Tourney Player left mid tourney, what to do? (1 Viewer)

[DrDysfunctional]

We had a player that had to leave mid tournament the other day, kids weren't behaving at home so he had to go. We've never had that happen, were a bit shocked and a little lost on what to do. What would you do with his remaining chips?

A little info if it makes a difference in your decision... Starting stacks are 2000, there was 28,000 chips in play that night, 2 tables, when the player had to leave his stack was about 1200, we we're in the 9th level with blinds at 100/200 and there was 11 players left (including him.) My tables hold eight players each.

My first thought was he's forfeiting the tournament and all his chips should be removed. One guy fought that hard, he thought that the remaining chips should be divided up among the players at that table, no way I was going to let that happen! If he was still playing and had to switch tables those chips could end up at either table, in anyone's hands. I temporarily walked the guy upstairs to make sure everything was ok with him and his family. When I came back downstairs, the guys decided the best solution was to just blind him out. They all agreed on it so I said fine, that's what we'll do. I also said then you have to treat him like he's here, you have to deal him cards each time and someone will have to deal for him when it would've been his turn. They agreed with it and we moved on.

What would you have done?

 

[Beakertwang]

Blinding him off is the right thing to do.

 

[DaneWoj]

Blind him out is the only correct way to do things.

 

[BGinGA]

Blinding him off is the right thing to do.

Blind him out is the only correct way to do things.

^^ Both correct. And if he returns, with chips still remaining on the table, he can continue to play.

However, to avoid having to deal cards to the empty seat (or give a positional advantage to any of the remaining players), you can skip his seat each deal, and remove the appropriate blind amounts from play when the button passes over his seat. Much better approach imo, and nobody benefits from or is harmed by his departure.

 

[asian bino]

And don't invite him back.

 

[Outkicked]

Set his car on fire so he can’t leave, the kids will eventually get tired and fall asleep, all honesty blind him away.........

 

[DrDysfunctional]

remove the appropriate blind amounts from play when the button passes over his seat

Are you saying to just remove his blinds from play completely?

 

[David Dobbs]

Blinding him off is the right thing to do.

Exactly, that's the right thing to do.

 

[BGinGA]

Are you saying to just remove his blinds from play completely?

Correct. Much better than continually giving the same player button position with a larger chance than others of collecting them every time, or adding them to the current pot (same problem).

 

[Jeevansluck]

Same as playing online. If you stop playing...your chips just get blinded in until you return and continue play...or you end up all in sooner or later. That's been my experience anyways

 

[DoubleEagle]

If he says he is not coming back, I pick them up. Not fair to the players at the other tables who dont have a chance to steal his blinds. If a player just disappears during the tourney, then yes, blind him off.

 

[CraigT78]

I had a guy who forgot he had a Smashing Pumpkins concert to go to my last deep-stack. We blinded him off (into the pot) - @BGinGA you are saying it would be better to remove the chips from play? Isn't that a detriment to the others each time he is a SB or BB, as that's chips missing from the pot? Curious as my rules do not address this, and as it has happened, I would like to add one for next year. Can we discuss?

 

[BGinGA]

I had a guy who forgot he had a Smashing Pumpkins concert to go to my last deep-stack. We blinded him off (into the pot) - @BGinGA you are saying it would be better to remove the chips from play? Isn't that a detriment to the others each time he is a SB or BB, as that's chips missing from the pot? Curious as my rules do not address this, and as it has happened, I would like to add one for next year. Can we discuss?

No blinds are 'missing' from any pot, as the empty seat stack is simply skipped -- it gets no cards, and it posts no blinds. But every time the button paases the seat, the amount of the sb and bb are removed from the stack (and taken out of play).

This maintains the balance of the table -- nobody gets a positional advantage on the absent player, which would happen if the stack actually posted blinds -- but the appropriate amount of blinds are still deducted from his/her stack once per orbit.

We use the same format for late-arriving players. An 'absent' or 'reserved' button is placed in front of the stack as a reminder to a) not deal it cards, and b) deduct blinds as the button passes over.

