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

[JustinInMN]

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.

You know, if not the whole stack, maybe there is merit in divide the orbit expense by the remaining players and putting that in as a dead ante each hand.

For example, if the blinds are 3K-6K and there are 5 players left, we calculate an ante of 1800 per hand. (9k/5.) That will be rounded up to 2000 given the 1k is the lowest chip in play at this point. When the blinds to go 4k-8k we calculate 2400 per hand, or still rounding to 2000. If we lose a player during 4k-8k we recalculate 12k/4 and adjust the departed ante to 3k per hand.

Or use this calculation to distribute chips evenly to each of the other players every orbit upon collection. This does compensate for the possible multi table issue of losing the spot entirely without replacing with a live player that may provide chips.

 

[slisk250]

View attachment 1094554

Change the hair…it’s not that far off!

 

[Coyotesetter]

View attachment 1094554

Yes! This!

 

[Coyotesetter]

Change the hair…it’s not that far off!

Wait...you've seen him? Did he just appear, or were you summoned?

 

[slisk250]

Wait...you've seen him? Did he just appear, or were you summoned?

He appears every few years at S@P lol

 

[ovo]

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 appreciate your tournament

 

[ChipEnvy]

I know it's been said, but you did it right by blinding the player off.

However if that is too much of a pain in the ass, remove the chips from play entirely and put the bounty in the prize pool. If you put the bounty in the next pot after removing chips people are going to play weird possibly affecting the outcome of the game. You want to limit the disruption the player leaving has on the table play.

Never just divide up the chips. That's some JV shit right there.

 

[JustinInMN]

I know it's been said, but you did it right by blinding the player off.

However if that is too much of a pain in the ass, remove the chips from play entirely and put the bounty in the prize pool. If you put the bounty in the next pot after removing chips people are going to play weird possibly affecting the outcome of the game. You want to limit the disruption the player leaving has on the table play.

Never just divide up the chips. That's some JV shit right there.

Thanks,

And yes, when the bounty made it into the pot, it was an unusual circumstance, everyone limped for it.

That said, I think in a single table situation it probably matters less, but in a multi table situation, if that player is allowed to hold the seat, the chips need to be coming into play every orbit for the benefit of the other players. If they are simply removed, then a player is occupying a seat instead of moving someone "live" in there that will try to splash chips. I think we are trying to come up with a way to simplify the process because I grossly underestimated how cumbersome this is in a self dealt game.

But I agree, taking them all out at once doesn't make a ton of sense.

 

[BGinGA]

put the bounty in the prize pool

If you put the bounty in the next pot after removing chips people are going to play weird possibly affecting the outcome of the game. You want to limit the disruption the player leaving has on the table play.

I think adding the bounty chip's value to the prize pool is absolutely the best resolution.

 

[kirchhausen]

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?

Should have just surrendered the chips, IMO. Dead money affects the play, and if you are on the bubble a decent player in the chip lead will take advantage. Also, eliminates any shuffle/dead dealer issues.

 

[JustinInMN]

Should have just surrendered the chips, IMO. Dead money affects the play, and if you are on the bubble a decent player in the chip lead will take advantage. Also, eliminates any shuffle/dead dealer issues.

The only reason I didn't is there wouldn't be a rule to support it. And I am not making something else up on the spot. But it was once we realized how cumbersome blinding someone off in a self dealt game can be, did I start to think about alternatives.

 

[MeridianFC]

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.


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

I get that and agree. That said my take was on a player who has clearly announced they're leaving and not returning (and I would take that verbal declaration to be binding).

 

[JustinInMN]

I get that and agree. That said my take was on a player who has clearly announced they're leaving and not returning (and I would take that verbal declaration to be binding).

Even at that the only justification to remove the chips would be to disqualify the person. And announcing one has to go just isn't grounds for that under any present rules.

 

[MeridianFC]

Even at that the only justification to remove the chips would be to disqualify the person. And announcing one has to go just isn't grounds for that under any present rules.

Just spitballing here, but would it be wrong to set a rule that leaving early (with the announcement) = DQ? For single table, self dealt games this would seem to make sense. Obviously bigger/more complex set ups would have a different answer. Would there be something inherently unfair in the STT/SD game described if that were the rule?

