Tourney Had a player leave mid-tourney last night (1 Viewer)

[JustinInMN]

So had an odd situation in my home tournament last night for the first time. Had a player that had to leave early when we were five-handed (two from the money). She was short stacked and perfectly willing to surrender and no argument about any refund. But the only way I knew how to handle this was to keep dealing her in until she was blinded off. (Turns out she had about enough chips to last about 2 more levels or roughly 4 orbits.)

But the issue is this. Since we do shuffle-behind, this unfortunately caused the person sitting to the absent players' left to do double shuffling and dealing duty. I mean we spread it around a bit the best we could, but that seemed to add confusion in a self dealt situation. Thankfully a player that busted previously and was still "hanging out" volunteered to step in the box and that made everything go smoother.

However, there was also a suggestion to just divide the chips and throw the bounty in the next pot. That would have been mechanically smoother, but not a rule I would introduce in the middle of the game. But it struck me as a better solution and one I could possible put in my home rules. But then my next thought was what would the multi-table implications be for such a rule, and maybe other things I am not considering. So I do want to ask my fellow PCFers for their thoughts on this.

What do you think?

 

[JMC9389]

By the book you did the right thing. Blinded down until the stack was depleted.

 

[CraigT78]

In my game we blind off the stack. The shuffling sucks, but at that point with 3 players, I'd probably just have the dealer quick shuffle and deal with one deck.

 

[JustinInMN]

By the book you did the right thing. Blinded down until the stack was depleted.

Right and that was the only way to handle it in the moment. I am more curious about possible advantage to an alternate rule.

 

[JustinInMN]

In my game we blind off the stack. The shuffling sucks, but at that point with 3 players, I'd probably just have the dealer quick shuffle and deal with one deck.

Once we had a volunteer for the box, it did make it easier. But if we didn't (and believe it or not, I was still a live player deep last night, ended up 3rd , woot, otherwise I would have 100% sat in the box) is there benefit to an alternate rule as suggested by one of my players last night?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

So had an odd situation in my home tournament last night for the first time. Had a player that had to leave early when we were five-handed (two from the money). She was short stacked and perfectly willing to surrender and no argument about any refund. But the only way I knew how to handle this was to keep dealing her in until she was blinded off. (Turns out she had about enough chips to last about 2 more levels or roughly 4 orbits.)

But the issue is this. Since we do shuffle-behind, this unfortunately caused the person sitting to the absent players' left to do double shuffling and dealing duty. I mean we spread it around a bit the best we could, but that seemed to add confusion in a self dealt situation. Thankfully a player that busted previously and was still "hanging out" volunteered to step in the box and that made everything go smoother.

However, there was also a suggestion to just divide the chips and throw the bounty in the next pot. That would have been mechanically smoother, but not a rule I would introduce in the middle of the game. But it struck me as a better solution and one I could possible put in my home rules. But then my next thought was what would the multi-table implications be for such a rule, and maybe other things I am not considering. So I do want to ask my fellow PCFers for their thoughts on this.

What do you think?

I think you ruled fairly and brought up a good point for next time; I'm fine with house rules stating that if a player resigns their bounty is put into the next pot and their stack is live until blinded out. Personally I would not divide up their chips, stack is live, but if no one cares and it makes the game smoother? Chop it, whatever.


In my mind, the bounty can also be collected, since it wasn't earned and kinda defeats the meaning of the word. Believe that's what I would do, chip either goes to tournament winner or not collected at all.

 

[Mandos]

To me having a dead stack sitting at the table gives a pretty big positional advantage to certain players at the table. Would just removing the stack from play altogether be an option? I don't really see the drawback of doing that.
I think bounty to the eventual tournament winner makes sense as a house rule.

 

[Nymor]

One rule I've seen used when you know for absolute certainty that the player won't be returning is to speed up their blinding out by having their stack post a big blind ante every hand. Seemed to work well but not sure whether that would be ok when more than 1 table and we didn't have a bounty to consider.

 

[Mandos]

Thinking more about a situation earlier in the tournament with multiple tables still, I think my preference would again be to just remove the stack from play. Yes, it would be more correct for the stack to be blinded off as discussed at length in this thread (https://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=lbp0mbnola73ti25dao4lpqlk2&topic=673.15) but at a home game where I'm trying to play and run the tournament I don't see a big issue with just removing the stack from play, adjusting tables as needed and moving on.

If the player surrendering their stack is already in the money I would give them the payout they would have if they were busting out instead of surrendering.

 

[BGinGA]

To me having a dead stack sitting at the table gives a pretty big positional advantage to certain players at the table. Would just removing the stack from play altogether be an option? I don't really see the drawback of doing that.
I think bounty to the eventual tournament winner makes sense as a house rule.

