Tourney Player left mid tourney, what to do? (2 Viewers)

[BGinGA]

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)

I think that perhaps what you are missing is this:

Removing the absent player's stack *isn't* the fairest approach for the remaining players, instead it is actually a huge advantage for the remaining players -- and quite unfair to the absent player, who paid for the stack.

Removing a disqualified player's stack is a different issue -- that player has forfeited his stack and any rights to prize money or points. But allowing a 'missing' player's stack to remain, yet removing a player's stack when he announces he must leave opens up a lot of gray area -- and actually encourages people to leave with no announcement of whether they are returning or not.

 

[BGinGA]

Curious: if playing with bounties and blinding out, does the bounty hit the last Diderot as well?

We award the bounty value to the money bubble player, provided the absent player doesn't return.

 

[APatHand]

TL;DR
If it is a single table tourney, I would pick the stack up provided he stated that he was not going to be back. Otherwise, I would blind him off in anticipation of his return and pick him up after some drop-dead time. That is, if he said he would be back in an hour, he gets an hour, then gets picked up.

If it is a multi-table tournament, I would blind him off until the table broke or was consolidated, then I would pick him up.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Removing the absent player's stack *isn't* the fairest approach for the remaining players, instead it is actually a huge advantage for the remaining players -- and quite unfair to the absent player, who paid for the stack.

Removing a disqualified player's stack is a different issue -- that player has forfeited his stack and any rights to prize money or points.

Well then there's an easy solution: Anyone who leaves is disqualified!!

 

[DoubleEagle]

Removing the absent player's stack *isn't* the fairest approach for the remaining players, instead it is actually a huge advantage for the remaining players

How so.

and quite unfair to the absent player, who paid for the stack.

If the player just disappears, then yes I agree it would be unfair to pick up the stack. But if he announces he is leaving and not coming back, IMO picking up the stack is the most fair for all.

 

[APatHand]

I see no real difference between a player who leaves and one who is really, really tight.

 

[Moxie Mike]

A few things jump out at me after reading/skimming most of this thread:

--Some of you seem to want to make a distinction between a home game and one held in a casino. To each their own I suppose - In my private game, our players expect a well-organized, quasi-professional atmosphere so I run the game to replicate the casino experience as well as I possibly can.

--Removing a stack from play is the correct move only in the event of a disqualification: https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/ (rule 71 D), so if you want to remove an absent player's stack from play, you should create a house rule that designates a forfeited stack as a disqualification.

--The TDA rules clearly state: "Players not then at their seats may not look at their cards which are killed immediately. Their posted blinds and antes forfeit to the pot and an absent player dealt the stud bring-in card posts the bring-in. " As to whether a player declared an intention to permanently leave the game is not relevant.

--As to the advantage gained by a player's sudden absence - I don't know that that should be taken into consideration at all. It's not about fairness... it's perfectly legal for a player to donk off their stack in an effort to leave by shoving every hand until they lose. No one censures the player who's fortunate enough to be the beneficiary of those easily acquired chips.

When a player misses their blinds there is an advantage gained elsewhere at the table but it's temporary. Even if they never come back, the advantage ceases to exist as soon as the table breaks or when the absent player runs out of chips.

 

[JustinInMN]

Is the the point where I can throw in a "just play cash?"

 

[Poker Zombie]

Mokie is correct. TDA rules are clear.

We've had this occur now 4 times in 10 years. One because his wife found out he was "gambling away their earnings (it's a $20 game)". One because his dog "mauled" the neighbor's child. One was because... well let's just call it a "disagreement". The last was because one left to care for a sick spouse.

In all those events, the player's money stayed on the table. They paid the entry fee, and they had a chance to cash. Impossible to win, but possible to cash.

That was important, because in one of those cases, there was a 3-way all in at the bubble. The player that left still had chips, and cashed. It also earned him points, which may or may not be important in your club.

BG has good rationale for his rule, but it is de facto wrong.

 

[BGinGA]

Removing the absent player's stack *isn't* the fairest approach for the remaining players, instead it is actually a huge advantage for the remaining players -- and quite unfair to the absent player, who paid for the stack.

How so.