 

[upNdown]

The only reason I didn't is there wouldn't be a rule to support it. And I am not making something else up on the spot.

I love this.

 

[JustinInMN]

Just spitballing here, but would it be wrong to set a rule that leaving early (with the announcement) = DQ? For single table, self dealt games this would seem to make sense. Obviously bigger/more complex set ups would have a different answer. Would there be something inherently unfair in the STT/SD game described if that were the rule?

No, if it's known in advance, absolutely fair to have such a rule.

But again, first time this has happened in over 15 years of hosting. Never forsaw an issue with using the standard TDA procedure of blinding players off in turn, but now there is a realization it is cumbersome in a self-dealt situation.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Virtually any ruling you make will have some potential to benefit some players and not benefit others. It's not a reason to not make the ruling. Game dynamics change. The whole point of playing a skill game with random elements is to adjust to whatever happens.

IMO the original solution is the best, and most suggestions I'm seeing are just needless complication. Leaving the table = auto-fold every hand = blind the stack off while maintaining the button/blinds arrangement as normal. This way the chips still stay in play (as they should) and the missing player retains the possibility of ending up in the money if other people bust out.

The reason why this is the best solution is because it works across the board. This becomes clearer if you look at the extreme case of a dominant chip leader having to prematurely leave. Five players left, blinds 500/1K, and stacks are 4K, 5K, 5K, 9K, and 44K. If the 44K player leaves, do you just pull the whole 44K (about 2/3 of the chips in play) off the table? Do you distribute it equally among the remaining players, dramatically altering the game dynamic and disenfranchising that dominating player from being able to ride into the money? Of course not.

The logic still holds even if it's not just one huge stack against four tiny stacks. Imagine stacks are instead 50K, 5K, 5K, 9K, 45K. The 44K player leaves. It's grossly unfair to the 50K player to give his stack a 22% boost while everyone else gets doubled or more—gaining 7 more orbits worth of blinds when some of them only had an orbit or two left.

Rules have to work for all cases, not work most of the time and break the game others.

 

[TomC727]

My only option, to me, is the player gets blinded until no chips are left.

 

[JustinInMN]

Virtually any ruling you make will have some potential to benefit some players and not benefit others. It's not a reason to not make the ruling. Game dynamics change. The whole point of playing a skill game with random elements is to adjust to whatever happens.

IMO the original solution is the best, and most suggestions I'm seeing are just needless complication. Leaving the table = auto-fold every hand = blind the stack off while maintaining the button/blinds arrangement as normal. This way the chips still stay in play (as they should) and the missing player retains the possibility of ending up in the money if other people bust out.

Rules have to work for all cases, not work most of the time and break the game others.

I absolutely love this reply and appreciate the ethos of the last statement. It is imperative that rules work in all cases.

The ONLY reason I am suggesting/soliciting alternative ideas is that having never been faced with blinding off a stack in a self dealt situation before Monday, I was surprised with how cumbersome it became. It would have been very difficult if we didn't have someone willing to step in the box for us. I think there are suggestions here that work in all cases, but I don't think just picking up a stack immediately is right in any case.

 

[Mandos]

Virtually any ruling you make will have some potential to benefit some players and not benefit others. It's not a reason to not make the ruling. Game dynamics change. The whole point of playing a skill game with random elements is to adjust to whatever happens.

IMO the original solution is the best, and most suggestions I'm seeing are just needless complication. Leaving the table = auto-fold every hand = blind the stack off while maintaining the button/blinds arrangement as normal. This way the chips still stay in play (as they should) and the missing player retains the possibility of ending up in the money if other people bust out.

The reason why this is the best solution is because it works across the board. This becomes clearer if you look at the extreme case of a dominant chip leader having to prematurely leave. Five players left, blinds 500/1K, and stacks are 4K, 5K, 5K, 9K, and 44K. If the 44K player leaves, do you just pull the whole 44K (about 2/3 of the chips in play) off the table? Do you distribute it equally among the remaining players, dramatically altering the game dynamic and disenfranchising that dominating player from being able to ride into the money? Of course not.

