Yet Another League Specific Rules Issue... (2 Viewers)

[HiveKueen]

Another league game, another league rules issue.

Background: given our league context (points for rank finish, 8 game seasons qualifying 8 players for a season championship, etc.), we have a House rule that requires each game to be earnestly played out to a winner so points can be awarded according to rank finish. Players are allowed to agree to chop the game pot but not to prematurely end the game. If players agree to chop the pot, the prizes will be paid by the league to the players based on rank finish and the players can settle up with each other privately.

Last night a player playing in only his second game didn't want to continue playing once he reached heads up and "agreed" to take second place and quit playing. I was caught a bit off guard and didn't feel comfortable in the moment immediately enforcing the applicable rule. My bad.

But I do feel as though I need to address the situation after the fact to prevent this from happening in the future

I plan to:

1. Remind all players to review the League (TDA) and House rules under the assumption that playing in future games implies they agree to abide by them.
2. Explicitly notify new players of the House rules and get agreement to play by them before they play their first game.
3. Under the assumption that the player last night didn't read the House rules before the game (and the League didn't explicitly require him to do so, again, my bad), notify the new guy privately about the rule so that his future attendance can be assumed to be agreement to play by them going forward.
4. Be more ready to enforce this rule in future games!

I'm open to other suggestions for how to (1) ensure player understanding of House rules when they join the league and (2) handle this specific situation.

Thanks in advance,
HK

 

[ekricket]

each game to be earnestly played out to a winner

Now people have to play a specific way? Do you have guidelines as to what “earnestly” means?
I can’t decide to just start playing my hand blind and shoving every time?

Maybe you should buy you one of those electronic tables or go online and just play robots that never act human.

 

[bigdonkey]

My league has a similar rule, "no chopping points." I don't think that is the same, though, as conceding. I dont get it and i dont like it, but im not sure yiu can stop it. What's to stop said player from just folding hand after hand until he gets blinded off?

You say the rules require the game to be played out "earnestly", but what does that mean and how do you enforce it? My less skilled players will "earnestly" fold off their stacks heads up waiting on a "big" starting hand. So now are you going to dictate who is too skilled to get blinded off and which players are bad enough that you'll accept it? What about a bluff all in with a weak hand? Was it a good player making a move, or a bored player giving his chips away?

I think the only recourse is to talk to them, and if it becomes a habit and disruptive to the league/points, they get disinvited.

 

[krafticus]

I used to have a “no chopping points” rule, but then I didn’t want the game to drag out. My rule is now that when a chop is announced, the points go to the bigger stack right there. If one player has just 1 more value chip than the next player, they get the top points. As for the money, chop it how you want to

 

[Jaxen]

I used to have a “no chopping points” rule, but then I didn’t want the game to drag out. My rule is now that when a chop is announced, the points go to the bigger stack right there. If one player has just 1 more value chip than the next player, they get the top points. As for the money, chop it how you want to

Us as well. It's all you can do without the play becoming a circus (guy who wants to quit bets all but one chip, other guy raises all in and he folds then keeps going on all in until he loses). We offer a chip bonus at the championship event to players who win outright and that sometimes encourages straight up play to a winner. In our group some people care about the points, some solely about the money.

 

[HiveKueen]

... and if it becomes a habit and disruptive to the league/points, they get disinvited.

Bingo - either you are playing in our games to play in the league context or you are not a good fit for our league (there are no other league's or for-money, regularly-played tournaments in this area that I know of).

As is the case with, for example, the WSOP (WSOP rules, Section IV 40.g), the House is the sole arbiter of whether the players are playing earnestly versus chip dumping, which is expressly disallowed in both the WSOP (Section IV 40.b) and our House rules. The key is, the players know this coming into each game-we are a league and you are playing here because you want to participate in the league. If you are not interested in playing in the league, don't play at all.

Now, unlike the WSOP, I and my co-host are "the House" and we are playing in the games so there is a conflict of interest to be sure. If anyone isn't comfortable with our rulings, well, again, find another place to play. We are demonstrably making rulings with the utmost care and consideration because we care about the reputation the league has among local poker players.

For last night's game, the person who "agreed" to second place greatly benefited the post-game season point leader! While I don't think these players were colluding in the moment, this is certainly what collusion looks like on the surface. The season point leader is, of course, not at all unhappy that the person who "took" second didn't win (more points)! If this type of collusion-looking situation were allowed to occur often, the league would for sure get a bad reputation!

