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??
This.
Unlike the blinds, the BBA is considered dead money and therefore can not be part of a player’s stack. If it’s not part of a live stack, and can’t be used to keep you from being eliminated, how can it be used to enhance your finishing position?
And since the TDA has still yet to make a decision on this, it’s clearly not a simple answer.
For me, the problem is with the BBA itself. While it speeds up the game and simplifies the action, it adds more variance and ambiguity to a structure that already has enough of that. I’d much prefer to have traditional antes and a penalty to players who don’t post in a timely manner. But that’s a different discussion.
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.
The player with the larger stack between the two players who both were just eliminated, "was never at risk of elimination"? That's self-contradictory. Ah, I see, you mean "was never at risk of elimination from the other eliminated player".
Consider this: if instead of the hand with the eliminations playing out, the tournament had to come to an immediate halt for whatever reason, how would you rank those players? By stack size, since the players are not eliminated. In this case, P2 is clearly ranked below P1.
I suggest that considering the starting stack size is a tie-breaking mechanism between players who would otherwise be tied. You could just have the rule be that the players tie for position and chop the combined prizes.
Unlike the blinds, the BBA is considered dead money and therefore can not be part of a player’s stack. If it’s not part of a live stack, and can’t be used to keep you from being eliminated, how can it be used to enhance your finishing position?
I think that's incorrect. The unbalanced ante is not part of the player's betting capacity, but it didn't come from nowhere, it came from the players starting stack. Starting stack sizes are known fixed quantities at the start of the hand, and that's the point in time when tie-breaking is determined. Finishing positions are pre-calculated, if you will. Nothing is being enhanced later, it's already determined before the hand plays out, in case it's needed.
And since the TDA has still yet to make a decision on this, it’s clearly not a simple answer.
I read / skimmed the TDA 2019 rules v1.0 this morning. I didn't see a rule about tie-breaking when multiple players are busted out in the same hand. I might have missed it though.
This is the best topic on this forum in a long time.
Not sure who is right, but there is one thing that could happen if you start the hand after the ante is put in. Player is the BB. He puts his ante in. Since the hand has not started yet, he can get moved to a different table. Hw would have to leave his ante at his original table and not have a chance to win it back. Also, if he only has enough to pay the ante, but not the big blind, he would be eliminated without playing a hand. That definitely is not fair. Or he might get moved to a different table where he is BB again and has to post another ante. I am sure he would not be happy at all and I don’t think that would be fair.
I have no idea what the answer is, but everyone has made great points. I love the BB ante and am curious to find out what the TDA summit comes up with in their discussions.
This is the best topic on this forum in a long time.
Not sure who is right, but there is one thing that could happen if you start the hand after the ante is put in. Player is the BB. He puts his ante in. Since the hand has not started yet, he can get moved to a different table. Hw would have to leave his ante at his original table and not have a chance to win it back.
The order that is being debated is:
Ante starts the hand (in which case the player plays the rest of the hand)
or
First riffle, then Ante
Either way, I don't think your scenario would apply. There should be no reason for anyone to have any chips in the pot before the hand actually starts.
If for some reason someone does have to be moved right away instead of waiting for a new hand (director was busy/distracted etc.), then they were never in the Big Blind at the current table, and should not have to post anything.
The discussion is moot and silly. The hand starts on the first riffle period. If the hand starts when the blinds and antes are posted then it would be possible for someone to avoid a change in levels by posting their blinds before the dealer starts the riffle.
This is often the case in home games where games are self dealt. Not the case in a professionally run casino tournament.
Can you break a table after the dealer has started a riffle? Can a player avoid playing one more hand before break by refusing to post his blinds if a dealer has started the riffle before the break starts? No because the hand starts on the riffle.
Has nothing whatsoever to do when the blinds are posted.
Any other discussion on what to do if multiple players bust is moot. It matters not who can take out who after the antes are posted. This is action that takes place after the hand has started.
Stacks are determined before the first riffle and not after.
Just curious what happens in the case of two decks being used or an automatic card shuffler? The riffle is then taking place before the last hand has finished.
Just curious what happens in the case of two decks being used or an automatic card shuffler? The riffle is then taking place before the last hand has finished.
