I wasn't sure the best for forum to put this, so if a moderator chooses to move it that's fine.

While I was dealing today the last hand before we colored off the $100 black chips a player lost an all in pot and had less than $500 left.

The player wound up winning one of the purple $500 chips in the race so we didn't have to think about it too much, but the player could have lost the race and unless there is a rule that says otherwise been eliminated from the tournament during the color up.

This doesn't seem sporting to me. I mean the player is pretty much dead man walking anyway, but to be eliminated when you're on break and not even in a hand seems kind of mean.

If I was flooring I would probably say that player wins the race automatically because we will not eliminate them on a color up break, but that would be my decision and I'm not sure if there are rules which jibe with it or if I'm merely using rule number one about the fairness of the game to go that route.

Thoughts? Also, has anyone ever seen this come up in reality?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

TDA rule 23:
WSOP rule 77:

I've seen a player lose the race-off in that spot. The floor brought over a 500 chip and gave it to the eliminated player.

Sweet! Done in one.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

They ought to make a simliar rule for the poor guy in O/8 who makes the nut low and gets eliminated (bets his last chip, gets quartered, only 3 chips in pot, no odd chip for him).

Nah, he's an omaha player, he deserves it.

First hand ever of Big O ... Turn nut straight ... 3-way all-in ... Guy Rivers a low .. get 1/6 of the pot ... great game, can I play some more! GL

Is that even possible? Minimum there should be 2 small blind chips and 1 big blind chip. If he gets quartered he should get a small blind chip.

If he's down to a single small blind (or less), some of those chips would be in a side pot.

No, you can not be eliminated in a race off.

if you can get full value for the race off then you should lose if you dont win it. it was your play that left you in that spot, so you have to suffer. other wise the person with one chip left gets more value from his chip than others do.
how about if this was the bubble coming back from the break and he gets a free round with that chip and costs someone else the money.

The correct answer, along with cites to the specific rules, was provided in the very first response in the thread, exactly 4 minutes after the OP asked his question three days ago. Thanks for dropping by last night to provide your response. I guess we can close the thread now that you've weighed in.

Don't close it yet! Ray Zee objects! The thread turns!

I disagree with Ray Zee (pretty sure I've never typed THAT sentence before). I'm not aware of any structure that gives a race-winner a better chance of surviving the blinds and antes.

And he says, "it was your play that left you in that spot..." I think we all agree that his "play" is a better way to settle his fate, than a race.

I agree with Ray Zee that it should be possible to be eliminated in a race. That is not permitted in most modern rule sets, but that was not a change for the better.

the race winner does have more chips, but what i thought i conveyed was that if you cant get raced out then you get to keep a chip that someone else cant. and then you get to play on and have a chance to win. which especially on the bubble is crucial.

i was there when jack strauss won the wsop. he had gotten all in but after the hand was done they found he still had a 500 dollar chip under a napkin he didnt see nor anyone else. so they let him keep it and play on. also to win the whole shebang. it was a terrible ruling.

good to see ytf is still on my butt.

On the one hand, the purist sense, the most consistent with the other rules of poker would clearly be to not give an extra chip. This is a crybaby (imho, trying not to offend) rule. The crybabies probably got mad about being eliminated, complained to the floor, and well, it wouldn't be poker without crybabies, and this seems like a very minor change, so it's an equitable rule imho. Crybabies are usually terrible players (PH notable exception), so it's perfectly equitable to let them occasionally "get their way". So long as the rule is the same for everyone, there's no advantage gained by any specific player.

Also, sounds like Jack Strauss cheated and the floor was in on it. Beyond terrible ruling. 100% wrong ruling.

+1 on Strauss.

I wouldn't be so hard on the rule though. It's not so much crybabies as it is that getting eliminated on a color up is going to come off as unfair to a lot of players. You didn't lose all your chips. If I were to draw an analogy, it would be to the one untimed down rule in football. The game can't end on a defensive penalty, so if the clock expires you get one untimed down to throw a hail mary. It's not really consistent with other football rules, because it puts you over 60 minutes and the rest of the game is rigorously timed. But it prevents a perceived unfairness where the last play featured a penalty and you never got the benefit of the penalty.

Are you sure he didn't see it? Someone I talked to years ago about this years ago told me he thought Strauss hid the chip there.

Even if you think a player should be able to be eliminated in a race off .... we are talking about a rather rare occurrence and when it does happen the player is given a single chip of the lowest denomination making the likelihood of it impacting play significantly rather remote.

I just don't think this rates high as an issue (in all my time dealing I have actually had the issue arise at a table I was dealing exactly once ....)

I think if anything were to be changed about the chip race procedure it should be the rule that a player can only win one chip. This impacts almost every race off and gives extra equity to players with fewer odd chips.

There was no sarcasm intended in my post. I have so much respect for you as a 2+2 contributor (yes, "contributor", to call you a "poster" would be insufficient) that I meant it when I said, "If Ray Zee has a contrary opinion, we should hear it."

There was also no sarcasm intended when I remarked about how seldom I disagree with anything I've ever seen you write.

i took it as you said. my comment was like "you had my back".

thanks for being here friend.

As a new school player, I have disagreed with you plenty in my short time here, but I still think it's totally awesome that you show up here and give us your thoughts and wisdom. Cheers, sir.

On reflection I would redact "crybaby" in favour of the word "recreation", because most recreation players would prefer the unnecessary complication. One drawback is that it's fairly esoteric, and there's no guarantee that the tournament director even knows it. While I find the rule unnecessarily complex, recreational players would find no joy in seeing someone eliminated in a run-off or being eliminated in a run-off.

There are loads of arbitrary rules that give players advantages ("odd chip goes to furthest from the dealer", "seat 1 deals first", etc). Just because a ruling changes something that happens later doesn't make it a bad ruling.