So, while it may seem like I should live and let live, the House's first consideration is always what's best for the league. These kinds of rules situation are a bit of a rock and a hard place for the House. Often, the final resolution is, for better or worse, "you aren't a good fit for our game".

HK

 

[HiveKueen]

What's to stop said player from just folding hand after hand until he gets blinded off?

If a desire to finish as high as possible in the game and to qualify for the championship doesn't stop a player from doing this I'm fine with that. The difference for me is that a player doing this doesn't look/feel like collusion, as a chip dumping situation does.

 

[phys]

HiveKueen's point about it looking like collusion from the outside is the real crux here. Even if the players weren't actually colluding, the optics are bad enough to undermine confidence in the league standings — and that's a problem for everyone, not just the house.

The plan to get explicit buy-in from new players before their first game is the right call. A quick "here's what our league is about, here are the house rules, does this work for you?" conversation before someone plays their first game does two things: it sets clear expectations, and it makes enforcement far less awkward when something comes up later. You're not blindsiding anyone — you're just holding them to what they already agreed to.

One thing worth adding to that process: make sure your rules document specifically addresses the heads-up chop scenario with a concrete example. Something like "Players may agree to chop the prize pool at any time, but the league will award points based on chip counts at the moment the chop is announced, with the larger stack receiving the higher point total." That kind of specificity removes the gray area that made this situation uncomfortable in the first place.

The tricky enforcement question — how do you define "earnest" play? — is genuinely hard to adjudicate in the moment. Krafticus's chip-count-at-chop-time solution sidesteps it cleanly. You don't have to judge whether someone is trying hard enough; you just snapshot the stacks when they announce and award points accordingly. Keeps it objective and hard to argue with.

 

[HiveKueen]

The tricky enforcement question — how do you define "earnest" play? — is genuinely hard to adjudicate in the moment.

Thanks for you thoughtful reply.

I have definitely updated my screening call questions and email templates to get Rules and "it's a league" buyin.

Truth be told, I want people who don't want to play out the game to self-select out of the league entirely. I'm going to stick with the "earnest play" stipulation because I think it accomplishes this. As a matter of fact, i know others have self selected out once they realized the league context was primary for each game. This issue rarely comes up and it is always a new player that re-surfaces the issue, which tells me I'm not doing a good enough job with new player "orientation" into the league!

Thanks
HK

 

[Jaxen]

Thanks for you thoughtful reply.

I have definitely updated my screening call questions and email templates to get Rules and "it's a league" buyin.

Truth be told, I want people who don't want to play out the game to self-select out of the league entirely. I'm going to stick with the "earnest play" stipulation because I think it accomplishes this. As a matter of fact, i know others have self selected out once they realized the league context was primary for each game. This issue rarely comes up and it is always a new player that re-surfaces the issue, which tells me I'm not doing a good enough job with new player "orientation" into the league!

Thanks
HK

I don't mind non-league players trying to make a cash grab in a tournament. They're usually my re-entry guys (for points you're considered out of the tournament the moment you re-enter) and "don't care about that other stuff" — they're trying to win money that night. We might see them again once or twice over the 7 events.
We hold back a portion of the prize pool up to enough to have a set amount in the pot for the championship event. If they don't cash, they never see it. Fine by me if they want to add to a pot they won't play for.
(Now, if they win, they suddenly get interested in it and we've got a hooked degen.)

 

[krafticus]

Man, I am so glad nobody around here likes the true league format. I know in my past, it's hard to get players to commit to the last few games when they are mathematically eliminated from the final table / prize pool. We've tried a few leagues around here, but we always run into issues with chops and where players just get tired after 7-8 hours and just want to head home; especially when they are heads up with a 4 or 5 times chip lead. It's because of this, I started my "hybrid" style league that (IMO) checks all of the boxes with league style play without commitments, final game payouts, but still keeps the social/fun home game vibe where players have the flexibility to play or not.

not saying what you have is wrong by any means, it just seems more like a casino/pro event instead of a home game

 

[Machine]

This is an interesting issue. I enjoy the cognitive dissonance it presents.

@ekricket brings up the valid point, obligating me into a tedious encounter, especially if I'm joining in the middle of a season, and give F all about points.

