Tourney Penalty-Free Late Registration (2 Viewers)

[Jimulacrum]

The nice thing about home games is that you don't have to tolerate players who exploit but technically follow the rules, or even those who follow the spirit of the rules but are jerks or otherwise bad for the game.

As I said earlier, I'm not going to hassle a guy for spending a few minutes socializing, having a smoke, or just chilling out before buying in. But if I get a feeling that he's doing it consistently to exploit the rule for advantage, I'm going to tell him to start buying in when he arrives or find another game. Hell, I might just skip the first part and take him off the list if he's being blatant about it.

My house, my rules, and "keep the game healthy and enjoyable for everyone" is host goal #1. Players like this do not help me achieve that goal.

Yep. I think this is the backstop that makes this system workable. The only players who get an advantage by sitting out levels are the worse players (and it's not terrible to throw them a bone), and if anyone seems to be trying to grind the buy-in system, you tell him to cut it out, or you boot him.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Maybe I’m misreading your question, but this is what makes me say there’s no right answer. I agree with the guy that it was unfair. I also agree with the sentiment that for a small home game, you have to give some deference to the host.

I will say that a late penalty can be unfair if it's unduly punitive. But I don't agree that imposing a penalty is inherently is unfair on the basis I recall from that thread (effectively that it's not right for players to buy in for the same amount but get different starting stacks).

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I agree that either option is better. This conversation arose out of another thread where those two options were alternatives that @Schmendr1ck tried with his group, but blinding off was a PITA and one player—not even a habitually tardy one—was very vocally opposed to a late penalty / on-time bonus.

The vocal player even insisted that the late penalty was unfair. In the end, the game went with the structure I'm describing here, which I find to be unfair in the opposite direction. It incentives people to show up late and opens up the buy-in process to (minor, probably misled) attempts at advantage play.

This is not to overly criticize ol' Schmendy. You gotta do what makes your players happy, and if they're going to stage a mutiny over the other way, it's not really a decision. I'm mainly critical of the vocal player whose less-than-nuanced understanding of fairness forced his hand.

I am offended, good sir! Flintlocks at dawn?

In the end, it simply wasn't worth the drama for what was at the time a $10 buy-in tourney. The primary host and I talked about it, and we decided that angering a couple of long-time regs wasn't worth it, and that the better solution was just to consistently start on time with the players who were there.

This also ended up being the right solution. Players who were routinely late for no good reason started making more of an effort to arrive on time once they realized they would be missing hands while the rest of us played.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I am offended, good sir! Flintlocks at dawn?

Throwing knives and I'm in.

In the end, it simply wasn't worth the drama for what was at the time a $10 buy-in tourney. The primary host and I talked about it, and we decided that angering a couple of long-time regs wasn't worth it, and that the better solution was just to consistently start on time with the players who were there.

This also ended up being the right solution. Players who were routinely late for no good reason started making more of an effort to arrive on time once they realized they would be missing hands while the rest of us played.

Prior to this rule, those same players who showed up late were getting blinded out, and later facing a penalty, no? Wouldn't that entail both losing chips and missing hands, which is measurably worse? I don't understand the logic.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Prior to this rule, those same players who showed up late were getting blinded out, and later facing a penalty, no? Wouldn't that entail both losing chips and missing hands, which is measurably worse? I don't understand the logic.

Honestly, I don't either. My guess is that the drama created over the penalty rule made some of the regular latecomers realize that they were creating a problem, and they decided to make more of an effort to arrive on time.

At the time, this group was VERY casual (and largely still is). For many, the poker was just an excuse to get out of the house and spend an evening with friends having fun. The drama over penalties made it distinctly less fun for a short while, so maybe they decided to fix that.

 

[CraigT78]

simply wasn't worth the drama

This is PCF. It's ALWAYS worth the drama.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

This is PCF. It's ALWAYS worth the drama.

