Why did I come in 3rd?

K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
Shouldn't this have been a split pot? If not, shouldn't the HAND determine 2/3, not the chip stack, since 1st took BOTH of our stacks?

pokerstars Game #14884813376: Tournament #75441904, $3.00+$0.40 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2008/01/28 - 11:01:03 (ET)
Table '75441904 1' 10-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: elschy (9930 in chips)
Seat 3: franni22 (2809 in chips)
Seat 5: 09kKahneFan (2261 in chips)
elschy: posts the ante 50
franni22: posts the ante 50
09kKahneFan: posts the ante 50
franni22: posts small blind 400
09kKahneFan: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to 09kKahneFan [6d 6s]
elschy: raises 2400 to 3200
franni22: calls 2359 and is all-in
09kKahneFan: calls 1411 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [Qd Qs 5c]
*** TURN *** [Qd Qs 5c] [9h]
*** RIVER *** [Qd Qs 5c 9h] [4c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
franni22: shows [Ad Kc] (a pair of Queens)
elschy: shows [Jd Jh] (two pair, Queens and Jacks)
elschy collected 1096 from side pot
09kKahneFan: shows [6d 6s] (two pair, Queens and Sixes)
elschy collected 6783 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 7879 Main pot 6783. Side pot 1096. | Rake 0
Board [Qd Qs 5c 9h 4c]
Seat 1: elschy (button) showed [Jd Jh] and won (7879) with two pair, Queens and Jacks
Seat 3: franni22 (small blind) showed [Ad Kc] and lost with a pair of Queens
Seat 5: 09kKahneFan (big blind) showed [6d 6s] and lost with two pair, Queens and Sixes
 
Monoxide

Monoxide

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Total posts
3,657
Hmmm no the JJ is clearly the winner here. No split pot possible.

The AK guy has more chips than you, thus making him 2nd and you 3rd when the 1st place guy knocked you both you.

Anything else? :D

and i would have folded that 66 hehe - more money for 2nd
 
K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
PokerStars Tournament #75441904, No Limit Hold'em
Buy-In: $3.00/$0.40
10 players
Total Prize Pool: $30.00
Tournament started - 2008/01/28 - 10:14:52 (ET)

Dear 09kKahneFan,

You finished the tournament in 3rd place.
A $6.00 award has been credited to your real money account.


Congratulations!
Thank you for participating.
 
pigpen02

pigpen02

Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Total posts
2,978
The hand did determine that you lost. Between second and third is determined by hand starting stack size. There is no second place in a hand, just won-lost.
 
Steveg1976

Steveg1976

...
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
2,516
Awards
1
Shouldn't this have been a split pot? If not, shouldn't the HAND determine 2/3, not the chip stack, since 1st took BOTH of our stacks?

PokerStars Game #14884813376: Tournament #75441904, $3.00+$0.40 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2008/01/28 - 11:01:03 (ET)
Table '75441904 1' 10-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: elschy (9930 in chips)
Seat 3: franni22 (2809 in chips)
Seat 5: 09kKahneFan (2261 in chips)
elschy: posts the ante 50
franni22: posts the ante 50
09kKahneFan: posts the ante 50
franni22: posts small blind 400
09kKahneFan: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to 09kKahneFan [6d 6s]
elschy: raises 2400 to 3200
franni22: calls 2359 and is all-in
09kKahneFan: calls 1411 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [Qd Qs 5c]
*** TURN *** [Qd Qs 5c] 9♥
*** RIVER *** [Qd Qs 5c 9h] 4♣
*** SHOW DOWN ***
franni22: shows [Ad Kc] (a pair of Queens)
elschy: shows [Jd Jh] (two pair, Queens and Jacks)
elschy collected 1096 from side pot
09kKahneFan: shows [6d 6s] (two pair, Queens and Sixes)
elschy collected 6783 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 7879 Main pot 6783. Side pot 1096. | Rake 0
Board [Qd Qs 5c 9h 4c]
Seat 1: elschy (button) showed [Jd Jh] and won (7879) with two pair, Queens and Jacks
Seat 3: franni22 (small blind) showed [Ad Kc] and lost with a pair of Queens
Seat 5: 09kKahneFan (big blind) showed [6d 6s] and lost with two pair, Queens and Sixes


1. Queens and Jacks beats Queens and Sixes. The QQ tie but the JJ beat 66's

2. When two people go out at the same time, the person with the more chips get the higher position. You had the short stack so you would place below Franni.

I hope that helps you out.
 
