I just caught up on the game thread postings where historical tie situations were discussed. I'm not a fan of the contrived tie, and the present rule eliminates it and that's a good thing. We probably won't see another otherwise winnable game wind up like this. The right person won this time for placing the proper double up wager IMHO.BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:22 pmMy point was that the primary reason for the rule change was, presumably, to eliminate the strategic offering of a tie by a leader who could otherwise lock out his opponents. There's no good reason (that I can see, anyway) to eliminate ties that happen either by accident or because of a trailing player's bad wager. Your "split the money" rule eliminates the incentive to offer a tie rather than take an undisputed victory.twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:06 pmBut wasn't the tie in the first tiebreaker game also unnecessary?BigDaddyMatty wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:10 pmI like the first part of this a lot. The second part is unnecessary. If co-champions split the first- and second-place money, it would strongly discourage the Keith/Arthur strategy without messing with those situations where ties occur naturally.twelvefootboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:39 amProposed solution: IF two players enter FJ with a tie (and the lead), and exit with a tie (and the win), they both advance but split the sum of their final amount + the $2k second place money.
In any other case of a final tie (including a double up from third), the player with the largest bet wins (way to go, third!).
It will be a disappointment to see a double tie at end of DJ wind up with this ill-designed tiebreak because of good betting to win. I've always liked the elegance of pooling place money for ties ever since I saw it used for golf payouts.