When hand shuffling one deck the first riffle starts the hand. When using two decks and/or a machine shuffle, the cut of the shuffled cards starts the hand.
AFAIK the shuffle begins automatically when the deck is inserted and the lid closes. The light turns green when the deck is shuffled. Pressing the shuffler button extracts the deck which is not done until the previous hand has concluded.
Without giving this too much thought I've come up with a proposal: why not take a simple approach and instead of determining when a hand starts and using that as a "defining" moment, decide when a hand finishes and using that as the "determining" moment? Since pushing the pot to a player seems to be a pretty definitive point in a hand why not use this as the point in time when one hand ends and the next hand effectively begins. Stack sizes as of that precise moment can be easily determined and used for determining finishes where more than one player is eliminated in the next hand. Does this make any sense?
Without giving this too much thought I've come up with a proposal: why not take a simple approach and instead of determining when a hand starts and using that as a "defining" moment, decide when a hand finishes and using that as the "determining" moment?
Since pushing the pot to a player seems to be a pretty definitive point in a hand why not use this as the point in time when one hand ends and the next hand effectively begins. Stack sizes as of that precise moment can be easily determined and used for determining finishes where more than one player is eliminated in the next hand. Does this make any sense?
...we use a different point: when betting action is concluded for a hand, the next hand is deemed to have begun. That way, if a multi-way all-in takes a while to deal out and resolve, everyone else at the table doesn't get penalized for no reason.
Still doesn’t answer the question of whether or not the anyes shoyld be considered part of a player’s stack or not.
Regardless of when the hand technically begins, this is still the main point of contention.
Personally I think they should. Your stack size should be considered as what you ended the last hand with. As long as everywhere uses the same rule then we are good. It should be a standard rule, not set by each individual room.
Antes are part of the players stack before the hand begins so yes they should be included in determining ranking should the BB and other players be eliminated on the same hand.
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!!!!
I really like the idea that your stack size and thus the order of finish is determined by what you had at the end of the last hand. I also think that way we don't need to consider what is the starting point of the next hand, ie cut of the card, first riffle, etc. Does that not make sense?
Moose, you can be sort of a know it all at times, you realize that don't you?
Only positive feedback is allowed?
Just read the TDA rules.
13cards is inventing problems that don't exist. His invented problem exists after the hand has started. This is why, by rule, the stacks are determined at the start of the hand and why a definition for the start of the hand exists. Stacks after the antes are posted is irrelevant because the hand has already begun.
Bottom line: follow the TDA rules for the definition of the start of a hand and there is no "consequence of the BBA". It is a made up problem invented by 13cards. There is no effect to the rankings between using individual antes or a bba if you stick to the accepted definition of the start of a hand. This entire thread is pointless.
As the game evolves then so should the rules (imo). How can a player who is knocked-out of a side-pot be placed lower than a player who is eliminated on the main pot if the same hand? It doesn't make any sense. Don't care about what TDA says you rule nits
As the game evolves then so should the rules (imo). How can a player who is knocked-out of a side-pot be placed lower than a player who is eliminated on the main pot if the same hand? It doesn't make any sense. Don't care about what TDA says you rule nits
I think maintaining simplicity is more valuable though.
Also, everyone has an equal chance of being in this situation, so nothing unfair about it as long as the rule is clear.
You can also beat the odds by simply not busting out!
Comments
This.
Unlike the blinds, the BBA is considered dead money and therefore can not be part of a player’s stack. If it’s not part of a live stack, and can’t be used to keep you from being eliminated, how can it be used to enhance your finishing position?
And since the TDA has still yet to make a decision on this, it’s clearly not a simple answer.
For me, the problem is with the BBA itself. While it speeds up the game and simplifies the action, it adds more variance and ambiguity to a structure that already has enough of that. I’d much prefer to have traditional antes and a penalty to players who don’t post in a timely manner. But that’s a different discussion.
The player with the larger stack between the two players who both were just eliminated, "was never at risk of elimination"? That's self-contradictory. Ah, I see, you mean "was never at risk of elimination from the other eliminated player".
Consider this: if instead of the hand with the eliminations playing out, the tournament had to come to an immediate halt for whatever reason, how would you rank those players? By stack size, since the players are not eliminated. In this case, P2 is clearly ranked below P1.