Players shouldn't be able to dictate points, and there is nothing wrong with encouraging playing it out. You'll have a very hard time providing evidence as to earnest play. The vernacular doesn't bother me, but calling it out or trying to dispute it would be a waste of time - very much a 'Loki's Wager' situation.

I get you want ppl to care about the point system and the overall league, but you also want players. The line from Rounders about the game being a skill game, I think ppl over value this ideology. There is substantial luck in the game. Sure, over time, you should be able to outrun it, but that's not always the case. Sometimes the game plays out in ways that are not ideal, and you should roll with the punches.

Maybe find a way to weight the rankings: if second place is below a certain threshold and first is above, then it affects the point values. If there is a chop, then the point values are reduced. I am not sure I would change the terms during the season, though.

 

[ekricket]

There is substantial luck in the game.

There is no luck in a cash game like there is in a tournament.

Just ask them. Thats why they don’t play tournaments, damn luck is THE only thing that keeps them from winning every time.

 

[thePokerClub]

Great topic for a thread.

In my point-based tournament seasons I have a strict no deal making rule and my rules state that players must play it all the way down to a finish.

I have never had a player argue the no deal making rule and I think it is because of the following two factors that I use in addition to points paid out by rank:

1. I payout a combination of tiered Cash AND Points.
2. I also have Bounties that earn points...so, that extra point opportunity is important to players as we have 24 players on our LeaderBoard in the current season and many are within 1 point of each other.
3. I have event sponsors that provide prize overlays which go entirely to the first place spot. This added cash to the Winner really works as a 'control' to make that 1st place spot at each Event something people want to capture.

@HiveKueen thoughts?

 

[Jaxen]

Great topic for a thread.

In my point-based tournament seasons I have a strict no deal making rule and my rules state that players must play it all the way down to a finish.

I have never had a player argue the no deal making rule and I think it is because of the following two factors that I use in addition to points paid out by rank:

1. I payout a combination of tiered Cash AND Points.
2. I also have Bounties that earn points...so, that extra point opportunity is important to players as we have 24 players on our LeaderBoard in the current season and many are within 1 point of each other.
3. I have event sponsors that provide prize overlays which go entirely to the first place spot. This added cash to the Winner really works as a 'control' to make that 1st place spot at each Event something people want to capture.

@HiveKueen thoughts?

@HiveKueen may chime in, but "strict no deal making" seems pretty heavy handed. Once had someone tell me, and it rang true, when players reach the money it's theirs to do what they wish. I get the exclusive sponsor money for the winner, but trust me, they're making deals and executing "parking lot splits" if they really want to.

 

[Knoxymoron]

I've had this come up once or twice in the past for my league. When it happened I reminded them that if they chop and end the tournament they will both be given 2nd place points. (or 3rd place if there are three players left). My guys love their points so they continued and finished the tournament. I'm not opposed to players chopping the prize money but chopping points has a direct effect on league standings so I do what little I can to try and prevent that. How a player plays after that is out of my control.
Every league is different but this is how I've chosen to run mine and it has worked for us.

 

[HiveKueen]

I'm enjoying the give and take here. This is really helping future league runners think through what they want their league to be like. There are sooooo many ways to configure a league, you just need to know what you're trying to accomplish.

@thePokerClub - generally speaking, i love the idea of using incentives to get compliance with league rules. If I was having a frequent problem with people wanting to chop toward the end I'd probably have to go this route. Fortunately, I'm not having a problem.

I think I'm not having a problem for several reasons.

First, i think it is important to note that I run the only "for money", home game, weekly tournament in town that takes in new players via marketing. If you want to play for money in a NLHE tournament not held in a scuzzy bar you must abide by the league's rules!

Second, I'm not willing to compromise the rules to attract players. I have always believed that I could build up to weekly "sold out" status without doing so and the time has arrived in the last 6 months. I'm perfectly ok if people self select out of the league for any reason.

Third, related to the previous, this is not a social league for getting together with friends. This is a competitive league and new players are always welcome to join. every new player is an unknown unless they have been recruited by a player. While we do have a great time socially while playing, the league is for like minded competitive players, people who want to win, improve and practice for bigger events. People want heads up experience and short stack experience. As such, the Season Championship and the Tournament of Champions seems to be all the incentive the players need to finish each game.