K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
Hmmm no the JJ is clearly the winner here. No split pot possible.

The AK guy has more chips than you, thus making him 2nd and you 3rd when the 1st place guy knocked you both you.

Anything else? :D


Yes, since 1st took BOTH of our stack, we no longer had chips, so wouldn't it be determined by who has the best hand... or a split pot? Why would you base the results on chips that neither of us had anymore? It would make more sense to base it on who has the best cards. OR, to have us split second place.

BTW, I know why I didn't beat the 1st place winner :p
 
Monoxide

Monoxide

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Total posts
3,657
I kinda of see what you mean.


But because the 1st place guy powerful hand won overall, there is no question as to what cards either of you or 2nd place guy had, it renders them completely useless.

So then, you look to chip count, who had more chips? 2nd place guy did.
 
K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
1. Queens and Jacks beats Queens and Sixes. The QQ tie but the JJ beat 66's - I understand this, I didn't miss that part

2. When two people go out at the same time, the person with the more chips get the higher position. You had the short stack so you would place below Franni. - Why would you base it on chips that neither of you have? Since a normal win is based on best hand, why wouldn't/shouldn't this be based on best hand? Poker is about best hand, not chip stack.

I hope that helps you out.

Am I making sense in my question?
 
K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
I kinda of see what you mean.


But because the 1st place guy powerful hand won overall, there is no question as to what cards either of you or 2nd place guy had, it renders them useless.

So then, you look to chip count, who had more chips? 2nd place guy did.

Why would you look at chip count? Neither of us had chips... but we had cards
 
Monoxide

Monoxide

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Total posts
3,657
Starting chip count, before you were delt cards. The more chips you are holding, the more money you will win if multiple knockouts occur. I.E this exact scenario
 
Steveg1976

Steveg1976

...
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
2,516
Awards
1
Am I making sense in my question?

You asked me how it is decided and in this example since you both lost at the same time the fact that you had a better losing hand than him is irrelavant, Franni had more chips to start the hand with and in this case gets the higher placement. I am not saying it is fair but that is the way is ruled.
 
pigpen02

pigpen02

Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Total posts
2,978
I say again, there are two outcomes of a hand - Won and Lost. There is no second and third place. Winners split the pot. The tie-breaker for losers is chip stack size.
 
K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
Starting chip count, before you were delt cards. The more chips you are holding, the more money you will win if multiple knockouts occur.

I understand that, but AFTER the cards were dealt NEITHER of us had any left.

"Here we are, day 1 of the main event and we're going to declair player X the winner because he has the chip lead."

Winners are/should not be declared based on stack size. Poker is about the cards you hold.

If nothing else, why didn't we split 2nd/3rd?

Keep in mind, we're talking about $3 between 2nd and 3rd, so I'm just trying to understand why.

I know this is a losing battle, but do you see where I'm coming from?
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
There was a discussion earlier about this, forget where. The point is though, in poker there is no such thing as a 2nd place hand. The only thing that matters is whether or not you have the best hand.

But the short answer is just because those are the rules:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/tournaments/rules/ said:
If two or more players are eliminated on the same hand, the player with more chips at the beginning of the hand is placed higher. If players started the hands with an identical amount of chips, both players tie for that rank, and any prizes due to those players will be equally distributed between them. During hand-for-hand play (as described in rule #20 below), two players eliminated during a single "synchronized" hand are treated as having been eliminated on the same hand, even if they are at different tables.
 
K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
Steve/Pigpen, I understand that it's "the rules", but why would a chip stack, which is no longer there, determine the winner and not the cards which determine the winner in every other way?
 
K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
There was a discussion earlier about this, forget where. The point is though, in poker there is no such thing as a 2nd place hand. The only thing that matters is whether or not you have the best hand.

But the short answer is just because those are the rules:

I emailed Stars, I'm sure I'll get this back... but I still don't understand why you look at starting chip count when the ending chip count is 0. It should be the cards.
 
Monoxide

Monoxide

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Total posts
3,657
I understand that, but AFTER the cards were dealt NEITHER of us had any left.

"Here we are, day 1 of the main event and we're going to declair player X the winner because he has the chip lead."

Winners are/should not be declared based on stack size. Poker is about the cards you hold.

If nothing else, why didn't we split 2nd/3rd?

Keep in mind, we're talking about $3 between 2nd and 3rd, so I'm just trying to understand why.

I know this is a losing battle, but do you see where I'm coming from?

Perhaps yes, but it is a valid rule.

You example is true, the guy with the most chips at the end of day 1 is, in a sense, the winner.