I suggest that considering the starting stack size is a tie-breaking mechanism between players who would otherwise be tied. You could just have the rule be that the players tie for position and chop the combined prizes.
I think that's incorrect. The unbalanced ante is not part of the player's betting capacity, but it didn't come from nowhere, it came from the players starting stack. Starting stack sizes are known fixed quantities at the start of the hand, and that's the point in time when tie-breaking is determined. Finishing positions are pre-calculated, if you will. Nothing is being enhanced later, it's already determined before the hand plays out, in case it's needed.
I read / skimmed the TDA 2019 rules v1.0 this morning. I didn't see a rule about tie-breaking when multiple players are busted out in the same hand. I might have missed it though.
Not sure who is right, but there is one thing that could happen if you start the hand after the ante is put in. Player is the BB. He puts his ante in. Since the hand has not started yet, he can get moved to a different table. Hw would have to leave his ante at his original table and not have a chance to win it back. Also, if he only has enough to pay the ante, but not the big blind, he would be eliminated without playing a hand. That definitely is not fair. Or he might get moved to a different table where he is BB again and has to post another ante. I am sure he would not be happy at all and I don’t think that would be fair.
I have no idea what the answer is, but everyone has made great points. I love the BB ante and am curious to find out what the TDA summit comes up with in their discussions.
The order that is being debated is:
Ante starts the hand (in which case the player plays the rest of the hand)
or
First riffle, then Ante
Either way, I don't think your scenario would apply. There should be no reason for anyone to have any chips in the pot before the hand actually starts.
If for some reason someone does have to be moved right away instead of waiting for a new hand (director was busy/distracted etc.), then they were never in the Big Blind at the current table, and should not have to post anything.
I was taking this too literally when I made my post.
This is often the case in home games where games are self dealt. Not the case in a professionally run casino tournament.
Can you break a table after the dealer has started a riffle? Can a player avoid playing one more hand before break by refusing to post his blinds if a dealer has started the riffle before the break starts? No because the hand starts on the riffle.
Has nothing whatsoever to do when the blinds are posted.
Any other discussion on what to do if multiple players bust is moot. It matters not who can take out who after the antes are posted. This is action that takes place after the hand has started.
Stacks are determined before the first riffle and not after.
The antes are posted after the hand has started.
When hand shuffling one deck the first riffle starts the hand. When using two decks and/or a machine shuffle, the cut of the shuffled cards starts the hand.
Well if that's the case, that causes issues.
I posted above; a couple of my games do this...
...we use a different point: when betting action is concluded for a hand, the next hand is deemed to have begun. That way, if a multi-way all-in takes a while to deal out and resolve, everyone else at the table doesn't get penalized for no reason.
Regardless of when the hand technically begins, this is still the main point of contention.
Personally I think they should. Your stack size should be considered as what you ended the last hand with. As long as everywhere uses the same rule then we are good. It should be a standard rule, not set by each individual room.
I would appreciate some feedback on this post
I really like the idea that your stack size and thus the order of finish is determined by what you had at the end of the last hand. I also think that way we don't need to consider what is the starting point of the next hand, ie cut of the card, first riffle, etc. Does that not make sense?
Needlessly confusing and unnecessary.
Moose, you can be sort of a know it all at times, you realize that don't you?
Yea.. but, when he's right, he's right...
Mark
He's never wrong, ask him....
But I still like him... You? well...... Just kidding son..
Only positive feedback is allowed?
Just read the TDA rules.
13cards is inventing problems that don't exist. His invented problem exists after the hand has started. This is why, by rule, the stacks are determined at the start of the hand and why a definition for the start of the hand exists. Stacks after the antes are posted is irrelevant because the hand has already begun.
Bottom line: follow the TDA rules for the definition of the start of a hand and there is no "consequence of the BBA". It is a made up problem invented by 13cards. There is no effect to the rankings between using individual antes or a bba if you stick to the accepted definition of the start of a hand. This entire thread is pointless.
I think maintaining simplicity is more valuable though.
Also, everyone has an equal chance of being in this situation, so nothing unfair about it as long as the rule is clear.
You can also beat the odds by simply not busting out!