Why did I come in 3rd?

[HartAttack3]

Here is how I think of it, he knocked both of you guys out in one hand. Since you both lost lets think of it this way. He win so he will take both your chips at the same time. Now if we did it one chip at a time (stupid i know but just follow) then you would get eliminated first then the other stack would get eliminated. Thats why u got 3rd and he got 2nd lol

 

[dj11]

Simplified.

-There is only ONE WINNER PER HAND except when absolutely dupicate hands exist.
-There is no such thing as 2nd best hand Unless there is an all-in chip discrepancy as evidenced buy a side pot.

-In the case where multiple players bust out during the same hand, finishing order will be determined by chips stacks as they existed before that hand.

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

rofl awesome

Instead of laughing at me, explain why cards would not declare the winner of a 5 card game?

BTW, again, I understand that "this is the way it is", I'm just asking why.

Y'all are saying "starting chip count matters"... does it really? 1st place just took BOTH stacks, now you have 0. If B & C were heads up, how would you determine the winner... by the 5 best cards.

In zachvac's example, let's suppose C sat out that hand... looks like they just placed 2nd... but wait, that's not fair, they only had $1.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

If B & C were heads up, how would you determine the winner... by the 5 best cards.

I'm pretty sure if B and C were HU C wouldn't be able to bust B in one hand with a 4,999,999-1 chip disadvantage.

In zachvac's example, let's suppose C sat out that hand... looks like they just placed 2nd... but wait, that's not fair, they only had $1.

Well if C sat out and B shoved or called a shove here then B is pretty much the biggest idiot in the universe, so I'd say he deserves it.

 

[Monoxide]

Only if he won like 15 times in a row

 

[HartAttack3]

In zachvac's example, let's suppose C sat out that hand... looks like they just placed 2nd... but wait, that's not fair, they only had $1.

its totally fair.....he sat out, didnt play and in the end of it all HE HAD CHIPS! If there is 4 people all in and the winner only wins the main pot (because he had the least amount of chips) why shouldnt he be able to get the side pot as well since he had the best hand? Its the same exact thing you are trying to say here. Everything goes by chip count in tournament play.

 

[zachvac]

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.

Here's the thing, you keep talking about it as if it happens in this order. We could go the other way too. He shows the best hand, both you and the other guy who's busting this hand muck. Now all that's left is chips. Why should the cards matter when you both mucked your hands (because neither of you won)? The chips and cards don't stay/go in any specific order.

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).

Because of the bold you did NOT have the best hand. When you are drawing in poker, how often do you say "well although I'm probably drawing dead against person A, I probably have about 15 outs against person B, so hopefully I can pick up the 2nd best hand". The winner of each pot is the best hand. The cards do not matter unless you have the best hand out of all people in a given pot.

ACTUALLY now that I think about it, let's make it even simpler.

There were actually 2 pots. One with all 3 of you and one with just the other 2. Showdown to see who wins the main pot. Chip leader wins it, you're eliminated, have no chips, and go out in 3rd. Side pot evaluated, chip leader won it, other guy eliminated, 2nd place.

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

I'm pretty sure if B and C were HU C wouldn't be able to bust B in one hand with a 4,999,999-1 chip disadvantage.

You're not getting the part where B & C no longer have ANY chips.

Let's look at it in a step by step...

Player A takes player B & C's chips stacks

Palyers B & C now have ZERO chips

Let's determine the winner in the way you would any other time... with the cards.

Do y'all see where I'm coming from? It's a 5 card game, why is a chip stack which has been removed declaring the winners?

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

There were actually 2 pots. One with all 3 of you and one with just the other 2. Showdown to see who wins the main pot. Chip leader wins it, you're eliminated, have no chips, and go out in 3rd. Side pot evaluated, chip leader won it, other guy eliminated, 2nd place.

Nicely put.

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

ACTUALLY now that I think about it, let's make it even simpler.

There were actually 2 pots. One with all 3 of you and one with just the other 2. Showdown to see who wins the main pot. Chip leader wins it, you're eliminated, have no chips, and go out in 3rd. Side pot evaluated, chip leader won it, other guy eliminated, 2nd place.