Another solution is to deal the spot no cards, but deduct both blinds from the stack as the dealer button passes by (the blind chips are removed from play). The player's bounty chip goes in the last pot when the player's stack is eliminated.

I think it's a better alternative than blinding down the stack (which favors certain players positionally), or than removing the stack entirely (which leaves no opportunity for the player to return later and continue play). And it has zero impact on shuffling or dealing.

 

[CraigT78]

Once we had a volunteer for the box, it did make it easier. But if we didn't (and believe it or not, I was still a live player deep last night, ended up 3rd , woot, otherwise I would have 100% sat in the box) is there benefit to an alternate rule as suggested by one of my players last night?

The only alternate rule I'd have is that the stack gets removed from play if the play is certain they are not returning.

 

[Coyotesetter]

Another solution is to deal the spot no cards, but deduct both blinds from the stack as the dealer button passes by (the blind chips are removed from play). The player's bounty chip goes in the last pot when the player's stack is eliminated.

I think it's a better alternative than blinding down the stack (which favors certain players positionally), or than removing the stack entirely (which leaves no opportunity for the player to return later and continue play). And it has zero impact on shuffling or dealing.

BGinGA always has the best solutions/answers. Sometimes I wonder what he looks like. I figure pure white light that smells faintly of cinnamon, but that's just a wild guess. In the end, I don't need to know.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think it's a better alternative than blinding down the stack (which favors certain players positionally), or than removing the stack entirely (which leaves no opportunity for the player to return later and continue play). And it has zero impact on shuffling or dealing.

This isn't bad, and zeros in on my concern about the issues related to self-dealing.

I do supposed the player that is tasked with the "double-duty" is the one that is benefitting from the position.

A possible middle ground? Keep the approach of removing BB + SB from the absent stack when the button passes the spot (or for that matter when the BB passes that spot), but distribute the chips evenly to the other players at the table to keep them in play? It probably doesn't matter as much as I think to just remove them from play, but there is some mental hiccup I have about just disappearing chips from a tournament. (Except I do allow the surrender rule at the end of the freezeout, so I guess this could be a cousin to that.)

 

[JustinInMN]

Thinking more about a situation earlier in the tournament with multiple tables still, I think my preference would again be to just remove the stack from play. Yes, it would be more correct for the stack to be blinded off as discussed at length in this thread (https://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=lbp0mbnola73ti25dao4lpqlk2&topic=673.15) but at a home game where I'm trying to play and run the tournament I don't see a big issue with just removing the stack from play, adjusting tables as needed and moving on.

If the player surrendering their stack is already in the money I would give them the payout they would have if they were busting out instead of surrendering.

So I read through this thread. I guess the reason I would still be pro-blinding-off is that sitting there and folding every hand is essentially the same thing, and certainly it's within the rules. Players will do this on the money bubble. Unless you have a huge stack where the risk won't jeopardize you, there is usually not an incentive to risk going broke at the bubble, even with AA if there is anyone with < 10BB, to put up an extreme example. (But I suppose, chalk this up to another reason I don't love tournaments in the first place.)

I kind of like the idea of dealing the absent player in and blinding them off only for a certain number of orbits (say after missing all hands including 3 BBs) or levels as suggested in this thread before pulling the stacks.

 

[JustinInMN]

One rule I've seen used when you know for absolute certainty that the player won't be returning is to speed up their blinding out by having their stack post a big blind ante every hand. Seemed to work well but not sure whether that would be ok when more than 1 table and we didn't have a bounty to consider.

That would probably deplete them too fast in situations where they might expect to return, in my opinion.

 

[Kain8]

BGinGA always has the best solutions/answers. Sometimes I wonder what he looks like. I figure pure white light that smells faintly of cinnamon, but that's just a wild guess. In the end, I don't need to know.

 

[Nymor]

That would probably deplete them too fast in situations where they might expect to return, in my opinion.

"when you know for absolute certainty that the player won't be returning"

 

[DoubleEagle]

Several years ago in a five-table tournament, I had a player need to leave during the first level due to a family emergency. He was not coming back. I refunded his $100 buy-in and picked up his stack.

Normally, I would just blind the player out. But this was an exception.

 

[Mandos]

So I read through this thread. I guess the reason I would still be pro-blinding-off is that sitting there and folding every hand is essentially the same thing, and certainly it's within the rules. Players will do this on the money bubble. Unless you have a huge stack where the risk won't jeopardize you, there is usually not an incentive to risk going broke at the bubble, even with AA if there is anyone with < 10BB, to put up an extreme example. (But I suppose, chalk this up to another reason I don't love tournaments in the first place.)

