppet master.

    I second this.

    13Cards reminds me of the annoying guy in my class who always thought he was better than everyone else and tried to rub it in on any chance he had. Nobody liked him either.
  • Quimby wrote: »
    I second this.

    13Cards reminds me of the annoying guy in my class who always thought he was better than everyone else and tried to rub it in on any chance he had. Nobody liked him either.

    Guess I'm cancelling the fan club meeting tonight Killer...
  • Kristy, how did you get 13Cards's password?
  • All my answers were wrong, so I was ready to quit from ever working in a casino poker room again and instead PLAY poker full-time. So were your original answers incorrect or just your (unposted) reasoning?
    13CARDS wrote: »
    To get the fires burning, let me tell you who I think should get the extra chip in each scenario, BUT, not why. Not yet.

    SEAT #1

    SEAT #4

    SEAT #1
  • 13CARDS wrote: »
    May I have your attention please....

    I have come to the conclusion that my interpretation of the reasoning behind the "person closest to the puck" rule was 100% entirely WRONG.

    I offer my sincerest of apoligies to anyone I may have disagreed with and thank all of you that lent reasonable debate to my arguement that eventually steered me in the right direction.




    Ignore my sig on this one. VVVVVVVV LOL.

    I would also like to reverse my earlier position and now state...

    That I believe in miracles!
Sign In or Register to comment.