The logic still holds even if it's not just one huge stack against four tiny stacks. Imagine stacks are instead 50K, 5K, 5K, 9K, 45K. The 44K player leaves. It's grossly unfair to the 50K player to give his stack a 22% boost while everyone else gets doubled or more—gaining 7 more orbits worth of blinds when some of them only had an orbit or two left.

Rules have to work for all cases, not work most of the time and break the game others.

I get what you're saying and agree with almost all of it in theory, but as I've said before I don't think it's unfair to just remove the stack if this happens early enough in the tournament that the player is nowhere near the bubble. Yes the other option is more fair strictly speaking, but there's something to be said for keeping the game moving smoothly. At a relatively casual home tournament it's not worth blinding out a stack for over an hour, let alone not being able to combine to the final table because you're waiting for that stack to die. I'm sure if I put it up to a vote the vast majority of my players would prefer what makes the game continue smoothly. (To be super clear, I'm only talking about the case of someone who has explicitly abandoned their stack by verbal declaration that they are leaving and not returning)

 

[Jimulacrum]

I get what you're saying and agree with almost all of it in theory, but as I've said before I don't think it's unfair to just remove the stack if this happens early enough in the tournament that the player is nowhere near the bubble. Yes the other option is more fair strictly speaking, but there's something to be said for keeping the game moving smoothly. At a relatively casual home tournament it's not worth blinding out a stack for over an hour, let alone not being able to combine to the final table because you're waiting for that stack to die. I'm sure if I put it up to a vote the vast majority of my players would prefer what makes the game continue smoothly. (To be super clear, I'm only talking about the case of someone who has explicitly abandoned their stack by verbal declaration that they are leaving and not returning)

Technically the stack should remain until it's blinded out, but I feel you. How late into the tournament do you think the line should be?

As to taking a vote or whatever, the vast majority of players don't have a clue and should have no decision-making power over rules in most cases.

It's funny you should specificaly mention wanting to combine tables. I have this guy in my baby-stakes tournament league that always goes out of his way to try to combine tables early. Standard is 10 players, but he bitches about it when tables are 6/6 or 5/6 because he doesn't like playing shorthanded. A couple games ago he tried to pressure me into combining at 11, and it's like no, dude. Max players per table is 10. There's no legitimate reason to do it otherwise except that you want it to be easier to fold your way into the money.

 

[Mandos]

Technically the stack should remain until it's blinded out, but I feel you. How late into the tournament do you think the line should be?

As to taking a vote or whatever, the vast majority of players don't have a clue and should have no decision-making power over rules in most cases.

It's funny you should specificaly mention wanting to combine tables. I have this guy in my baby-stakes tournament league that always goes out of his way to try to combine tables early. Standard is 10 players, but he bitches about it when tables are 6/6 or 5/6 because he doesn't like playing shorthanded. A couple games ago he tried to pressure me into combining at 11, and it's like no, dude. Max players per table is 10. There's no legitimate reason to do it otherwise except that you want it to be easier to fold your way into the money.

Honestly, this has never come up in our game and i think it would be a judgement call. Barring a huge stack, I feel safe just removing any stack before the final table (which is final 9 for us because the tables aren't huge and I don't like 10 at a Barrington). At that point it still has to outlast 4 or 5 more stacks to make the money, and if it doesn't make the money we're just wasting our time. If there were a huge stack abandoned before then I would probably estimate how long it will take to blind him out and see if there's a good chance that he lasts until the money at that rate. If so I would probably leave it on the table and blind it out as suggested by BGinGA. But again, I've only seen someone leave early once and I think it's even less likely that someone leaves early as one of the chip leaders so I don't really foresee either of these scenarios taking place (and in the rare case that someone has decided to leave early they normally just shove recklessly and end their night the customary way). Doesn't hurt to think through though.

 

[JustinInMN]

It's funny you should specificaly mention wanting to combine tables. I have this guy in my baby-stakes tournament league that always goes out of his way to try to combine tables early. Standard is 10 players, but he bitches about it when tables are 6/6 or 5/6 because he doesn't like playing shorthanded. A couple games ago he tried to pressure me into combining at 11, and it's like no, dude. Max players per table is 10. There's no legitimate reason to do it otherwise except that you want it to be easier to fold your way into the money.

