The Vagaries of Hand-for-Hand

The hand-for-hand stage is everyone’s favorite and least favorite time in any poker tournament. Short stacks love it because they’ve almost reached the money, but they hate it because the stress of a possible bubble elimination looms over their every decision. Big stacks love it because they get to steal from scared short stacks with near impunity, but they hate it because each hand takes forever and rising blinds can quickly limit a big stack’s power. Whether we love it or hate it, I think it’s worth asking a more basic question about hand-for-hand play: when should we have it, and why?

In poker tournaments, hand-for-hand play occurs at the money bubble to help clarify who gets paid and who doesn’t. Dealers are instructed to deal one hand at each table, and to wait for all tables to finish before dealing another hand. Most players assume (I certainly do) that hand-for-hand is employed because money is at stake and the house wants to see it distributed fairly. But if that’s the case, then why isn’t hand-for-hand in place at every pay jump? Or for that matter, why isn’t it in place for the entire tournament? By the time of the money bubble, it’s entirely possible that some tables have played twice as many hands as others. Why does it suddenly become important that, for the next few minutes, all the tables play the same number of hands?

At the World Series of Poker main event, there were 21 pay jumps between the money bubble and the final table, ten of which represented bigger increases than the initial min-cash payout of $15,000. In none of those cases was play scheduled to go hand-for-hand, and for the most part, none of them did. But with 11 players left in the main event, there was a $230,000 pay jump at the next elimination. This is unusual for poker tournaments, as typically 11th and 10th place pay the same. But the WSOP guaranteed $1 million to everyone in the November Nine, which would’ve left an enormous jump between 10th and 9th were the rest of the structure left unchanged. So, 10th place was adjusted, creating the new jump. According to WSOP Tournament Director Jack Effel, when none of the 11 players busted after 71 minutes of action, the decision was made to go hand-for-hand after the players returned from a break. “Both tables played at an average rate of 3-4 minutes per hand. The outer table did play a bit slower, but that is always going to be the case when there are six-handed and five-handed tables, money jump or not,” Effel said via email.

The decision to go hand-for-hand seems reasonable enough to me, but I’m still struggling to understand what was special about this 11-handed case. Let’s go back a few minutes earlier, with 13 players left. Again there was a substantial pay jump, and again there were two tables with different numbers of players (one seven-handed and one six-handed, of course). By most all reports, the outer table was playing slower, and the situation came to a head when Matt Guan was all in on the main table, while at the outer table George McDonald faced his own all-in decision. It wasn’t until Guan busted that McDonald announced his decision to call with his pocket queens. No one but McDonald knows for sure if he was waiting for the result of Guan’s hand before acting, but I doubt he was seriously considering three-bet/folding two queens to Zvi Stern (who, incidentally, turned out to have ten-eight suited). It sure looks like McDonald was making sure to secure 12th place, which was $115,325 more than 13th place, before acting. Regardless, he did nothing wrong—the problem here isn’t McDonald. The problem is a set of rules that encourages stalling.

With hand-for-hand selectively applied, it can be confusing to know for sure who gets paid what and why, especially for newer players. “I assumed they’d split the pay jump if two players busted at the same time,” Matt Guan told me over email. And really, is that assumption so off base? What if both players had gone all in at the same time, but one dealer had run out the deck faster? Surely in that case the payouts would’ve been split, right? It’s a very fine line between that scenario and one where players at different tables bust within one hand of each other, especially since, when hand-for-hand play is in effect, the timing of bustouts has no bearing.

And is there anyone who actually wants stalling to be a good tournament strategy? “It occurred to me that stalling would be more profitable than playing quickly, but it’s not something I wanted to do,” Guan said. “I think it’s bad for the game and it bothers me when other players do it. I just don’t think poker should be played that way.” Amen.

To combat stalling, but bearing in mind that there’s only so much we can ask of our overworked tournament staffs, I have a suggestion. Implement hand-for-hand at the money bubble, as we do now, but also at any pay jump that’s bigger than the money bubble. I think this guideline would be easy to follow, and in most tournaments the change wouldn’t have a major impact. At the most recent WSOP Circuit event (Horseshoe Baltimore) for example, the only new hand-for-hand would’ve occurred with ten players left—a crucially important moment that deserves the extra scrutiny. All other pay jumps (with 13 left, with 16 left, and so on) were smaller than the min-cash amount, and would’ve been unaffected by my suggestion.

Of course, this idea wouldn’t end stalling entirely. “I’ve seen times during hand-for-hand on the bubble when players have stalled until action at all other tables is complete,” Effel said. “Sometimes they want to sneak into the money. Sometimes they only want to go all in if there’s a chance to split a min-cash. Hand-for-hand or not, there’s always a possibility that someone will try to take advantage of the situation.” True enough. But hand-for-hand certainly reduces stalling, and consistently playing hand-for hand at the biggest pay jumps would clear up a lot of confusion for inexperienced players. The Matt Guans of the future wouldn’t have to worry about whether to stall, but instead would be free to focus all their attention where it belongs—on playing their best poker.

A new hand-for-hand policy that brings more clarity and less stalling to today’s poker tournaments is something we can all get behind. Let’s make it happen. ♠

Matt Matros is the author of The Making of a Poker Player, and a three-time WSOP bracelet winner. He is also a featured coach for cardrunners.com.