The immediate advantage is that all remaining players -- regardless of stack size -- each move up one spot in the pay ladder (cash and/or points) and are also no longer threatened by the absent player's stack, since it has been removed. If close to the bubble (or already there), this could be very significant..

The huge disadvantaged heaped on the absent player is that his stack can no longer compete on its own merits until dwindled down to actual elimination (something he could easily have done -- and paid for the right to do -- if still in the room but not in his seat).

I see no real difference between a player who leaves and one who is really, really tight.

Exactly. So long as the approriate amount of antes and blinds are removed from the stack over time, it's the player's choice to play hands or not. But a choice that is denied if the stack itself is removed from play.

--Removing a stack from play is the correct move only in the event of a disqualification: https://www.pokertda.com/view-poker-tda-rules/ (rule 71 D), so if you want to remove an absent player's stack from play, you should create a house rule that designates a forfeited stack as a disqualification.

--The TDA rules clearly state: "Players not then at their seats may not look at their cards which are killed immediately. Their posted blinds and antes forfeit to the pot and an absent player dealt the stud bring-in card posts the bring-in. " As to whether a player declared an intention to permanently leave the game is not relevant.

--As to the advantage gained by a player's sudden absence - I don't know that that should be taken into consideration at all. It's not about fairness... it's perfectly legal for a player to donk off their stack in an effort to leave by shoving every hand until they lose. No one censures the player who's fortunate enough to be the beneficiary of those easily acquired chips.

When a player misses their blinds there is an advantage gained elsewhere at the table but it's temporary. Even if they never come back, the advantage ceases to exist as soon as the table breaks or when the absent player runs out of chips.

In reality, that 'temporary' positional advantage gained may actually last for hours (and often the majority of time in a home tournament, which tend to be shorter events). The 'skip player/deduct blinds' method is merely a way to avoid giving just one or two players that significant positional advantage at all (and instead creating an equal playing field for all remaining players) while still requiring the mandatory stack deductions are made from the absent player's stack (regardless of reason for absence).

 

[BGinGA]

Mokie is correct. TDA rules are clear.

We've had this occur now 4 times in 10 years. One because his wife found out he was "gambling away their earnings (it's a $20 game)". One because his dog "mauled" the neighbor's child. One was because... well let's just call it a "disagreement". The last was because one left to care for a sick spouse.

In all those events, the player's money stayed on the table. They paid the entry fee, and they had a chance to cash. Impossible to win, but possible to cash.

That was important, because in one of those cases, there was a 3-way all in at the bubble. The player that left still had chips, and cashed. It also earned him points, which may or may not be important in your club.

BG has good rationale for his rule, but it is de facto wrong.

Player has the same ability to cash under our rule.... it just eliminates the unfair positional advantages gained by some players in the event of an absent player stack.

 

[Frogzilla]

Just curious BG... which player do you think has the advantage if there is dead money?

Say dead money is in the 4 seat.

I won’t dispute that it probably helps some more than others, but if it’s not clear whom, then it may not be so different.

Edit: for single table. Obviously you want dead money at your table in a MTT

 

[SendThatStack]

I heard a story recently of a guy leaving a casino mtt to go to a concert and he ended up cashing.

 

[BGinGA]

Just curious BG... which player do you think has the advantage if there is dead money?

Say dead money is in the 4 seat.

I won’t dispute that it probably helps some more than others, but if it’s not clear whom, then it may not be so different.

Edit: for single table. Obviously you want dead money at your table in a MTT

It's less about the dead money, and more about the positional advantage gained by the player(s) to the immediate right of the absent player (previously mentioned in @Gobbs' post).

If the absent player is dealt cards and posts blinds, that also means the his seat/stack is a 'dead button' once per orbit -- which further means that the player to his right is actually last to act not just once per orbit, but now twice per orbit -- and twice as often as anybody else at the table. In a game like hold'em or omaha, where having superior position is a huge advantage, this is very unfair to the other players -- and an unfair advantage that is easily negated.

In a game with equally-skilled players but where one is arbitrarily granted positional advantage twice as often as the others, it's a given that the chips on the table will gravitate to that seat.

