California Split: Isn't There a Better Way?

One of the fascinating things about poker games is that situations inevitably occur that haven't been anticipated by the players and/or those running the games. In tournaments, the common rule is that when two or more players go out (are eliminated) on the same hand, the following occurs: (1) If it is for the lowest place to receive money, the prize is split, and (2) if it is for a higher prize, the player with more chips at the beginning of the hand is deemed to have finished higher and receives the greater payout. That seems simple enough, but let's look at what happened at a recent major tournament.

In the $10,000 buy-in tournament, the final two tables, or 18 players, were to receive money. Finishing 18th would return approximately $16,500. With 20 players left at three tables, hands were being played continuously. While the exact sequence of what happened next is a little unclear, the following description seems reasonably accurate. One player was eliminated at each of two tables. The floorperson congratulated the remaining 18 players and stated they were all in the money. As this was happening, a hand was still in progress at the third table. It is unclear exactly when this hand started in relation to the completed hands at the other two tables, where play had been halted pending consolidation from three tables to two tables. A player who was thinking she had already secured the $16,500 for 18th place went all in with a questionable hand and was eliminated. This hand was probably started at approximately the same time as the hands in which the others had been eliminated, but may have started later. Management made the reasonable ruling that under rule No. 1 above, 18th-place prize money would be divided among the three players eliminated, giving them $5,500 each. The player who went all in after the announcement was furious, and claimed, reasonably, that she would never have done so if she had known that doing so would put sole possession of 18th place in jeopardy. What do you think should have been done? I'm not sure what the right decision is. Obviously, the problem could have been avoided by making the announcement only after play at all three tables had been halted, but it didn't happen that way.

To make this situation even more interesting, one of the players backing into the tie for 18th had made a hedge. He had agreed with another player that if either of them finished in the money, he would give the other $5,000. (Here again, it is not exactly clear how this arrangement was stated.) Should he be required to pay out $5,000 of the $5,500 he received? Should it be ruled that he received only one-third of the prize money and have his hedge payment calculated at one-third of $5,000? This was my initial thinking, but I'm not sure what is really fair, especially inasmuch as neither player anticipated this ending when setting up the terms of the hedge. Does it matter if the other person also finishes in the money? Some say no, the hedge is really two separate bets. Others say yes, the hedge was created to ensure that if either finished in the money, both would get back at least $5,000, which they both did. Whatever you think is fair or just, you must admit that it compounds an already bizarre situation.

Now, let's examine the second part of the rule as stated in the opening paragraph. I have a strong feeling about this rule. Before I reveal it, I want to give two simple examples. There are three players left in both cases, and we will assume the remaining prize money is to be divided 60 percent for first, 30 percent for second, and 10 percent for third.

Case No. 1: Player No. 1 (P1) has 100 chips, player No. 2 (P2) has 100, and player No. 3 (P3) has 1. P1 has A-A, P2 has K-K, and P3 has 2-2. All three get all in before the flop. The board changes nothing, so P1 wins 60 percent, and P2 wins 30 percent because he started the hand with more chips than P3.

Case No. 2: P1 has 100 chips, P2 has 100, and P3 has 99. P1 has A-A, P2 has Q-Q, and P3 has K-K. Again, they get all in and nothing changes. Once again the rule provides the same distribution as in Case No. 1.

Are these two cases really the same? Is P2 entitled to full possession of second place in both cases? My feeling is that the split in Case No. 1 is reasonable, but extremely unfair in Case No. 2. In Case No. 2, P3 beat P2. Had P1 not been in the pot, he not only would have had a huge lead over P2, 198-to-1, he also would have had a lead over P1. Do you think it is fair for P3 to get the same 10 percent in both cases? I don't. So, what is fair, or at least less unfair? If it weren't so complicated and time-consuming, I would say that the fairest distribution of the 20 percentage point differential between second and third places is according to how many chips they would have had after the hand if they had played it heads up. In order to make it simple, I will suggest that if the player starting the hand with fewer chips would have had more chips than the other player eliminated at the same time if it had been a heads-up pot, the two places should be split between the players.

The current rule divides the prize money based on who started with more chips. My rule would divide it based on who would have ended with more chips. I think basing prize distribution on the situation at the end of a hand is more in keeping with the spirit of poker.

I think my way is fairer, but I doubt that anyone will change the rule anytime soon. Luckily, it won't matter to very many people. Multiple eliminations aren't that common. When they do occur, it is often at a stage where there is little difference in the prize money. And even when there is a significant difference, anyone may be the beneficiary of the old rule. So, in a way it is fair. I was trying to explain all of this to some friends over drinks in the bar one night, and one young lady replied, "Something is either fair or it isn't. It is impossible to have two fair methods, of which one is more fair than the other. Being fair isn't a matter of degree, like being poor. It's like being pregnant. Either you are or you aren't."

---

Sign in to your myCardPlayer account to post comments.

User Name:

Password:

Remember Me

 

Need a myCardPlayer account?

Sign Up

Lost User Name or Password?

Get Help

 

Post a comment

Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene or otherwise objectionable content; have spam, commercial or advertising content or links may be removed and may result in the loss of your MyCardPlayer ID (including e-mail). Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly. Never assume that you are completely anonymous and cannot be identified by your posts.

 

your comment