Yeah but that was my mega-casual home tourney group. I think I was still at the blue wall when this drama happened.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Honestly, I don't either. My guess is that the drama created over the penalty rule made some of the regular latecomers realize that they were creating a problem, and they decided to make more of an effort to arrive on time.

At the time, this group was VERY casual (and largely still is). For many, the poker was just an excuse to get out of the house and spend an evening with friends having fun. The drama over penalties made it distinctly less fun for a short while, so maybe they decided to fix that.

If this is the case, it's a pretty fantastic outcome, actually.

 

[TheRealTeddyKGB]

They can wait until 12:29:59 because you made the rule that says so! I totally understand "life" happens but I'm still PRO on-time Bonus to encourage punctuality. Blinding is also not a big deal either. Starting stack of 10K w/BB Antes will likely only lose 250 assuming you start at 25/50/50 in :30 minutes.

 

[MichaelBubly]

I think you really have to choose the avenue you want to use and own it, but also accept the consequences of either choice. I have no problem with late registration if it is fair and clearly communicated, but I think that if you have a 30 minute window with no penalty that you are accepting and encouraging some players to late reg if that is favourable to their strategy.

Yes it's a home game, yes you don't have to tolerate that if you don't want to, but if you "encourage" late registers then know that you will inevitably have people who will late register.

For Perspective, I recently played in a deep-stack tournament where players could late-reg up to three hours late. I decided to come on time as I felt I would have an edge and could use the extra levels to build up a possible stack. Unfortunately, what happened was we played very short handed (5 or 6) for the first hour or two, but the stack blinding was limited to once per level and not once per orbit. I was pretty frustrated by this as there was a very clear advantage to just max-late regging as rebuys were also capped at 3 for a 2 table event. This is an extreme example, but I think you need to be direct and up front about the rules and you cannot bend or shift them based on your whim when possible.

If you allow people to enter up to 30 minutes late with no penalty, that should be the rule. If you don't, blind them every orbit and keep it fair to those who have chosen to show up. I still show up on time unless I legitimately can't make it on time as a home game is more about fun, but I do also like to play my best and do like to do well as I think everyone does. If a host encourages or allows an advantage that others can take advantage of, I think it's important to be very clear about those rules and consider the actions you may be promoting.

I have absolutely no problem with late registration and 30 minutes is very mild, but I think those rules have to be very black and white and not based on a whim of how the host is feeling at the time. Consistency of rules is important to the health of a home game in my opinion. It's okay to be very lax or very strict as long as players know what to expect.

 

[Rakrul]

I usually host rebuy tourneys and they can come whenever they want during the rebuy period (1 hour) without any penalty or blinding them out. If they're late, they'll see 2-5 people with 2xstart stacks because rebuys are cheap and logic is dead.
For freeze outs I blind them out. If they're not there by the end of the first break (1 hour) they're a no show and their stack is removed.

I also have an early bird bonus if you show up more than 15 minutes before start. That's because there's stuff I need to prepare that I can't do alone and I can't answer their 800 questions 10 seconds before the tourney starts.

 

[allforcharity]

Institute a small "on-time" bonus. This will disincentivize intentional delays.

 

[Mojo1312]

I voted to make him buy in right away because I feel it's important to the fairness of the game, but I could go the other way too. In fact, I think we have to let him buy in whenever he wants, right up until 12:29:59, if we're following a strict interpretation of the rule.

But it really does open up the rule to exploitation. The funny thing is that it's mainly exploitable by weaker players. If you're a winning player, those earlier deeper-stacked levels are generally a good value for the blinds you pay. If you're not, well, the less you play, the better, generally speaking. Letting your stack ride without having to pay blinds keeps you even and keeps you out of trouble.

From my point of view, you set up rules that encourages the behavior you are seeking.

I hosted a two to three table bi-monthly tournament at my cousin's place for a couple of winter's. We had a good time. The tournament provided "casual" players who were uncomfortable sitting in on our weekly cash game the option of playing for a defined amount of money.