This guy wouldn't like me. I dislike 10-handed games as it is. I would prefer to combine at 9 . And to be frank, you shouldn't play in home games if you aren't willing to play 5-handed.

 

[BGinGA]

I've only seen someone leave early once and I think it's even less likely that someone leaves early as one of the chip leaders so I don't really foresee either of these scenarios taking place (and in the rare case that someone has decided to leave early they normally just shove recklessly and end their night the customary way).

I've had it happen twice, different times. Both departures were for pretty good reasons.

Once when the player received a call from his wife and immediately left to attend to an emergency concerning his child.

The other was a player who passed out at the poker table, and was transported to the hospital after paramedics responded to our 911 call.

Both player stacks were blinded out after the players left (play in the second episode was halted until emergency personnel were gone).

Results: Both child and player fully recovered after brief hospitalizations. The departed dad cashed in 4th place, but it didn't cover his kid's medical cost deductable.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Honestly, this has never come up in our game and i think it would be a judgement call. Barring a huge stack, I feel safe just removing any stack before the final table (which is final 9 for us because the tables aren't huge and I don't like 10 at a Barrington). At that point it still has to outlast 4 or 5 more stacks to make the money, and if it doesn't make the money we're just wasting our time. If there were a huge stack abandoned before then I would probably estimate how long it will take to blind him out and see if there's a good chance that he lasts until the money at that rate. If so I would probably leave it on the table and blind it out as suggested by BGinGA. But again, I've only seen someone leave early once and I think it's even less likely that someone leaves early as one of the chip leaders so I don't really foresee either of these scenarios taking place (and in the rare case that someone has decided to leave early they normally just shove recklessly and end their night the customary way). Doesn't hurt to think through though.

Having this kind of vague discretion to do whatever you want can get messy, especially if you're playing in the tournament.

Gonna be a bad look if you decide in the moment to handle it in a way that happens to benefit you. Even if you're acting 100% in good faith, the mere appearance of impropriety can really hurt the game.

This possibility is why I advocate for a simple, firm rule for issues like this.

 

[Lovejoyz]

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.

The entire 2nd page skipped this post. In my opinion, this is THE reason why you should blind it out in this scenario. At the beginning of tournaments you're blinded out because you can show up late, and still accept your stack. In the middle, you're blinded out when you go to the bathroom, take phone calls, whatever. At the end, you should still be blinded out if you have to leave or resign. Bounty thrown into last pot with the All-In stack. The player payed for that stack, and should be able to 'own them' until they are gone.

There is a HUGE difference between being late, bathroom, or leaving early, vs being disqualified. In DQ situations, the stack should be removed because they can no longer win any prize pool. Bounty thrown into the next pot after a DQ.
I just don't think it matters if she's coming back or not.

 

[TomC727]

The entire 2nd page skipped this post. In my opinion, this is THE reason why you should blind it out in this scenario. At the beginning of tournaments you're blinded out because you can show up late, and still accept your stack. In the middle, you're blinded out when you go to the bathroom, take phone calls, whatever. At the end, you should still be blinded out if you have to leave or resign. Bounty thrown into last pot with the All-In stack. The player payed for that stack, and should be able to 'own them' until they are gone.

There is a HUGE difference between being late, bathroom, or leaving early, vs being disqualified. In DQ situations, the stack should be removed because they can no longer win any prize pool. Bounty thrown into the next pot after a DQ.
I just don't think it matters if she's coming back or not.

This right here.

 

[Preditor]

I know this wouldn't fly for an "official" tournament. But in a friendly home game, are there any downsides if - should a player need to leave early - a player already eliminated takes over their stack and plays in their stead (with their blessing, of course)?

As long as the player leaving agrees on the person taking over for them, it seems for a friendly game they could split any winnings, and their stacks is being played property for the rest of the tournament.

In my mind, this would only qualify if they for sure they are not coming back. And they understand they cannot return to their stack. It is this other player's now, effectively.