 

[Lars]

I can see why skipping the player and pulling his blinds from the table would make the game go smoother. I am wondering what would happen in a Vegas tourney if you left the table? I assume your blinds go into the pot each time and you are dealt cards and folded?

 

[Trihonda]

For a person who leaves after paying entry, but still has chips? I blind them out.

However, I’ve had people, who promised to show up, but indicate they’ll be a few minutes late. I place their stack (randomly seated by my tourney app), and when they don’t show by the first break, I remove the stacks from play.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

I'm surprised at the number of people in the "blind him out" camp. I'm pretty sure a stack that is announced as abandoned should be removed from play.
Curious: if playing with bounties and blinding out, does the bounty hit the last Diderot as well?

 

[DrDysfunctional]

So if there's a chance of him coming back, blind him out. If he's definitely not coming back remove his chips from the table.

 

[Gobbs]

No blinds are 'missing' from any pot, as the empty seat stack is simply skipped -- it gets no cards, and it posts no blinds. But every time the button paases the seat, the amount of the sb and bb are removed from the stack (and taken out of play).

This maintains the balance of the table -- nobody gets a positional advantage on the absent player, which would happen if the stack actually posted blinds -- but the appropriate amount of blinds are still deducted from his/her stack once per orbit.

We use the same format for late-arriving players. An 'absent' or 'reserved' button is placed in front of the stack as a reminder to a) not deal it cards, and b) deduct blinds as the button passes over.

Admittedly, I fought this at first, but I was wrong. This is a far superior method.

If the player paid an entry fee, you can’t remove his/her chips unless you have that as a house rule and the players know it going in. So, you have to blind off the chips. My solution, as per most rule sets, would be to simply treat the stack as if the player was there (and playing super tight). However, doing so gives the player to the right of the dead stack a tremendous advantage by effectively making him/her the button twice.

At first, my thought was, “So what? That’s the luck of the draw. Seating is random.” Then, I took another look at the massive advantage that a player can gain by sitting right of the dead stack, especially in a two-table tournament when there are about 12 players left. With six players at a table, the player to the right of the dead stack gets the effective button 1/3 of the time. That seems just too much of an advantage to me and not in the best interest of the game.

So, upon further consideration, I realized @BGinGA came up with a solution that fixed the problem with no downside (unlike the BBA that obviously has more than one). So, I’m definitely a proponent of this method now.

 

[Frogzilla]

Its standard to give a stack cards, have it post blinds and antes as normal. The only exception is if disqualified... then you would just take chips out of play.

If it gives the players at his table an advantage, so be it. That’s poker. Seating was done randomly, yes? Then it’s 100% fair.

 

[Ben8257]

In my opinion his buy in is still in the pot, if the tables are even players then he should be blinded into the pot... taking those chips out of play that have been paid for is a disadvantage to others at that particular table... when tables are combined the total number of chips from that table is less and there for those players haven't had the same opportunity to advance, also means shorter rotation and more blinds on remaining players, just like loosing a player which occurs as tournament progresses but I disagree that the chips should be taken out of play, advantage to right player yes but also every other player has the opportunity to defend/steal those blinds... I vote blind him in, although I also have never had a player leave mid game.

 

[BGinGA]

@BGinGA came up with a solution that fixed the problem with no downside

Well, there is one small downside: the blind amounts removed from the absent player's stack cannot be won and added to another player's stack, so in theory, the absent player incurs less of a penalty than if the stack actually posted blinds. It's probably more fair to the other players to remove two big blinds each orbit (vs 1.5) to make up the negative deficit. And it's admittedly a little easier to manage with a dedicated dealer than pass-the-deal.

Its standard to give a stack cards, have it post blinds and antes as normal. The only exception is if disqualified... then you would just take chips out of play.

If it gives the players at his table an advantage, so be it. That’s poker. Seating was done randomly, yes? Then it’s 100% fair.

Random doesn't necessarily equate to fair, and there are often ways to negate the inequities caused by random. This is one. Why would one argue in favor of one or two random people having an advantage over all of the others over a long period of time, if it could be easily avoided entirely?

Using this system, antes are always put into the pot every hand by the absent player stack.

