Hmm...you understand I did not have 72? I was bluffing that I had it.

Heh, yeah.

That's part of why the bounty rules! Because you did it, and because you almost got away with it! That nagging thought in the back of everybody's mind fuels action on every hand.

Whose game is it? Why can't it be a standing rule?

I can see 72 not being worth it if your game is totally passive and filled with stations. If there isn't some agression and folding, then yeah, 72 ain't winning at showdown.

OK, maybe I didn't understand your last comment. If you were saying I didn't bluff big enough, you are right.

It's a moving game with long-time players. I can pretty much do what I want at my place if I lay it out ahead of time. At other venues, I have to lobby a bit.

That's pretty much the case. I never saw a 72 except where there was a flop that hit it. I think they were folding it because they didn't want to bluff.

Is this what you mean?

4BB x 5-8 opponents = 20-32BB. But if your players don't ever want to raise preflop... well, any seats open?

You stated that a player must win a hand with 7-2. A chop is not a win. If a soccer (sorry, football) match ends 1-1, did both teams win? Very simple. No bounties.

As I think it through, I won't pay if the 7-2 chops with another hand. But two 7-2s going for it? C'mon, I gotta reward that, so that they try it again! I'll chop one bounty between them.

But I can certainly understanding making a case that you have to earn it.

I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. 4BB is our most common 72 bounty. We found that 2BB was not enough. Sorry for my bad basic math.

When I play 2-7 bounty (it's kind of passe now but we still do it occasionally), you have to win the pot outright (and the first board only counts in event of running it multiple times) so this hand would not have gotten paid bounty.

pfapfap is king

this is what we/I went with in the end.

72 chopping a pot with a non 72 hand is one thing, but when both hands tabled were 72, especially considering it was a 5 handed game it seemed best by far to pay out both players and reward the 72'ness'.


One of the best parts was one player had just rebought for 50bbs after being stacked and then a few seconds later has to pay out 25 bbs in bounties. his face was priceless.


as for the bounty size, i've played in games with the bounty, but the bounty is set by idiots who 'don't think it needs to be much' when anyone with half a brain wont play unless its a large bounty because of the amount you have to risk most of the time.


Was an interesting situation and funny to see two 72s turned over even after an allin call !

you obv dont see the strategery in this prop. It works for any game, show down 72 1 time in a small pot and then play air tight and whenever you hit anything all the stations will be calling you down with less than stellar holdings=profit

Who would have ever thought it was this simple? Thank you.

ship the nickels imo

well someone as enlightened as yourself seems to understand, but other people have some trouble seeing the potential for profit

People in favor of not paying because no one "won": Should the blinds get their money back as well?

Half pot, half bounty like pfapfap said. I can understand why this is debated.

Yep. Thread has now been mined clean.

/Thread

has nothing to do with persons final made hand. if a player wins with 72 preflop, and he wins the pot, he wins th bounty.
in this situation, players should clearly chop the bounty. paying the bounty twice would really annoy me. i cant see how ppl think anyone should pay the bounty twice or not at all.

We play 7-2 hold em. 2 BB bounty /player.
You would pay both: "Winning any money with 7-2 holecards entitles the player to the 7-2 bounty." I think in your game the bounty is too high.

For some silly reason the only hand people are able to put other people on after a few drinks is 7-2. And listening to "I think you have 7-2, I raise" just gets funnier and funnier the closer we get to 6 am.

No way- I say you either scoop with Da Hammah or you ain't gettin' nuttin!

No winner, no bounty. IMO

Yeah, I'm having a difficult time reconciling my "won't pay if 7-2 chops with another hand" mentality with this. It's just... they're BOTH playing 7-2... I really want to encourage that. And no hand other than 7-2 won the pot.

I wouldn't pay the bounty on a chop.

Then, everyone pays DOUBLE bounties, full amount to each!

I'm beginning to appreciate the justice in paying one bounty if two hands win with 72, having it chopped with the pot. But not if 72 chops with a non-72 because they are playing the board.

Pay double bounty? I think not, sir!