07-30-2002, 03:40 AM
last night ladbrokes gave $1,111 to the winner of their 1,111,111th hand
it happened to fall on a pot limit table so you can imagine the raising going on
but what i am questioning is how they paid out in the end
the best hand shown had gone all-in at a late stage - on the turn or the river
another guy had a few dollars more and had created a very small side pot - his hand was only Ace-high but he won the side pot
so ladbrokes gave the main pot highest hand $555.50 and the side pot (lesser hand) $555.50
in other words, the side pot guy won with second best because he started out with more money
was this the correct way to deal with this situation?
or should they remove pot and no limit tables from bonus games for this reason? (someone who went all-in with minimum buy-in before the flop could win half the bonus at little risk - topping-up to minimum before each hand, etc)
to me it seemed extraordinarily unfair to the highest hand man at the time, although he was a-whooping and a-hollering that he had won $555.50
it happened to fall on a pot limit table so you can imagine the raising going on
but what i am questioning is how they paid out in the end
the best hand shown had gone all-in at a late stage - on the turn or the river
another guy had a few dollars more and had created a very small side pot - his hand was only Ace-high but he won the side pot
so ladbrokes gave the main pot highest hand $555.50 and the side pot (lesser hand) $555.50
in other words, the side pot guy won with second best because he started out with more money
was this the correct way to deal with this situation?
or should they remove pot and no limit tables from bonus games for this reason? (someone who went all-in with minimum buy-in before the flop could win half the bonus at little risk - topping-up to minimum before each hand, etc)
to me it seemed extraordinarily unfair to the highest hand man at the time, although he was a-whooping and a-hollering that he had won $555.50