|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Tournament rules clarification
Last night I was watching WSOP (again), and something occurred to me. The final two players to get knocked out (which determined 19th and 18th place) split the prize money..and the announcer claimed they "split 18th place".
Conversely, on the WPT, if two players are all-in & both get eliminated, the higher prize money goes to the player who had the most chips before the all-in. Are the rules different for these two tournaments, or am I missing something? What is considered the standard? (Trying to resolve an argument from last nights home game.) -iash |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tournament rules clarification
The standard is for the higher stack before both get knocked out to take the better payout.
If there were to be a split in what you described, it would be 2 players splitting 18th + 19th, not just splitting 18th. If there is a special rule, it may be due to it being the final 2 tables. I thought they started going hand for hand at 2 tables, but it might have been 3 this year or something odd like that. Not positive though. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tournament rules clarification
Iash,
Whatever room you are playing in can basically make their own rules. As far as I know there is no official rule book for tournament poker, though this has been talked about for the last 7 years that I have been playing, so such a book could now exist. The general standard from the tourneys that I have played is just as you stated: The player with the most chips at the start of a hand in which more than one is eliminated gets the higher finish and the higher prize money. There was a bit of a controversial hand in the world series in which an unknown and Dewey Tomko were both all in on the hand on the bubble. The announcers stated at that time that if they both were to bust they would have to split the $10000 prize money as they would have been tied for 225th. There was no mention at that time of the players starting chip stacks. I believe that means that at the series, the higher place is tied if two bust out at the same time. I think this is the exception and not the rule for most of the other major tourneys. (I fear your bet is going to end in a draw). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tournament rules clarification
The horseshoe put up another 10k so that both would get their buyin back, which was pretty cool imo. just a side note to the story, but the reasoning in lolita's reply is sound, it looks like the WSOP splits finishes.
there is a somewhat official tourney rule list now, which is what hte WPT uses. its the TDA rules list or something to that effect. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tournament rules clarification
I think there might be a difference in the rules for when people are knocked out at the same table or different tables.
On different tables it would be hard to judge who was actually ahead, a bigger stack at one stack might be the shortest stack at that table, and the smaller stack at the other table could be one of the chip leaders on that table. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tournament rules clarification
Hi Spook,
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. If two players are all-in at a given table vs. another opponent, and both all-ins lose, the higher place goes to the one who had the higher chip count. Conversely, if two players are all-in on different tables vs. different opponents -- but coincidentally at the same time -- then you call it a tie. Remember that, for most of a tournament, the tables are not dealt hand-for-hand and the pace of play at table A may be very different from that at table B. It might be that the action at table A would likely have concluded before the hand on table B had ever started, except some other player at table A was sitting and fiddling and trying to decide whether to call on a marginal holding, and finally chucked in his cards, whereupon another player with a marginal hand did likewise, etc., etc.... When both players are at the same table, they're in the same pot, so by definition it is a "tie" timewise, and the player with the most chips prior to the all-in should be rewarded. But when they're at different tables, you can't assume the "tie" timewise, so the less-controversial way to decide it is simply to call it a tie. Cris |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Actual Rule Book Link from the TDA
|
|
|