I kind of like the idea of dealing the absent player in and blinding them off only for a certain number of orbits (say after missing all hands including 3 BBs) or levels as suggested in this thread before pulling the stacks.

I would be willing to blind out someone close-ish to the bubble at the final table, probably using the method @BGinGA described (for the sake of a rule, I think i would blind out any stack abandoned at the final table). If I have someone leave early enough in the tournament that we're still multi-table, I'm just going to pull the stack so I don't have to deal with it. The odds of that stack making the money are low enough that it's not worth the hassle of blinding them out for 1+ hours (plus potentially moving the stack to new seats, etc), and it makes for a worse experience for everyone involved in the tournament. I understand that's not what would happen at a casino with a TD and dedicated dealers, but in a home game setting if you can't be bothered to stay until the bubble you can't expect a payout.

 

[JustinInMN]

So taking the feedback, how about this for a house-rule modification?

Departed players

1) A player will be considered "departed" if they are not present for a sequence of consecutive hands including missing the big blind for three consecutive orbits.

2) A departed player will no longer be dealt in, nor will the button stop at the player's seat. When the seat of a departed player would otherwise be due for the big blind, the departed player will instead have removed from their stack* an amount totaling all blinds and antes for the upcoming orbit whenever the BB passes over a departed player's seat. A departed player is eliminated if this total exceeds the number of chips remaining in the departed player's stack. Other players will post blinds and antes according to usual rules by considering the seat of a departed player as if it were simply unoccupied.

(*And possibly redistributed )

3) A departed player that returns to play may resume immediately except in the position immediately to the left of the button, in which case the player must wait one hand for the button to pass his seat before being dealt in. (Note, a departed player that has already missed the BB for the current orbit is already precluded from taking the button on the current orbit per rule 2 above.)

4) If applicable, the bounty of an eliminated departed player is awarded to the winner of the next hand after the departed players' last chips are removed from his stack. (Alternate rule, the bounty of an eliminated departed player is awarded to the first place finisher of the tournament.)

NOTE: I have chosen the word "departed" in place of "absent" since "absent" has other uses in TDA rules.

So the idea is blind off the players as normal for 2+ orbits. Stop dealing them in once they have missed the 3rd BB in a row and start removing chips from their stack every time the BB passes the seat in the manner @BGinGA suggests. (Though I am instead removing the chips on the hand where the BB is "missed" instead of on the button pass. So slightly sooner.)

 

[JustinInMN]

Several years ago in a five-table tournament, I had a player need to leave during the first level due to a family emergency. He was not coming back. I refunded his $100 buy-in and picked up his stack.

Normally, I would just blind the player out. But this was an exception.

I would probably do the same thing. This seems an obvious spirit of the game versus letter of the rule sort of decision. There would be other factors, but presuming it hasn't been a lot of stack movement (especially downward), no problem with this decision.

 

[Colquhoun]

Yeah I like the idea of blinding off the stack, and putting the bounty into the final all-in pot that the gone player has entered . Sometimes, the gone player actually wins the blinds back and can get more hands. The bounty should be pulled back and again go into the next all-in pot, because it means that the bounty finally goes to the player that truly knocked them out.

 

[BGinGA]

Theoretically, an absent player cannot win a hand. Why? Tournament rules state:

-- cards dealt to an empty seat are ruled dead and killed by the dealer upon completion of the deal and prior to any player action
-- a player must show cards at showdown to win a pot

Thus, an absent player who has eventually become all-in (due to being blinded-out over time) cannot win their final all-in hand, because they have no live cards at the showdown.

The fallacy otherwise has been perpetuated by online play, but that's not how it works in live tournaments.

 

[Taghkanic]

If there were only four players left, and the stack was gone in four orbits, that’s only ~16 hands max, which really doesn’t sound like much of a hassle to me…

But it could have happened much earlier, so maybe it’s worth coming up with another solution.

I like the idea of having them ante every hand whatever amount makes sure every position at the table gets the same shot at them.

To make an easy example, say someone leaves behind a 12K stack, and there are 6 people still at the table. Put 2K in pre every hand and be done with it.

It might get complicated if the blinds go up before the stack is gone, but whatever.

If there are multiple tables, that might seem unfair, but tourneys are never totally fair. You might get seated with three fish while another table has three pros. It all evens out in the long run (though this one would take a much longer run than most).

 

[BGinGA]

So taking the feedback, how about this for a house-rule modification?

Departed players

1) A player will be considered "departed" if they are not present for a sequence of consecutive hands including missing the big blind for three consecutive orbits.

2) A departed player will no longer be dealt in, nor will the button stop at the player's seat. When the seat of a departed player would otherwise be due for the big blind, the departed player will instead have removed from their stack* an amount totaling all blinds and antes for the upcoming orbit whenever the BB passes over a departed player's seat. A departed player is eliminated if this total exceeds the number of chips remaining in the departed player's stack. Other players will post blinds and antes according to usual rules by considering the seat of a departed player as if it were simply unoccupied.