To address your dead money question, the players most likely to benefit from an absent player's big blind are the last two players to act pre-flop-- the button and the small blind, in this case -- with the button having the larger advantage, since he acts last in all subsequent betting rounds. And that small blind player also is the seat that essentially gets the button twice per orbit. So a dead money big blind scenario for seat 4 gives an big advantage to seats 2 and 3, particularly seat 3.

 

[Moxie Mike]

In reality, that 'temporary' positional advantage gained may actually last for hours...

In a scenario where a play is likely to go on for an extended period of time with an absent player (short handed table, early in the event, absent player is excessively deep, etc.), then I agree that some type of rule should exist to prevent players from enjoying a significant advantage for a long time. After thinking about it some more I think I might actually consider revising the rules for the next season of our league to address this.

In your opinion BG, where do you think that threshold lies? What if a player is sitting with an 'M' < 8 at a table of 6 or less, then you just let it play out naturally? Or perhaps an 'M' of < 10 with 7 or more players. But those dynamics change as the game progresses.

Or maybe there's a rule that a player's stack is picked up after 30 minutes if they still have chips? But what happens if they come back? They're still blinded off but are not dealt in?

I'm not a fan of rules designed to mitigate temporary advantages... but at some point players begin to realize a pretty serious disadvantage that would be difficult to adjust to in real time. At the same time, 'fortuitous bounces' happen all the time in competition... and poker is no exception*.

*No shit - we once had a guy come to play while 'cleansing' for his colonoscopy the next morning. He left the table to go sit on the can about every 15 minutes. Needless to say he came back to a shorter stack every time and ended up going out early

 

[BGinGA]

In your opinion BG, where do you think that threshold lies? What if a player is sitting with an 'M' < 8 at a table of 6 or less, then you just let it play out naturally? Or perhaps an 'M' of < 10 with 7 or more players. But those dynamics change as the game progresses.

Or maybe there's a rule that a player's stack is picked up after 30 minutes if they still have chips? But what happens if they come back? They're still blinded off but are not dealt in?

We use the no-cards/blinds-deducted rule for two scenarios:

• A player has left the event, regardless of stack size (if the player first goes missing, they'll get blinded out until it has been confirmed that they have actually left -- then the stack converts to no-cards)
• Registered or pre-paid absent player stacks at the beginning of the tournament. We don't allow late unannounced entry, so an absent registered player's stack gets blinded out from the very start (using the no-cards rule). If still absent, these stacks are removed at first break (typically 6 to 8 blind levels).

Absent player stacks are counted as a player when balancing tables and may be randomly selected to move. If the absent player's stack gets selected to move (randomly to balance tables, or a forced move to consolidate tables), it moves and continues under the no-cards rule until busted. It is never removed from play -- only a disqualified player stack is removed from play.

 

[TexRex]

Gobbs, I think you missed this from my post. “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.”

I’ll give more detail. We were at the final table. His wife was 1.5 hours away. Her car was totaled, but she wasn’t in it (she was on a work assignment and parked at the time, but saw what happened). When he got the call, it was obviously a serious situation, we took a time out for his benefit so he could take the call. He is a popular player and no one wanted to see him blinded off for an emergency if it could be handled quickly. He had to pick her up. Further, it looked like what caused the accident was going to require her to be on the scene longer than the time it would take him to get there (police investigation), but he wasn’t going to leave her stranded out of town in the middle of the night. I offered to blind his stack and pay if he cashed because that was our rule. However, he rejected that offer. He actually wanted to have his stack treated as a disqualified player’s stack, but there was no cause for disqualification. While I agree he paid for his chips, I understand his position. He didn’t want to negatively affect friends or give anyone a significant advantage. His call on that – not ours.

He left when there were 9 players, and 5 were being paid. He didn’t expect to cash, but also didn’t want to give someone behind him an advantage every round. Since we didn’t have a rule that allowed a stack to just be removed, we blinded it. No one expected within about 10 minutes of his leaving 3 players would be KO’d, and that altered the situation. Then it became possible for his stack to materially affect those still in. So, the rule was changed according to our procedures for that situation.

An alternative considered was dividing his chips equally among those left. The problem was that would have helped the lesser stacks the most. He wouldn’t have wanted that.

In hold ’em, a dead stack to your immediate left is a huge advantage because 2x/orbit, the same guy is last to act. That’s twice as often as everyone else gets to do that. That could have gone for several rounds.

