The Tournament Director Forums
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: jodybingo on July 02, 2011, 04:08:33 PM
-
My wife made a suggestion to me (which she cant remember what it was anymore) on how players can vote on a chop of the prize fund anonymously. Several times when a single player refuses a deal on prize money emotions get intense and arguments start.
Anybody have an isea how to achieve an anonymous vote, without using a pen and paper??
-
Wouldn't it be wrong to have a vote on whether to chop a pot or not, If one person doesn't want to chop, why should there decision be negated by a vote?
Some people could be pressured into accepting a chop by others. even though they might not want to.
Here is a way to stop "Chop" intimidation.
I would hold a blind vote being .
For example; give all players 2 cards, 1 red and 1 black. Black for accept, red for decline. Then they could place the card of there choice (face down) into the vote pile. and discard the others (also face down). Then the vote pile can be shuffled and turned over. then with even 1 red card in the vote pile the game would not be chopped. You could agree to have a further votes as and when players are eliminated.
Been in a few situations where the forceful people pushing for a chop can get quite aggressive and this can and does intimidate others.
-
This is exactly the answer I am looking for!!!
Thanks Mahound
-
I've seen more than one place do it like what Mahoud said with the red and black cards. Was going to post that same thing when I saw the OP.
-
I used it twice already. The players were warm to the idea and not one argument came out of a refusal to chop!!
Thanks greatly Mahound
-
Hi Jody,
Ditto the previous response from Mahound, Linda Johnson of the Poker TDA suggested this to me sometime ago as a method of a fair conclusion to the 'deal procedure' especially where there are a number of players.
The other thing you should consider is before initiating a vote is a deal in the best interests of the game and fair, for example I have saw a situation where a substantial chip leader emerged and the rest of the table suggested a deal which was unfair, not considering the players healthy advantage. The deal was immediately rejected by the house before players could vote as unfair, Sometimes it is best to 'suggest' a more fairer deal which accounts pro-rata for each players stack. You also need to consider the level of the game - how many orbits are left in play etc, as if there is little play left in the game and it has reached the crapshoot territory, even massive chip leaders are happy to evenly chop as the remainder of the game is not skill based.
http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=40.0
Regards
Stuart