The third winter I bought my own card table and picked up a second one from a friend of mine. We set up a point system and started a league. I had trouble with a couple of players arriving, (sometimes unannounced), 10 or 15 minutes late. I addressed the issue by giving players who RSVP'd and showed up on time an early bird bonus of 7.5 BB's. (T15000, T750 early bird bonus)

The result surprised me. People, as it turns out, don't like losing out or letting others have an advantage, however small. Stragglers from that moment forward became a non-issue.

 

[Jimulacrum]

From my point of view, you set up rules that encourages the behavior you are seeking.

I hosted a two to three table bi-monthly tournament at my cousin's place for a couple of winter's. We had a good time. The tournament provided "casual" players who were uncomfortable sitting in on our weekly cash game the option of playing for a defined amount of money.

The third winter I bought my own card table and picked up a second one from a friend of mine. We set up a point system and started a league. I had trouble with a couple of players arriving, (sometimes unannounced), 10 or 15 minutes late. I addressed the issue by giving players who RSVP'd and showed up on time an early bird bonus of 7.5 BB's. (T15000, T750 early bird bonus)

The result surprised me. People, as it turns out, don't like losing out or letting others have an advantage, however small. Stragglers from that moment forward became a non-issue.

This is roughly what I do with my league, but the penalty is a little more severe. Was 2K off a 7K stack when I took over, which I scaled down inversely by making stacks much larger. Now it's 10K stacks with a 2K on-time bonus. Ultimately I think I'm going to settle on 7K with a 1K on-time bonus (gotta go shorter because it's hard to support 12K with the chip set). The penalty is still big enough to be punitive, but not disproportionate.

People occasionally gripe about losing out on a bunch of chips for being 5 minutes late. People occasionally gripe about having their hand killed because they weren't at the table too. The rules are the rules. No one forced you to break them.

 

[Rakrul]

I force them to register at The Tournament Director software themselves. The bonus is if you're there (and registered) before 19.00, you get 10% extra on your bouy in. If their registration time is 19:00:00, they don't get the bonus. I told them this before the first time and now they know so instead they complain about slow elevator, neighbor getting off on a different floor, etc. Noone asks for 2 seconds extension because they know it's the same rule for everyone. As long as you uphold the rules consistently, there's no expectation of the rules not being followed.

Edit: Also, it's a bonus with a requirement. If you don't meet it, you don't get it. It plays of easier than a penalty.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I suppose he would be avoiding blinds but he's missing a load of hands as well.

I have always been under the impression that purposeful late reg is not a good strategy - either you may be buying in for less big blinds than others (if blinds increase) or you'll be buying in for less than the average stack if anyone is knocked out.

What advantage does late reg offer?

This reads like it's trying to make some connection between risk and reward. I say the article is interesting but lacking. It's hard to put a price on information. Watching how others play goes a long way. Tournaments I have sat in on are hard to compete in if you aren't growing your stack every half hour. I think a late registration adds more gambling. That is to get over the hump of being short stack in the first hour. If you can do that, I agree with the rise in equity from the late entry.

Relating this back to the home game. If the late registration knows how you play, they are ahead everytime.

Just an FYI after discussing the late registration, I enjoy Jonathan Little's content and he just released this talking about late registration. He's a better teacher/player than I will ever be.

 

[glynn]

but Im not doubting the calculus that goes into many pros choosing to late reg all kinds of tourneys.

The pros also have an edge that is greater than any ICM boost from late registration. Their calculus is one of opportunity cost (usually "the cash games are incredible during tournament series").

Jonathan emphasizes both short- and long-term opportunity savings in that video too, but from the amateur's perspective. The big one is the immense amount of time saved by "specializing" in short-stack poker (or really, by not having to learn deep-stack poker, which is certainly -EV when you zoom out from late-reg tournaments unless that's all you play).

It's the same concept as someone whose cash game strategy is to buy in for the minimum — they want to win a couple multiples of their buyin or lose a little, and quickly. And for them, it is the second-most correct move next to not playing at all.