The other situation I mentioned earlier, me and at least 2 others overheard the player on a phone call saying, "I'm at a cheap poker game now. I'll be at your game on time, but I'm hoping to get a big enough stack to cash after I leave." Nice guy, but he never intended to stay to the end of our game. That didn't sit well.

Gobbs, in the other game ~ If hosts don’t ask for RSVPs, they aren’t entitled to them; it’s just an open invitation. I do open invitations, as do most other games I know of around here. They didn’t ask for an RSVP. The players who RSVP’d just wanted to make sure they had a guaranteed seat. I was willing to risk being out if too many showed up. When hosts ask for an RSVP, I do RSVP, and usually let them know of my plans if the rules don’t discourage it. If the host wants to, they could say “no RSVP, no play,” effectively requiring an RSVP to play, but I RSVP I’m not playing if the host asks players to RSVP.

I suggested random seating, offered to help do it, but the host didn’t believe want random seating. They assigned players tables, but seats were not random. Nor did they have table captains per se, but were happy someone (me) would take charge of handling blinding and I was assigned to give them a seat to make it easy on me. I don’t think the host believed that was a significant advantage for me. On both counts, simply applying the rules of the game is not unethical. You are going to get the behavior your rules encourage. Said another way, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I even explained to the hosts how the positional advantage worked. Their response was “we don’t care if you will take care of the blinding.” Neither of them played like they believed position was important.

That game had several rules and policies that made little sense, but for me, it was close, fun, overall profitable, and a number of those players came to my game so it was good for recruiting.
***

BG is exactly right about the effect of a skilled player with a positional advantage 2x/orbit. The positional situation was discussed after our two situations, and that's one reason I implemented the "abandon the game, you abandon any prize money." Players know that coming in.

Moxie, there are several differences between home games and casino games. One is that players frequently not only know each other, but the host knows them too. We use WSOP/TDA rules to the extent we think they make sense for a home game. One example is a casino might not tolerate two friends razzing each other during a game because the casino doesn't know they are friends and can't have inconsistently applied rules. A home game host can know that and follow a common sense rule. That is but one example.

Despite our professional rules, we advertise as a recreational group. Some home games are far more serious, and more casino rules might make sense in those cases. When the WSOP or TDA change rules, my thoughts are we should use their rule (even if I don't like it) unless there is a good reason we shouldn't.

 

[CraigT78]

He left when there were 9 players, and 5 were being paid. He didn’t expect to cash, but also didn’t want to give someone behind him an advantage every round. Since we didn’t have a rule that allowed a stack to just be removed, we blinded it. No one expected within about 10 minutes of his leaving 3 players would be KO’d, and that altered the situation. Then it became possible for his stack to materially affect those still in. So, the rule was changed according to our procedures for that situation.

I think what @Gobbs was saying is that the fact you allowed his chips remain UNTIL the bubble, then decided to remove them, is where the issue is. You should have kept them on the table, and if someone KO'd, he is in the money. Everyone deciding NOT to play hand is where the problem is.

 

[Mojo1312]

Thankfully, cash players don't have to deal with such pettiness, although I am sure some are entertained by the back and forth arguments contained in this thread.

 

[DrDysfunctional]

You guys are the best, so many responses, some that I've though of, some that I haven't. So much to absorb and think through to come up with a fair house rule. I guess I'm more in the camp of blinding that person out, where before I was more in the remove his stack camp. He did pay for his stack, so he has every right to be in the money. As far as what to do with his blinds, I guess I'm leaning more toward the removal of them from the table. I still have mixed thoughts on that though. I don't want to create an advantage for a particular player but I don't want that table to be at a disadvantage either. Now that I type that I don't think it's that big of a disadvantage. We start with 2k stacks so it's not that huge of a difference and it would be the same as if we started with 8 at one table and 7 at the other.

 

[TexRex]

Craig, again, the player didn't think he should cash, and specifically didn't want anyone to benefit or be harmed by his leaving. He essentially (not in these words) asked that he be treated as a disqualified player without giving us a reason to disqualify him. It wasn't until the bubble that a rule change was suggested, and that happened at the end of a round and a color up. To keep his chips on the table didn't seem like a big deal at first, and that's what our rules called for. However, that no longer really fit the situation we had. I would have preferred to have left his stack and paid him, but he didn't want that and it would have given a good player an advantage for the rest of the night.