Good example, thanks.

Goes with HartAttack3 example above. But this puts it in perspective of Player A eleminates me, now there's a side pot between A & B, which A wins as well.

Thanks again.

 

[zachvac]

You're not getting the part where B & C no longer have ANY chips.

Let's look at it in a step by step...

Player A takes player B & C's chips stacks

Palyers B & C now have ZERO chips

Let's determine the winner in the way you would any other time... with the cards.

Do y'all see where I'm coming from? It's a 5 card game, why is a chip stack which has been removed declaring the winners?

So reverse the order. Player A shows the best hand, both B and C muck. Players B & C now have ZERO cards. This is actually the order it happens in. Then when you lose the main pot, you're eliminated and B's still left. He then loses the side pot and busts out in 2nd.

 

[Steveg1976]

You're not getting the part where B & C no longer have ANY chips.

Let's look at it in a step by step...

Player A takes player B & C's chips stacks

Palyers B & C now have ZERO chips

Let's determine the winner in the way you would any other time... with the cards.

Do y'all see where I'm coming from? It's a 5 card game, why is a chip stack which has been removed declaring the winners?

I understand your question but if the previous posts haven't been able to explain the rule satisfactorily then I am not sure if it can be understood. Might as well ask why is an Ace the high card since it is really only a one?

 

[TrentsMomm]

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?

Seat 1: elschy (9930 in chips)
Seat 3: franni22 (2809 in chips)
Seat 5: 09kKahneFan (2261 in chips)

*** 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

If there had been a side pot between you and franni22 you would have won. Since elschy had you both covered, the chip count comes into effect. Which in the rules say the one with the bigger chip stack would finish ahead of the other.

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?

The chip stack is part of the rules.

 

[mrsnake3695]

With 3 players all-in in the pot there are 2 pots, one with the short stack and one with the other stack. Lets say the chip counts are this:

A) 10,000
B) 5,000
C) 3,000

All three go All-in, there is one pot with 9,000 that all three players are eligable for and there is a side pot of 4,000 that only player A and B are eligable for.

Player A has the best hand between all 3 players. So it acctually occurs like this:

You first determine the winner of the main pot between all three players so in this case Player A has the best hand so he wins this pot of 9,000 and player C is out. Then there is a showdown between A and B and A wins so B is then out. So player C is out first since he had less chips to start.

By the way this is the rule and to argue against it or to continuously ask why until there is an explaination that you agree with is kinda pointless. I mean why is AA better than 22. I mean there are 4 aces in the deck and 4 twos in the deck so they should be worth the same right? Or why is a royal flush the best hand, the odds of getting 2d 6h 8c 10s Qd is exactly the same. Why is one the best hand and the other only a Queen high? It's because that's what was decided a long time ago and that's the rules we live with.

 

[muddawgg]

never gave it much thought til now..being there are multi tables it makes sense if players get knocked out at the same time , you can't compare hands from different tables , thus chip stacks are used.

 

[zachvac]

Or why is a royal flush the best hand, the odds of getting 2d 6h 8c 10s Qd is exactly the same. Why is one the best hand and the other only a Queen high?

Actually the odds of a royal flush are 4 times as likely as 2d 6h Ts Qd as there are 4 ways to make a royal flush, only one here. But I get the point

 

[pigpen02]

I'm pretty sure if B and C were HU C wouldn't be able to bust B in one hand with a 4,999,999-1 chip disadvantage.

Well if C sat out and B shoved or called a shove here then B is pretty much the biggest idiot in the universe, so I'd say he deserves it.

I feel much the same way about second and third in last Friday's UB freeroll. I had to leave when I was at the final table, six still playing, with a sizeable chip stack. The prize pool was all $5 except for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. I expected to end up fourth at best. But Noooooo. It must have gotten down to the final four and somebody got put out number 4. With three left I did see a screenshot where I had ~3000 chips for a solid last place among the three. 1 and 2 must have gotten into it, eliminating 2. Of course, there is no way an away can beat #1, so I took second. Thanks all, for "giving" me an extra $15.

