Only if you had more chips than the guy that got knocked out.
For instance if you had 1000, the other guy who came 2nd had 1500 and the guy who busted had 1200.
All 3 of you go all in but you physicaly cannot knock out the 3rd guy because you have less chips than him, so in effect if you win, you take 1000 chips off each of them, and if the 2nd guy has a better hand than the 3rd guy, he will win his final 200 chips and take the bounty.
by the sounds of it you were the short stack of the 3 which means there is no way you can win the bounty as you cant knock anyone out. the other player who came 2nd in the hand will have had the other player covered meaning the bounty goes to them even if the side pot was only worth 10 chips
In a 3 way pot which i won the guy who came 2nd got the bounty? surly i should get the bounty for winning the hand? Posted by Wayne_B73
I'll give you an example.
A guy with 1,000 chips goes all in with pocket 5's.
A guy with 5,000 chips goes all in with pocket 7's.
You go all in with 2,000 chips and AA.
The board runs out, 232 KQ.
Even though you had the best hand, the guy with the biggest chip stack is credited with the bounty because he had everyone covered. So because the guy had 77 which beat 55, and had you covered in chips, he gets the bounty of the 55 guy. I'm not sure if this is a fair way of doing it but I'm pretty sure it's correct.
the reason he will get the bounty is you must have had a smaller chip stack than the villian who went out 2nd only comes when the loosing chip stack had to be split between 1st and second meaning the winning was smaller that the loosing chip stack so the rest went to 2nd place.
In Response to Bounty Hunter head prize? : I'll give you an example. A guy with 1,000 chips goes all in with pocket 5's. A guy with 5,000 chips goes all in with pocket 7's. You go all in with 2,000 chips and AA. The board runs out, 232 KQ. Even though you had the best hand, the guy with the biggest chip stack is credited with the bounty because he had everyone covered. So because the guy had 77 which beat 55, and had you covered in chips, he gets the bounty of the 55 guy. I'm not sure if this is a fair way of doing it but I'm pretty sure it's correct. Posted by percival09
I think this is wrong. You have the short stack covered so you get the bounty. If you had 999 (not 2000) then the guy with 5000 would get the bounty.
Oh yes thanks guys, i forgot i was actually the small stack before betting took place. me 5k 2nd 17k 3rd 6k I won the pot around 18k and the guy in 2nd won 13k Thanks for the help guys.. Posted by Wayne_B73
The guy in second lost 4k in total. He lost 5k to you but gained 1k from the side pot and also the bounty.
Comments
For instance if you had 1000, the other guy who came 2nd had 1500 and the guy who busted had 1200.
All 3 of you go all in but you physicaly cannot knock out the 3rd guy because you have less chips than him, so in effect if you win, you take 1000 chips off each of them, and if the 2nd guy has a better hand than the 3rd guy, he will win his final 200 chips and take the bounty.
by the sounds of it you were the short stack of the 3 which means there is no way you can win the bounty as you cant knock anyone out. the other player who came 2nd in the hand will have had the other player covered meaning the bounty goes to them even if the side pot was only worth 10 chips
the reason he will get the bounty is you must have had a smaller chip stack than the villian who went out 2nd only comes when the loosing chip stack had to be split between 1st and second meaning the winning was smaller that the loosing chip stack so the rest went to 2nd place.
You have the short stack covered so you get the bounty. If you had 999 (not 2000) then the guy with 5000 would get the bounty.
The guy in second lost 4k in total. He lost 5k to you but gained 1k from the side pot and also the bounty.