 

[TexRex]

I think BG is right. I also like Dr. Dysfunctional's idea, but with a caveat. The caveat is it should be in the house rules.

The only proper way to remove his chips from play is if there is a specific written house rule stating that if a player leaves with no intention of returning, his chips are removed from play. That is written into our rules because several years ago, we had a player with a fairly large stack have to abandon the game (emergency). We blinded the stack until we got to the bubble. When it got down to the bubble, the remaining players agreed that for them to all be in the money, they would just not play hands. We stopped the clock and figured the missing player's stack. It would take two full blind levels to blind his stack. However, if players simply took the first two cards and folded to the BB, hands would go much faster. When they all said they would do that and not look at cards, one proposed simply removing his stack from play, and play would continue from there. All other players agreed. That was an acceptable way to make a rule change for that game, so we did it. Then I wrote it into our rules when we next updated the rules.

That was a unique situation. He was called suddenly for an emergency. If he went to the location and returned, it would be over 3 hours before he got back. We didn't have that much time left as we only anticipated going another 1-1.5 hours at the most. When he left, he intended to abandon the game. He didn't expect a payout.

We base the "abandonment rule" on whether a player intends to return within the game's time frame and his current chip stack subject to blinding. It's only come up one other time, and in that case the chip stack was too low to survive blinding for the time he would be gone at at the minimum.

Another reason for the rule was only a theoretical situation but based on an actual situation. We had a player come with the hope of building up a large chip stack before he left to go play in a bigger game. Then he was hoping to have a stack large enough to be blinded into the money. He didn't make it that far. His plan was revealed at the other table (where I wasn't). No one told him of our rule, but I would have if I'd heard him say it.

Why I don't like blinding into the pot
I used to play in a game where if a player told the host they were coming, they got a stack and were assigned a table. The stack was blinded in. If they didn't notify the host they were coming, but showed up late, they got a full stack. You are going to get the kind of behavior your rules encourage. So, with those rules, I took advantage of applying those rules in my favor.

First, I'd never tell the host I was coming. Then if I was late, I got a full stack, and went to the shortest table.

Second, (I was only late once), I'd volunteer to take care of the blinding for absent players at my table. The host, and apparently others, were grateful for someone to do that. Naturally I seated absent players to my left. One night it was 2 players. What an advantage, every single round! Now while I'll readily admit to using those rules to my advantage, another reason for volunteering was to keep another player from enjoying that advantage. BG's way of doing it eliminates that advantage.

In a home game, I don't see that as poker so much as I see it as life. Blinding the stack makes sense in a casino game. Casino employees handle the blinding. Seating is randomly done. Players are paying for that as part of their entry fee that doesn't come back to players. That's part of how the casino makes their money doing tournaments.

Using casino rules in a home tournament doesn't always make sense. In this case, a home game isn't the same at all. Someone, unpaid, has to handle the blinding. It's something of a distraction, even if it's not a big deal. Like BG said above, random doesn't necessarily equate to fair. As a host, I want things to not just be as fair as possible, but to have the appearance of fair.

Any time I have a situation where a player has to leave, I will later make sure I talk to that player to explain why we have the rule we have. Emergencies happen, but I want players to understand that fairness to everyone is important, and as the host, I don't want to sit there while players blind out a large stack for a guy who is not there just so they can all get in the money. I've never tried to push players out when I'm KO'd from the tournament, but I'd sure think about it if I knew that was going to go on for a while.

Home games and casino games are NOT the same. Casinos do it for profit. Home hosts do it for fun. To make it truly a home game, the host shouldn't be getting a rake (not talking truly for expenses). A casino is in it ONLY for the money, or the publicity that leads to money.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

And don't invite him back.

Seems a little drastic.....

 

[Frogzilla]

Well, there is one small downside: the blind amounts removed from the absent player's stack cannot be won and added to another player's stack, so in theory, the absent player incurs less of a penalty than if the stack actually posted blinds. It's probably more fair to the other players to remove two big blinds each orbit (vs 1.5) to make up the negative deficit. And it's admittedly a little easier to manage with a dedicated dealer than pass-the-deal.