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

By the way this is the rule and to argue against it or to continuously ask why until there is an explaination that you agree with is kinda pointless.

Not really. I asked enough times and zachvac provided an answer which makes sense to me. I was always taught that the only stupid questions are the one's not asked... Guess that doesn't apply to poker for you?

I mean why is AA better than 22. I mean there are 4 aces in the deck and 4 twos in the deck so they should be worth the same right?

because they are given a numerical value and 11 beats 1.

Or why is a royal flush the best hand, the odds of getting 2d 6h 8c 10s Qd is exactly the same. Why is one the best hand and the other only a Queen high? It's because that's what was decided a long time ago and that's the rules we live with.

Again, a royal flush has a higher value than Q high.

Just because "that was decided a long time ago" doesn't mean the rules can't be questioned. It was also "decided a long time ago" that the earth was flat...

 

[Monoxide]

The earth isnt flat?!?!?!?!?!!


jesus.....


/goes back to bed

 

[switch0723]

Cant believe this discussion is actually happening.

I have a plan, at my next final table, when i fold a hand that 4 players move all in on. At the end of the hand i will tell them all, that if i hadnt of folded, i would have had the best hand, so therefore the pot should technically be mine, and i will proceed to take the pot. Since the game should be decided on whoever has the best hand, which i would have done if i hadnt folded.

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

...Since the game should be decided on whoever has the best hand, which i would have done if i hadnt folded.

Some of you have interjected situations that don't make sense. In the above example, you're not in the hand and of course would have no say on the outcome. I was only saying that the people in the hand should have the outcome based on their cards.

Not only that, but why post something like this other than to make the OP (me) feel like a dumba$$? I had a question and have received a response which has made me understand the rules. switch, not picking on you, but I see this a lot here where people will post answers that make the OP look like a DA when there's no need. If someone asks a question I clearly know the answer to, I either A: try to help them understand or B: watch for other people's responses.

BTW, here is Stars response to my email...

"Second place" is not used to determine placement when two people are
eliminated on the same hand. Normal poker tournament rules are that the
placement is based on stack size at the start of the hand, and you had the
fewest chips at the start. The theory behind this is that you could not
eliminate the other all-in player (were you heads up), but he could (in
theory) eliminate you. So he gets 2nd place, and you get 3rd.

I hope that explains how it works.

This is rule number 5 in our Poker Tournament Rules here:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/tournaments/rules/

Please let us know if you have any more questions.

Regards,

Scott
PokerStars Support Team

 

[zachvac]

We shouldn't be shooting down people who have legitimate questions about poker. This should be a place to learn and have questions answered without having to fear looking bad. The answer may just be "well those are the rules" but at least have some respect in answering. Is curiosity a crime now?

 

[royalburrito24]

Or why is a royal flush the best hand, the odds of getting 2d 6h 8c 10s Qd is exactly the same.

It is because a royal flush looks really really pretty and a 2d 6h 8c 10s Qd, does not.

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

We shouldn't be shooting down people who have legitimate questions about poker. This should be a place to learn and have questions answered without having to fear looking bad. The answer may just be "well those are the rules" but at least have some respect in answering. Is curiosity a crime now?

I agree with the basic principle behind what you are saying, zachvac, but the OP was told in the very first response to the question:

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

No matter how many times OP was told this, OP continued to rail against it, but essentially it was the same answer that the pokerstars email gave. People do become frustrated when somebody appears not to listen, but just keeps restating the same point of view over and over again

We don't make the rules, all we can really do is tell it the way it is

 

[switch0723]

my comment was said tongue in cheek as a response as to why the discussion was going on when the question was answered in first few posts. It is just a rule of poker, there is no real reason for it, it is just a rule. Such as why have 2 blinds? why not just one blind?. There is no real reason to have 2, but it is just a rule. Why does the flop have 3 cards, then 1 turn and 1 river, why not 2 card on flop, 2 turn cards and 1 river. Again, there is no real reason for it, it is just a rule.