|
|
#11
08-15-2007, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What\'s your ruling here?
[ QUOTE ]
Well, one of the players brought up the fact that the extra chip goes to the player o.o.p., and in the past we've always given the credit for eliminating a player in a tie(even if there was no bounty) to the oop player. [/ QUOTE ] If you always did it that way in the past, why is this even a question? Are you all trying to change the rule, for THIS tourney? 
|
|
#12
08-15-2007, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s your ruling here?
Thanks for the replies everyone. We definately should've chopped the bounty. Oh well. (a learning experience)
As for the name of the special bounty...yeah, it's kinda crude. But, it fits in with the obnoxious bunch of goofballs that play in this game.
|
|
#13
08-15-2007, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s your ruling here?
[ QUOTE ]
If you always did it that way in the past, why is this even a question? Are you all trying to change the rule, for THIS tourney? [/ QUOTE ] It was probably done this way for the small individual bounty's and no one really cared because the amount was so trivial. This is probably firs time this has happened for the bounty bitch, so that's why the question came up. Even though precedent was set, it's clearly wrong and the bounty bitch should have been chopped. Repeating a bad ruling just because that's what you did last time is a horrible way to do things btw.
|
|
#14
08-16-2007, 10:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s your ruling here?
[ QUOTE ]
Even though precedent was set, it's clearly wrong and the bounty bitch should have been chopped. Repeating a bad ruling just because that's what you did last time is a horrible way to do things btw. [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not "clearly wrong". You and I both agree that it's a bad rule, but that doesn't make it a wrong rule. When the rule is not incorrect, to change it in this situation isn't an automatic no-brainer, as you are implying. The host didn't think this out beforehand and should be blamed, but there could easily be a ruling that "since we didn't change it before, it stands for this incident. We'll vote on changing it after tonight". Hosts should be very careful about changing rules due to new situations, for those situations. Doubly so if they are involved in it (not the case here, just making the point)
|
|
#15
08-16-2007, 11:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s your ruling here?
I agree with Larry's point. It is very important to remain consistent in your rulings. However, if you made a wrong ruling last time though, and you have since figured that out, would you still make the wrong ruling? I think the correct ruling should be made.
In the situation we have here, a significant amount of money is being awarded to player 1 when player 2 had the same hand. The intent of the rule to award the extra chip to the player to the left of the dealer is to expediate the game because the value of the prize is nominal and that chip can't be split anyway. This same thing happens with the bountys. The individual bountys are nominal, so no one has much interest in splitting a bounty (probably 1 or 2 dollars at most) and they simply get awarded to the person who is left of the dealer - no big deal. The bounty bitch on the other hand is a significant amount. It would be like awarding the whole pot to the player to the left of the dealer. It should be split even if the indidual bountys had not been previously. IMO of course. OP talks about points. I don't know how those are awarded or tracked. There is some reference to The Tournament Director... is this a league? Is there absolutely no work-around to share the points? If not, this is a type of bug that the developer will probably address in an upcoming release if you bring it to his attention.
|
|
#18
08-16-2007, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s your ruling here?
Obviously you need better tournament director software.
Just split the bounty, This is bleedingly simple. If not for this time, then future times. It makes no sense any other way. Say, "okay, we [censored] up, but we're not going to physically force anybody to pay someone after the fact; in the future, it'll be split". Ta-da, problem solved.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