(*And possibly redistributed )

3) A departed player that returns to play may resume immediately except in the position immediately to the left of the button, in which case the player must wait one hand for the button to pass his seat before being dealt in. (Note, a departed player that has already missed the BB for the current orbit is already precluded from taking the button on the current orbit per rule 2 above.)

4) If applicable, the bounty of an eliminated departed player is awarded to the winner of the next hand after the departed players' last chips are removed from his stack. (Alternate rule, the bounty of an eliminated departed player is awarded to the first place finisher of the tournament.)

NOTE: I have chosen the word "departed" in place of "absent" since "absent" has other uses in TDA rules.

So the idea is blind off the players as normal for 2+ orbits. Stop dealing them in once they have missed the 3rd BB in a row and start removing chips from their stack every time the BB passes the seat in the manner @BGinGA suggests. (Though I am instead removing the chips on the hand where the BB is "missed" instead of on the button pass. So slightly sooner.)

Although your solution to remove the applicable blinds/antes amount when the absent player is in the BB position is more techically correct, we have found that the empty chair's stack reduction is more easily recognizable as being "due to pay"when the dealer button skips over the empty stack/seat.

In practice, either method will have little effect on the outcome, so long as it is consistently applied.

 

[BGinGA]

To make an easy example, say someone leaves behind a 12K stack, and there are 6 people still at the table. Put 2K in pre every hand and be done with it.

The problem with this approach is that those chips were bought and paid for (plus possibly won during previous play), and in essence belong to the absent player until they have been legitimately lost through either play or forced bets (blinds), or until/if the player is disqualified for cause.

You can't just indiscriminately commandeer (or redistribute) somebody's tournament stack, unless they have been disqualified. Being absent from the table is typically not grounds for disqualification. Tournament rules typically state that the stacks of disqualified players are immediately removed from play.

 

[Taghkanic]

The problem with this approach is that those chips were bought and paid for (plus possibly won during previous play), and in essence belong to the absent player until they have been legitimately lost through either play or forced bets (blinds), or until/if the player is disqualified for cause.

You can't just indiscriminately commandeer (or redistribute) somebody's tournament stack, unless they have been disqualified. Being absent from the table is typically not grounds for disqualification. Tournament rules typically state that the stacks of disqualified players are immediately removed from play.

In this case, there does not seem to have been any ambiguity that the player was done for the night. If there is any doubt, the host can always ask the player explicitly if they are abandoning their stack and not returning.

If the answer is “I might come back,” then of course they have to just be blinded out normally.

The house could of course institute rules that a certain number of missed hands or orbits constitutes a forfeiture, but I’d want to make sure everyone knew the rule change in advance of the next game.

In the case of a player who is either not returning or misses some deadline to return I think it would introduce more potential unfairness to remove their chips entirely than to blind them out fast.

 

[MeridianFC]

I would Blind off until next level then pull chips? Is there a problem with that? Doesn’t account for Bounty but I’ve never played with one (I am thinking about adding it though).

 

[moose]

Everyone is treating the away player as though they have forfeited any chance of cashing. The stack must be blinded out in order as live players may be eliminated while the away players stack is still live, putting the away player ITM. Proper accounting is also important as relative stack size also determines order of finish when the away player is eventually blinded out as multiple players may be all in during that hand.

Also if you are doing shuffle behind, it is the player to the right of the away player that does double duty. Do you mean shuffle ahead?

If you are shuffling behind, the player two places to the right should shuffle twice so that the player who was just dealer can deal for the dead button. Players to the left of the dead button should never be dealing.

 

[JustinInMN]

I would Blind off until next level then pull chips? Is there a problem with that? Doesn’t account for Bounty but I’ve never played with one (I am thinking about adding it though).

Depending on level times this could be pretty short. In my game we use 18 min levels which should mean the button hits every seat once per orbit. I wanted to pick a time frame that was at least two orbits. This protects a player that maybe has to step away for a call that turns into 25 minutes.

Theoretically, an absent player cannot win a hand. Why? Tournament rules state:

-- cards dealt to an empty seat are ruled dead and killed by the dealer upon completion of the deal and prior to any player action
-- a player must show cards at showdown to win a pot

Thus, an absent player who has eventually become all-in (due to being blinded-out over time) cannot win their final all-in hand, because they have no live cards at the showdown.

The fallacy otherwise has been perpetuated by online play, but that's not how it works in live tournaments.

Indeed. I mostly wanted a different word to make clear this instance of an empty seat never receives cards.