Thanks for all your inputs!
HK

 

[HiveKueen]

@HiveKueen may chime in, but "strict no deal making" seems pretty heavy handed. Once had someone tell me, and it rang true, when players reach the money it's theirs to do what they wish. I get the exclusive sponsor money for the winner, but trust me, they're making deals and executing "parking lot splits" if they really want to.

My "no chop rule" explicitly says that the House will pay the prizes to the money winners in the amounts shown on the tournament clock. If players want to chop the money after the game I can't stop this. What I can stop is players from playing at all if they don't want to play by the House rules.

 

[HiveKueen]

I've had this come up once or twice in the past for my league. When it happened I reminded them that if they chop and end the tournament they will both be given 2nd place points. (or 3rd place if there are three players left). My guys love their points so they continued and finished the tournament. I'm not opposed to players chopping the prize money but chopping points has a direct effect on league standings so I do what little I can to try and prevent that. How a player plays after that is out of my control.
Every league is different but this is how I've chosen to run mine and it has worked for us.

There are a couple of reasons I don't implement any form of chopping the points or directly assigning points versus using a formula.

First, the possibility of players using point chopping to impact how other players qualify for the season championship, aka point chopping opens the door to collusion.

Second, I use tournament director to manage player points. As far as I know there is no way to build point chopping into the way the software calculates points. If someone were to figure out a way, I would be disinclined to implement it for reason one above.

I'm gratified to hear that other league runners aren't allowing chops either. Again, if my game weren't a "in a league" game, I'd allow chops, no problem.

Cheers,
HK

 

[BigGrizz]

I don't see an issue. Dude surrendered in second place. He gets second place prize and points. No big deal. If someone wants to surrender they can. This was a situation where he was done playing, but it could also happen with something more serious. If one guy's wife is in a car accident, he has to leave. He surrenders and gets the place an eliminated player would at that time. Basically, players have a right to surrender at any time.

 

[HiveKueen]

Basically, players have a right to surrender at any time.

So, I don’t have the power to make someone keep playing to a winner. But I definitely have the power to keep them from playing in my game again. So basically the league rule is play to a winner or play somewhere else.
HK

 

[BigGrizz]

Damn. That's harsh. I even allow my player to vote close the final table if they want and everyone scores based on chip count.

 

[Machine]

What I can stop is players from playing at all if they don't want to play by the House rules.

I would be careful advertising this. You might be the only show in town, but if you motivate the wrong people, they will vote you out.

I thought chopping the money and second-place points was a good option. I would also be concerned if you're pushing it too hard, if you're going to hold a grudge, if I just take second place money and points, and stop playing.

 

[thePokerClub]

they will vote you out.

And how would they do this exactly?

 

[BigGrizz]

By going to someone else's game I would guess.

 

[thePokerClub]

Ohhhhhhh.....you are referring to a blessing in disguise. I was confused there for a second.

 

[aggie]

Wouldn’t want anyone reconsidering their house rules!

 

[BigGrizz]

This is such a wild conversation to me. My players generally don't like player elimination so its really common to have final table end with most player still in and to calculate position based on chip count. Basically a survivor tournament.

Also one table events we often play to chip count instead of elimination.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I agree, I hate when players don't play optimally. Ruins the game. One of my apes liked going all-in, but did so at the final table with a suboptimal hand. Couldn't find a chart that supported his shove so I disinvited him from future games and politely asked him not to talk to me or my wife ever again.

@dizzyChipper shoved with 95o on the bubble, I considered banning him.

 

[thePokerClub]

@HiveKueen may chime in, but "strict no deal making" seems pretty heavy handed. Once had someone tell me, and it rang true, when players reach the money it's theirs to do what they wish. I get the exclusive sponsor money for the winner, but trust me, they're making deals and executing "parking lot splits" if they really want to.

Hey @Jaxen you quoted my post so responding here.

Parking lot splits are non of my business. Fine...

But in a tournament league setting where 1-2 points can mean the difference between qualifying for a $7,000 Championship Freeroll or not.....I don't allow dealmaking. That could lead to collusion and gaming....and I don't want that nonsense.

Never had a complaint about it in my club and doubt I will. It is all in the design and structure. A club that is strictly cash, or has a smaller purse up for grabs is another story. Our Season's take 1.5-2 years to finish so it is a long term investment in time and effort.