There has been some discussion in another 2+2 forum about how Merge breaks ties when equal stack sizes are all-in. I will post this hand here as well, since it was played on RPM. Hopefully, I can get a response from Seth or Jon.

The specific examples being discussed are in 6-max SNGs, which award 2 places. With 3 remaining players, 2 have equal stack sizes (before posting blinds) and the other has a larger stack.

When there is a 3-way all in and player with the larger wins, the 2nd place prize appears to be awarded based on position. Is it possible to have this confirmed as the rule on Merge? Popular opinion seems to be that the 2nd-place prize should be split. It is, of course, Merge's discretion as to how they handle it. I would just like to know what the official rule is.

Here is an example hand which happened yesterday. The 2nd-place prize was awarded to the player on the BUT, despite the equal stack size and worse hand.

My belief is, it DEFINATELY shouldnt be awarded to the person in position, for example the hand you posted, if you had known the player IP would get 2nd if you both lost, then you wouldve folded your A9. Smart play is to fold A9 in this situation if you knew you had to beat both players to cash.

I believe 2nd place should be given to the better hand of the 2 losers, so A9 beats K7 here so A9 should get 2nd place imo.

I am against splitting the 2nd place prize because A9 beats k7 and deserves to place higher, im curious as to whats the official rule and WHY the rule is what it is.

This is really an excellent question and interesting thread. I have forwarded this thread on to Merge with an explanation of the situation. I am of the opinion that in a situation like this, when both players are knocked out simultaneously and have the same stack size, the prize should be split evenly.

I will update this thread with a response as soon as I receive one. Thank you for posting this!

So last week Carbon Ryan helped me out with this. He also brought up that other sites (PS, FTP) Decided this by a split. Which is fine I guess. What I don't get is why the button gets the tie breaker over the BB. I was the BB in this scenario, and also had the better starting hand. Merge's initial response was the second place guy won because he had the ace high. When I explained to them that I was the ace high (AJ in the BB) and the button was the KJ is when they decided the ruling was positional. I never heard back from anyone at Merge to as if this was in writing anywhere. If you can pull that up Seth it would be nice to see. My situation was in a dollar hyper turbo so I'm not here fighting for the money. This is more of a what is the RIGHT thing. I have yet to hear anyone agree with giving the decision to the button. So maybe Merge should reconsider how these are decided.

Seth- why do you think it should be split? just curious... you dont think it should go to the better hand of the 2 losing hands?

Right now, in cases like these when two players go out simultaneously on a prize bubble, the player in the more favorable position (button) at the table will receive the higher prize. This is what is coded in to the software as the deciding factor, and it's something that would need to be changed by the Merge Gaming development team.

This issue has been forwarded to the development team for consideration, along with my comments that I believe this is a situation where the prize should be split amongst the two players who went out simultaneously.

I will update this thread with any new information about this, and our thanks for bringing this up.

Thanks a lot Seth. In the case of the equal stacks both being in the blinds, is it the player in the small blind that receives the higher prize?

I will find out for sure and let you know. I believe it would be the big blind.

I have confirmed with Merge that it is the small blind that would win in this case. The player closest to the left of the dealer button in this scenario would be the winner of the higher prize.

lol that succks