Random doesn't necessarily equate to fair, and there are often ways to negate the inequities caused by random. This is one. Why would one argue in favor of one or two random people having an advantage over all of the others over a long period of time, if it could be easily avoided entirely?

Random is as fair as it gets.

The TDA rules don’t give a rationale for this one, and I didn’t write it, but here are a few benefits I can notice:
-more appropriate ending position for the blinding stack - especially important if you keep points or there is any chance of the stack finishing ITM
-don’t have to keep removing chips from play into the chip cabinet
-don’t have to remember “hey did we blind joe off this round yet”

Using this system, antes are always put into the pot every hand by the absent player stack.

By your logic, doesn’t it give that table an unfair advantage? This system doesn’t do the one thing it purports to

 

[Legend5555]

And don't invite him back.

That's a bit harsh. Life happens sometimes.

 

[Mr Winberg]

To all of you who are against removing the stack completely, would you be against it even if it was a house rule? For example, would it be bad if I added the rule that if a player is disqualified or wants to leave the tournament, the stack will be removed?

I feel that this is the fairest approach for those that are left compared to blinding off, and is less of a hassle than removing the chips one orbit at a time, so win win. Or am I missing something?

(This does not mean that someone can't leave temporarily. If someone intends to come back or just vanishes without saying something, then he will be blinded off)

 

[BGinGA]

Random is as fair as it gets.

That is laughably inaccurate.

 

[Gobbs]

When it got down to the bubble, the remaining players agreed that for them to all be in the money, they would just not play hands. We stopped the clock and figured the missing player's stack. It would take two full blind levels to blind his stack. However, if players simply took the first two cards and folded to the BB, hands would go much faster. When they all said they would do that and not look at cards, one proposed simply removing his stack from play, and play would continue from there. All other players agreed.

This would be collusion. I think all involved owe the player who had to leave a huge apology. The players basically stole from him/her.

First, I'd never tell the host I was coming. Then if I was late, I got a full stack, and went to the shortest table.

I agree the rules encouraged this, but not RSVPing is still rude. The host simply needed a rule change that late players’ starting stacks would be reduced by x per level missed.

I'd volunteer to take care of the blinding for absent players at my table. The host, and apparently others, were grateful for someone to do that. Naturally I seated absent players to my left. One night it was 2 players. What an advantage, every single round! Now while I'll readily admit to using those rules to my advantage, another reason for volunteering was to keep another player from enjoying that advantage. BG's way of doing it eliminates that advantage.

That’s pretty unethical. Also, what in the hell were the host and players thinking not seating players randomly? Random seating would prevent this.

 

[BGinGA]

The TDA rules don’t give a rationale for this one, and I didn’t write it, but here are a few benefits I can notice:
-more appropriate ending position for the blinding stack - especially important if you keep points or there is any chance of the stack finishing ITM
-don’t have to keep removing chips from play into the chip cabinet
-don’t have to remember “hey did we blind joe off this round yet”

It's the exact same ending position when blinds are removed vs being posted -- the stack is reduced at the same rate. And *somebody* has to remember to either post or remove blinds, either way -- that's no argument.

And if the player is absent and you want to remove his paid stack, at what point do you make that decision? Immediately? After one blind level? One hour? Some other arbitrary length of time? What if the player is ill, but plans to return? Removing paid stacks is a slippery slope -- if the player announces he doesn't plan to return, perhaps.

Using this system, antes are always put into the pot every hand by the absent player stack.

By your logic, doesn’t it give that table an unfair advantage?

Not at all -- the players are competing for the absent player's antes, same as they would if he were present. No unfair advantage at all.

 

[Gobbs]

Random is as fair as it gets.

If you were to randomly reseat players after every orbit, I might agree (that, of course, is not practical), but giving one person a huge, unearned advantage for, potentially, hours is not fair. It’s random, but the fact that it’s not necessary to award a player such a huge advantage based solely on luck renders it completely unfair. There are ways to keep the playing field more even. Thus, it doesn’t matter how the advantage is awarded, random or otherwise. It’s simply wrong.