Also, one more thought for now. Maybe this one is to hard to program but it would also be nice.

Let's say there's a 3 way all in (could also be applicable to 4+ though). As it is now, everyone has to agree on how many times it's run. So there could be a main pot that's significantly smaller than the side pot and the player involved only in the main pot can have a controlling vote in the side pot if they decide to reject running it multiple times. That seems a bit dumb to me, especially when the side pot ends up being massive relative to the main. IMO if the two side pot players agree on 2-3 times, they should get that number of runs **if** the player only in the main loses the only run for the main. Then they'd be out and you can run a 2nd or 3rd board for the side pot.

This one does seem a bit odd in that specific scenario where one player can vote in a side pot with no involvement.

Will escalate this one to the Product Team so they can test it out.

Thanks again!
Chris