Wat a moment: when someone buys in with collateral, the person who knocks them out of the game (that is, wins the hand that eliminates them) gets their item. This applies even if said person is also ultimately knocked out. Doesn't that seem a bit off? This means that, unlike games where everyone buys in with money, the person who knocks out a collateral-buyer is guaranteed to walk out with an item that the table agreed is worth ten grand (although, only Sasha appears to be worth even nearly that much). Shouldn't the item go to the winner of the tournament? In fact, what happens if the person who wins the item is knocked out of the game? The person who put up the item did so because they didn't have the ten grand to put on the table. In that scenario, the winner of the tournament is walking out with 40 grand instead of 50, because the item is in someone else's hands, where they can't even try to pawn it for that last 10 grand.
Would you rather have to win the tournament every single time just to get the item? Plus, it would get really frustrating to win the item, only to lose it on the very last turn.
It's even more frustrating when you're trying to take the last few chips to knock out that character, then Tycho gets a good hand and takes the item you've been whittling away at getting.
Tycho can throw in $10,000 at the beginning but doesn't even have cab fare afterward?
He was probably really sure he'd win.
Why is it sometimes two identical hands result in a draw, but other times one somehow beats the other?
The latter usually occurs due to hole cards in pair/three of a kind hands. If they have the same pair (common in Texas Hold 'Em), the one that also has an ace beats the one that also has a lower card. However, this only applies to the best five cards.
Sometimes, when someone has a lousy hand in a showdown, Tycho will remark, "Playing those cards, eh? You should join us for our high-stakes 'feathers on the forehead' night sometime." ...I don't get it.