While coloring up someone pointed out that by leaving his stack, we were encouraging play that was no longer normal. I don't really believe they would have all folded every hand which would have effectively divvied his chip stack equally. 2 stacks were much smaller than his and that made no sense for the other 3 to allow those 2 players to accumulate 20% of his stack without a fight. The extra chips were going to help the smaller stacks if divided equally. So what really made sense for the 2 smaller stack was to start going all-in. But it also made sense for the biggest stack to raise all in when missing player was in the BB. He likely would have accumulated most of that stack. Even the 2nd biggest stack would have to think long and hard before calling an all in with AA if the consequences were break even vs. a much higher payout. It just wasn't going to be normal poker for anyone. It seemed the least impact to all others was to remove his stack.

I forgot to mention, I was even willing to refund his money and remove the stack, but he didn't think that was fair. I didn't ask anyone else how they felt about that, but he'd KO'd some players, including the first one at the final table. When he left, he had the 2nd or 3rd biggest stack.

Where the game is when a player leaves can make a difference.

 

[abby99]

About 15 years ago I was playing in a home STT where one of the players had to leave about half an hour into the game because of a family emergency. It would have been impossible for him to returns to the game before it ended. Because it was so early in the game, the rest of us agreed to refund his buy-in and remove his chips from play. Although this action was not permitted by the rules, leaving early was not intentional on his part, and we all agreed it seemed like the right thing to do. A related Stu Ungar story. In the 1990 WSOP ME, Ungar had the chip lead at the end of the second-last day with two or three tables left. He celebrated early and overdosed, and spent the final day of the ME in the hospital. His chips were left on the table and he was blinded off. He finished ninth.

I hate busting out before an absent player. I feel like I'm so bad I can't beat a player who isn't even there. Really? So sad.

 

[Mojo1312]

You guys are the best, so many responses, some that I've though of, some that I haven't. So much to absorb and think through to come up with a fair house rule. I guess I'm more in the camp of blinding that person out, where before I was more in the remove his stack camp. He did pay for his stack, so he has every right to be in the money. As far as what to do with his blinds, I guess I'm leaning more toward the removal of them from the table. I still have mixed thoughts on that though. I don't want to create an advantage for a particular player but I don't want that table to be at a disadvantage either. Now that I type that I don't think it's that big of a disadvantage. We start with 2k stacks so it's not that huge of a difference and it would be the same as if we started with 8 at one table and 7 at the other.

I play and have hosted my fair share of tournaments, but I started out playing cash.

My thoughts after skimming over some of the posts and skipping others because I do not find the subject enthralling enough to read every last word.

Know your audience. Maintain a relaxed environment if it is a recreational game and abide by the written TDA rules if the douche-bag who was lobbying hard for the divvying up of the chip-stack is representative of the other players in your group.

I would blind the stack off if I were running a STT and blind the stack down if I were running a MTT.

 

[BGinGA]

Only in mojo-world are 'blind off' and 'blind down' different things.

Back on ignore you go...

 

[Mojo1312]

Only in mojo-world are 'blind off' and 'blind down' different things.

Back on ignore you go...

You and pltrgyst must share the same family tree.

Do I need to explain to you the difference between a set and three of a kind?

 

[1A25R]

Last tournament I organized, final with table 6 players. A lady started to go all in preflop every hand with about 35BB
At her 5th attempt, someone annoyed by the strategy of squeeze - blind stealing told her "you known, your bluffs will not last long, one of us will catch a premium hand"
To what she answer, I must go pick my mother so I'm going all in because I want to give my stack to one of you.
Very next had she got 2 calls, she showed 8-4 off, borad came 5K726,she eliminated 2 players.
Remaining players agreed to pay a 4th place from winnings and then the tournament ended in a shove-all in fest in less than 5 hands.

