I agree that (b) makes sense since it retains the original amount, but what's the difference between changing the prize amounts and overriding them, in terms of where you do that within the software?

I see your point about not calling it a "chop" but putting that option in the chop screen would be helpful as far as calculating the amounts, whether it's an even, uneven, chip-proportional or what have you. If 3 players were negotiating such a "chop" to play it out for either a fixed amount or a percentage of the remiaining prize pool, but split the rest 3 ways, it would be helpful to see what those amounts would be while trying to decide on it. Even if you wouldn't call it a "chop", the same calculation functionality would be very useful.

As for the other question, essentially yes, but I would think of it more as never allowing the possibility in the first place. That is, using the prize to be awarded to the next player who busts out as the minimum to be paid to each player.

In other words, let's say there are 4 players remaining, A, B, C and D, with 50%, 30%, 15% and 5% of the chips, respectively. Let's also say that the original payouts were for the top 5 finishers at $50, $100, $200, $300 and $400. Fifth place has already been paid, so there's $1,000 remaining. As it is now, the program would suggest a payout of only $50 for 4th place (5% of $1,000). Instead of simply warning the player that the amount is less than what they'd receive if they busted out next, what I am suggesting would avoid that from happening at all.

If you use the 4th place prize as a starting point for each player, and reduce the remaining prize pool by 4 * $100 = $400, then divide up the remaining $600, you'd have A getting $100 plus 50% ($400 total), B getting $100 plus $30% ($280 total), C getting $100 plus 15% ($190 total) and D getting $100 plus 5% ($130 total).

As I was writing this, I thought that I thought of a possible complication, but it really isn't. That would be if there were more people chopping than were originally set to cash. For example if there were 4 places set to be paid but 5 wanted to chop. The answer is that you would simply use $0 as the starting point, since in both cases you're using the amount that the players are already guaranteed to win (which is equivalent to saying the amount that the next player to bust out receives). It would end with the same numbers you'd get now, of course, but you wouldn't need two separate calculation methods is my point. You'd still have a variable like "guaranteed payout" but it would be $0 in this situation.

Anyway, thanks Corey. Glad to hear it's on the to do list.