I ended up curious how the right way to do this is done. For simplicity's sake, an example: three-handed game, short stack is sitting with two points, and has the only unfouled hand, no royalties, he sweeps both opponents. What is his stack at the end of the hand?

a) 4 points. Short stack can only double, wins half his stack from each opponent.

b) 6 points. Short stack wins his stack from each opponent.

c) 8 points. Multiway hands are scored as a series of HU hands, so short stack doubles against the early-position opponent and then doubles again against the late position opponent.

d) Something else.

B seems the most emotionally satisfactory in terms of fairness, but C is more consistent with the theory of how the game is scored. A seems crazy to me but is the way it's done at one place I play so I included it.

Yeah, A is ridiculous. After reading the example, I immediately thought 6, but after reading the options 8 also makes a lot of sense. Curious what others have to say.

a triple up. ss should never be penalized for being short by only doubling there. just like any other poker game. in nlhe if a shorty with $18 on the table is all in and beats two opponents, he then has $54 mnus rake right? in what universe does this scenario produce a double to $36?

on the flip side, i also think that if one of the other players hits FL and busts the shorty, the shorty shouldn't be allowed to miss the next hand UNLESS they are flat audi. IOW, if they would like to continue to play, they can reload right then and there and must play the opponents' FL hand, as FL is now considered an extension of the original hand. No running off to the restroom and then waltzing back in after the FL. I've seen some1 add 1 chip to their stack online after being busted in this fashion -- to duck the FL payout.

the game is scored simultaneously, not consecutively. idnwtf they are thinking.

OFC is structurally different; tripling up gives short stack a freeroll.

In NLHE, yes he can triple up, but each player who calls him directly affects his ability to win or lose the one pot. A is short stack with $18, goes all in and gets one caller, player B, they will each have a percentage chance to win the pot that combined (and adding tie %) sums to 100%. Let's keep it simple and say its 50/50. But if A got two callers, B and C, now A and B (barring extremely rare spots) are not 50/50; instead, all three players now have some percentage to win the pot, and only one person wins it. Yes, A can triple up, but in order to do so, he has to have a better hand than both B AND C now, as opposed to just B.

Also, there is no prize for second place; only the best hand wins the pot, and the second and third hands both lose the pot.

In open face, A's chances to beat B is not affected at all by C's hand (in theory, I know that it does matter for information and its possible B may change strategies for how he plays, but theoretically it is irrelevant). If he beats B, he gets some money from him. In NLHE, A can have a better hand than B and still not get paid, if C has a better hand than both. Hence why in NLHE, he can triple up because each player is taking the risk of not having the best hand, and whoever does wins the pot and the other two get nothing (at least for the $18x3 all in main pot).

Or, to think about it another way, C is on a gross negative freeroll. If A makes a monster, under your theory, he will get his huge payout from both. However, if C makes a monster, he may not get paid off, as it depends on whether A has any money leftover after settling up with B. So C has to pay attention to A if he is building a strong hand, but A doesn't have to pay attention to C even if C is building a strong hand UNLESS A is also in the process of beating B's hand badly.

It's an extension of the previous hand, it'd be great if you could force him to reload, but the best you can do is have a rule that says if you are claiming that you are fully bust, and can't reload, then you are done for 24, 48 hours or whatever, to prevent the rush to the bathroom and sitting back down 10 minutes later as a "new player".

It's still a bit of a freeroll as the player can win a lot more by getting to fantasyland than he can lose if another player goes and he busts; it messes up the risk/reward matrix.

None of the above. Hybrid-A. He doubles up from B and that's it.

Because he entered the hand short-stacked, unless he's told people he's playing behind or if the house rule is table stakes even if you claim otherwise, he can only win or lose 2 chips, and payout is in order starting left of the button. So if A was first to act, B was second to act and C third to act A gets 2 points from B ONLY, and nothing happens between A and C. When the hand started, it is known that A can only win or lose 2 points no matter what, and most likely will be win or lose 2 from B. If he only wins 1 point from B, then he can win or lose 1 from C (note: that means if he wins 1 from B, that point does not become eligible to be won or lost from C; A can only "get action" on 2 chips, so if he wins 1 from B, he only has 1 chip left to get action from player C; so even if A scoops or eggs scooped by C, the total payout is 1).

It's not the most intuitive system, but it is the only system that doesn't create grossly huge freerolls for the shortstack. If the game has to be table stakes, that is the only fair way to do it.

This is exactly correct and a good explanation.

This makes a fair amount of sense to me in situations where there's one shortstack, but it seems to break down when there are two. If A and B are both short, C may get no action on his hand. And if B and C are both short, A is at a significant disadvantage because they're not playing against each other at all.

The more I think about this, the more I become convinced that OFC tournaments should only be spread as HU matches.

If A has 4 points, and B has 8 points, player C may very well (and most likely will) only get 4 points of action on his hand. It sucks, but at least it's known prior to the hand. C knows it's probable he's only playing for 4 points. And if A and B both have 5 points, player C very well may only be looking at 1 point of action total.

If it's a cash game, Player C basically wouldn't play. He'd tell A and B to either put some more money on the table, or let's all just break the game. I mean, if you've got a 3 handed 1/2 NLHE table and 2 of the players are sitting there with $35 stacks, you're probably leaving that table. Same thing here. If two players are so short the third player isn't going to get action, then really that game needs to break or the players need to rebuy (or the stakes lowered). There's just no point to a game where 2 out of 3 players have 4 points.

And yes, that is one huge reason why tournaments that are not HU or Shootout style struggle; shootout works because the 3-person, 2-short stack or 4-person, 2 or 3 -short stack scenario comes up only a player has crushed the others, but hasn't eliminated them yet, and the hand where A/B are short and C is not, the result of the A/B part will either eliminate someone or give the other enough chips that the next hand matters; remember, in the A pays B first example, the next hand, A becomes button, so B and C pay out; so with the points at A=4, B=8, C=40; if B doesn't knock out A in the hand, the next hand B&C pay-out first, so C will have his chance to send B home.

But yes, OFC tournaments always have this concept hanging over their heads unless it's a shootout or HU matches. Not much else you can do except acknowledge it as part of the game and make sure to always know how many points each person has.

So it seems the correct answer is 4, no matter who is dealing. Short stack gets to double-up off whoever gets his action first.

What happens if A is all-in with 1 point, and he wins 1 point from B and loses 2 points to C?

Assuming C is button, A doubles up and C gets no action from him.