Disappointed

 

[Gobbs]

Craig, again, the player didn't think he should cash, and specifically didn't want anyone to benefit or be harmed by his leaving. He essentially (not in these words) asked that he be treated as a disqualified player without giving us a reason to disqualify him. It wasn't until the bubble that a rule change was suggested, and that happened at the end of a round and a color up. To keep his chips on the table didn't seem like a big deal at first, and that's what our rules called for. However, that no longer really fit the situation we had. I would have preferred to have left his stack and paid him, but he didn't want that and it would have given a good player an advantage for the rest of the night.

While coloring up someone pointed out that by leaving his stack, we were encouraging play that was no longer normal. I don't really believe they would have all folded every hand which would have effectively divvied his chip stack equally. 2 stacks were much smaller than his and that made no sense for the other 3 to allow those 2 players to accumulate 20% of his stack without a fight. The extra chips were going to help the smaller stacks if divided equally. So what really made sense for the 2 smaller stack was to start going all-in. But it also made sense for the biggest stack to raise all in when missing player was in the BB. He likely would have accumulated most of that stack. Even the 2nd biggest stack would have to think long and hard before calling an all in with AA if the consequences were break even vs. a much higher payout. It just wasn't going to be normal poker for anyone. It seemed the least impact to all others was to remove his stack.

I forgot to mention, I was even willing to refund his money and remove the stack, but he didn't think that was fair. I didn't ask anyone else how they felt about that, but he'd KO'd some players, including the first one at the final table. When he left, he had the 2nd or 3rd biggest stack.

Where the game is when a player leaves can make a difference.

It doesn’t really matter what anybody thought or wanted to do, including the player himself. The only thing that matters is what is right and what is fair, not just for this player and this game but for setting the precedent for future decisions. I’m sure you had every intention of doing right by him and no ill will towards him. I don’t mean to accuse you of intentionally hurting him in any way, but nonetheless, you did screw him. Just because he was trying to be a nice guy (during an obvious time of stress for him), there is no excuse to cheat him and that’s what happened. When everybody agreed to remove his stack on the bubble so he wouldn’t cash, that is collusion and probably theft. There is no way around it. Players can’t do that and just because the harmed player is OK with it, it doesn’t make the grievance any less acceptable or minimize the harm done to your game by setting a horrible precedent.

You have basically told everybody in your game that this type of collusion is acceptable and you will allow players to be screwed over. What are you going to do next time when a guy has half the chips on the table, is sitting on the bubble, and has to go due to an emergency? Are you going to allow the remaining players to decide to remove that player’s chips, too? Are you going to allow the players on the bubble to collude and simply soft play each other until he is blinded off? That’s the precedent you set. You can’t very well decide it’s OK to collude in the first situation but now you aren’t going to allow it. You can’t very well decide to remove his chips and refund his entry because you didn’t do it before. You’re stuck unless you make it clear to your players that you messed up but from now on, the stack will be blinded down and collusion between players will not be tolerated, period.

Funny side note: I dealt two-handed to one player and an empty seat (late player) for half an hour once in a winner-take-all tournament. Yes, it was tedious, but it was the right thing to do. As I mucked the final hand and the player lost the last of his stack, he walked in the door. I couldn’t have timed it better had I had a GPS on the guy.

 

[Gobbs]

Do I need to explain to you the difference between a set and three of a kind?

Did ya mean to say the difference between a set and trips there? All sets are three-of-a-kind (but not all three-of-a-kinds (or is it threes-of-a-kind) are sets).

Anyway, I admit, I do not know the difference between blinding somebody off and blinding somebody down. Please explain. The only thing I can see is that you blind somebody down until the last bet which then blinds them off, but that makes no sense in the context of your post. So, I must be wrong.

 

[inca911]

Food for thought: should a player who must leave be allowed to provide direction for his hand to be played a certain way to tourney completion (e.g., all-in for every hand)?

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think the argument that a player leaving early gives another player an advantage, is hogwash.

Yes, I agree that someone will get an advantage, but that advantage is both random and potentially limited, depending on stack size. In fact, it would be the same advantage as sitting next to a very terrible player. You dont remove a terrible player's chips from play just because they never bluff or only play pocket aces. Someone gets position on the super nit, and they have an advantage.

Now if Dave got his butt into a TDA meeting and brought up his methodology, I would be in moderate support.

I only say moderate support, because having to have a place to dispose the missing player's blinds would be difficult in my limited space.