If the tournament suddenly had to shut down, I dont know how it works live but online tournaments would pay to the chip count, the guy with the most chips get the most money.

Your argument is just, so ill give an example.
 
Last edited:
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
I understand that, but AFTER the cards were dealt NEITHER of us had any left.

"Here we are, day 1 of the main event and we're going to declair player X the winner because he has the chip lead."

Winners are/should not be declared based on stack size. Poker is about the cards you hold.

If nothing else, why didn't we split 2nd/3rd?

Keep in mind, we're talking about $3 between 2nd and 3rd, so I'm just trying to understand why.

I know this is a losing battle, but do you see where I'm coming from?

I see where you are coming from, but it's similar to me saying "well I had 6 in a row, so since everything else is identical, and there are more cards, shouldn't I win because my 6-card straight should beat his 5-card straight?" Obviously the answer is no because poker is a 5-card game. Poker also only cares about the best hand. If there is a player in the hand who has more chips than you that has you beat, your cards are now irrelevant.

But take this example:

Person A: 5 million chips
person B: 4,999,999 chips
person C: 1 chip

all-in preflop

A: JJ
B: AK
C: 25

board reads 2779Q.

Would you honestly think it would be right that person C wins 2nd place here?
 
Steveg1976

Steveg1976

...
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
2,516
Awards
1
I would guess it is because you had a lower/higher ranking at the time you were elliminated. If you were in 3rd place and the other was is 5th place and both lose all your chips in the same hand. It makes sense to give the person who started the hand in a higher position a higher place to finish. I don't know if that is the reason it just seems to make sense to. I don't actually KNOW the rationale for the rule being the way that it is.
 
pigpen02

pigpen02

Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Total posts
2,978
But take this example:

Person A: 5 million chips
person B: 4,999,999 chips
person C: 1 chip

all-in preflop

A: JJ
B: AK
C: 25

board reads 2779Q.

Would you honestly think it would be right that person C wins 2nd place here?

Oooooooooo.. Good example! I see it more clearly now myself.
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Imagine if you were playing hand-for-hand on multiple tables and two people got knocked out on the same hand. Would it make more sense to (a) base their finishing positions on the stack they started the hand with, or (b) base their finishing positions on the hands they held at showdown, given that they're on two totally different tables.

Now, let's assume you're sensible and you answered (a) above. For the sake of consistency, should the same situation occur but between two players at the same table, how should finishing position be decided?

More than one way to skin a cat, etc.

Edit: lol @ zach's example.
 
Monoxide

Monoxide

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Total posts
3,657
Heres another example............

Guy1: AA - 15000 chips ALL IN 1st
Guy2: JK - 12000 chips ALL IN 2nd
Guy3: 36 - 6000 chips. ALL IN 3rd

Flop AK10 6 3


Now guy1 has the win, no matter what, he gets all 18k chips.

Guy 2 has a good hand, more chips even, but claims the 2nd place prize with 1 pair K.

Guy 3 has 2 pair, but still loses to trip A's - beating guy2 but still finishing 3rd with 3'd and 6's.


Your cards do not matter in any way shape or form, unless they are the overall winner. And there can only be 1 of those.



zach already did this example, didnt see ahaha
 
K_Kahne_Fan

K_Kahne_Fan

Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
1,197
Would you honestly think it would be right that person C wins 2nd place here?

Yes. They had better CARDS than B. Since A took B & C's chips, you now should look at how you determine a winner every other time... with the cards.


"well I had 6 in a row, so since everything else is identical, and there are more cards, shouldn't I win because my 6-card straight should beat his 5-card straight?"

I'm in no way speaking outside the 5 card rule. I'm still looking at my 5 cards vs the other person's 5 cards. I don't understand this example. However, if franni happened to go all-in with 66, it should be a split pot since we both had the same hand.

As you say "poker is a 5-card game. Poker also only cares about the best hand." And, I had the best hand (between me and franni).
 
Monoxide

Monoxide

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Total posts
3,657
Yes. They had better CARDS than B. Since A took B & C's chips, you now should look at how you determine a winner every other time... with the cards.




I'm in no way speaking outside the 5 card rule. I'm still looking at my 5 cards vs the other person's 5 cards. I don't understand this example. However, if franni happened to go all-in with 66, it should be a split pot since we both had the same hand.

As you say "poker is a 5-card game. Poker also only cares about the best hand." And, I had the best hand (between me and franni).


But you did not have the best hand.

The big stack did, remember its not 2 people in the pot its 3 people.
 
Top