Ruling Needed on Bounties

[Gambit]

This is a theoretical situation that I would like to come up with a ruling for in case it ever occurs.

Playing a single table NLHE tourney with a $15 buy in and $5 bounty on every player. This is the situation:

Player A is on a small stack pushes all in for say 100. Player B on a much larger stack pushes all in for 1200 hoping to isolate. Player C has the big stack and calls. Main pot is 300 (A, B and C), and side pot is 2200 (between player B and C).

Cards are turned up and the board is dealt out. Side pot (2200) goes to player C, and player B is eliminated from the tourney. Main pot (300) goes to player A with the best hand among the three.

Who wins player B's bounty?

On one hand...
It was player C's call that covered B's last chip...if not for player C then player B would only have had 300 chips at stake, not his whole stack. Player C was responsible for knocking out B by winning the side pot.

On the other hand...
Player A won the hand in which another player was elimated. Player A won the main pot and had the best hand among the three.

I'll withold my own opinion for now as not to influence the results.

-Is there an *official* ruling for this?
-Opinions or comments?

Thanks
G

[37offsuit]

I voted but after typing out my rational I erased it and I think that I have to change my answer.

The key to this situation, I think, is that the side pot is typically awarded first. Once the side pot is awarded, then the main pot is awarded to the player with the best hand. So in this situation, after the side pot is awarded player B still has t100 and it is player A who takes his last t100 from the pot.

[spicychili]

If player C (large stack) never would have called played A would have won the main pot and player B would still be in the game. No bounty would have been awarded. Player C was the one who covered player B’s chips so player C should get the bounty.

[Fins]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted but after typing out my rational I erased it and I think that I have to change my answer.

The key to this situation, I think, is that the side pot is typically awarded first. Once the side pot is awarded, then the main pot is awarded to the player with the best hand. So in this situation, after the side pot is awarded player B still has t100 and it is player A who takes his last t100 from the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the pots are awarded in this manner because it's less confusing and not due to a priority. If B had C covered (e.g. C has 1000) and B knocks out both A & C - C still finishes higher in the money because of the larger starting chip stack (even though in awarding hands he's knocked out first). I'm still with C.

Good scenario to work out adhead of time /images/graemlins/grin.gif

- Fins

[jalsing]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted but after typing out my rational I erased it and I think that I have to change my answer.

The key to this situation, I think, is that the side pot is typically awarded first. Once the side pot is awarded, then the main pot is awarded to the player with the best hand. So in this situation, after the side pot is awarded player B still has t100 and it is player A who takes his last t100 from the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, however if player B didn't win the side pot, he has no stake in the main pot...once your chips are in the pot, they are not 'yours' anymore. He risked his extra 900 chips to go against player c, and lost. He is out of the tournament at player c's hand, even though he also lost to player A.

[Douper]

Bounty is awarded for knocking out a player.

Player A didn't knock out Player B. It was the bigstack who took the final chips from player B, and therefore he/she gets the bounty chip.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
Bounty is awarded for knocking out a player.

Player A didn't knock out Player B. It was the bigstack who took the final chips from player B, and therefore he/she gets the bounty chip.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. My way to evaluate bounties is: Imagine the player's last chip has a gold star on it. That chip is worth $5 more. The gold-star chip went into the main pot, not the side, so the all-in had no chance to win the starred chip.

On a side note, how do you handle split pots with bounties? Do two players split a bounty, or is it first come, first serve?
-Sam

[Gambit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bounty is awarded for knocking out a player.

Player A didn't knock out Player B. It was the bigstack who took the final chips from player B, and therefore he/she gets the bounty chip.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. My way to evaluate bounties is: Imagine the player's last chip has a gold star on it. That chip is worth $5 more. The gold-star chip went into the main pot, not the side, so the all-in had no chance to win the starred chip.

On a side note, how do you handle split pots with bounties? Do two players split a bounty, or is it first come, first serve?
-Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question regarding split pots. In a split pot, I would split the bounty as well. Looks like I have another rule to add...

BTW, I agree that big stack (C) would be entitled to the bounty in the original poll question.

[FatMan]

I like your gold star theory, but you've got it wrong. If player C did not call then player B's last chip would not go in the main pot. His gold star chip would still be in his stack in front of him. Look at it this way. (This is not the way the hand played, but it does put another perspective on it)

Play A goes all in for 100.

Player B call's his 100 (his gold star chip is still in his hand)

Player C re-raises all in

Player B calls his remaining 1100 chips, including his gold star chip.

So the gold star chip is in the side pot.

Player A should not get the bounty as he could not have knocked out player B. Player C should get it for taking the risk.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your gold star theory, but you've got it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry. I switched "main-pot" and "side-pot". I was ok when I said "the all-in can't win the starred chip", though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think we all agree, now.
-Sam

[Lottery Larry]

Since a short stack can't knock out a bigger stack, they don't get the bounty.

Here's another one. F goes all-in. Larger stack G goes over the top, is called by biggest stack H. H wins, but G's hand beats F's hand.

Would anyone give the bounty to G? Of course not.

[The Armchair]

It's C and it isn't even close.

The point of the bounty is to incentivize the elimination of others. (Note that a person can win a tournament and eliminate only one other player.)

If C does _not_ win B's bounty, he has incentive to not call, as if B busts, A gets the bounty. On the other hand, A has no ability ot bust B out, and therefore is not incentivized by the rule.