 

[NeutronHim]

If you are a player that is roughly equally competent at all stages of tournaments and if you have an edge with respect to the field, late regging is -ev. As in you will take home less on average than if you didn't. It is not +ev to late reg, just as it not +ev to hit and run. If you think you are better after the early stages of a tournament, you are likely wrong but you would believe that late regging is +ev.

Pros late reg because their hourly ev differs from tournament stage to tournament stage, and its not worth their time to grind the early stages of a tournament when they could be making more elsewhere.

At the end of the day, it's your game. It's pretty obvious how a decision you make will alter the incentive structure of players -- if you force them to join as soon as they come, they come maximally late. If you don't, you'll have a bunch of spectators watching the games thinking they are sharking the player pool by spectating and getting reads (they probably aren't.) As the host, you shouldn't really care what these players are doing to monkey around jostling for an edge. Maybe you prefer that if there's a nonzero chance a dude will show up and not reg, you don't want them taking space in your room (in which case you rule to force them to buy-in at the door.) Maybe you think it ruins the vibe for the other players, so you just ask the other players what they'd prefer. Maybe you let em in but don't invite them next time.

I think you shouldn't make exceptions for frivolous reasons. I think making a hard and fast rule and just sticking to it is the easiest way to dodge some sort of controversy that hurts the game. Giving someone a penalty for late regging is not common practice; giving someone a penalty for late regging after spectating for a while isn't either but you could reason that it's a charge for lounging on your premises.

Tldr: find a hard and fast rule that makes your life easy, or if your life is easy enough then find a hard and fast rule that the players like.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

The pros also have an edge that is greater than any ICM boost from late registration. Their calculus is one of opportunity cost (usually "the cash games are incredible during tournament series").

Jonathan emphasizes both short- and long-term opportunity savings in that video too, but from the amateur's perspective. The big one is the immense amount of time saved by "specializing" in short-stack poker (or really, by not having to learn deep-stack poker, which is certainly -EV when you zoom out from late-reg tournaments unless that's all you play).

It's the same concept as someone whose cash game strategy is to buy in for the minimum — they want to win a couple multiples of their buyin or lose a little, and quickly. And for them, it is the second-most correct move next to not playing at all.

I don't agree re: the cash game analogy. By definition those cash games, you CAN hit and run, jumping in and out, rather than tournament late registration, where people have already bought in and been knocked out of the tournament, changing the value of those chips that I'm buying, right? Short stacking a cash game is only risking that amount and changing post-flop math. Buying into the tournament late is maybe a similar short stack but also comes with it a ticket to possibly cash that stack into a payout while others have already donated their fill.

Obviously pros trump any edge I may or may not have, sure, and the focusing-your-game-on-short-stack play is absolutely not my MO, doesn't seem fun or helpful. I don't have the edge Jonathan/others do over that early field, I'm good but tournaments have lots of tough spots, I'm not so certain it would help me to buyin right at the start. I still will because I mostly play tournaments for fun and the experience but that's beyond the math of it.

If you are a player that is roughly equally competent at all stages of tournaments and if you have an edge with respect to the field, late regging is -ev. As in you will take home less on average than if you didn't. It is not +ev to late reg, just as it not +ev to hit and run. If you think you are better after the early stages of a tournament, you are likely wrong but you would believe that late regging is +ev.

How much work is, "and if you have an edge with respect to the field" doing in that sentence? Not being a smartass, actually curious. At most home games, 100% have an edge, duh, but once we start talking about casino MTT that edge has gotta fall. I'm roughly competent, sure, but closer to the money is closer to the money, right? Tournaments have enough flips that I'd like to avoid and if players are already knocked out, even better.


Not putting my heels in for late regging as a strategy, learning from you guys, thank you. Hadn't thought this deeply about it.

 

[upNdown]

The pros also have an edge that is greater than any ICM boost from late registration. Their calculus is one of opportunity cost (usually "the cash games are incredible during tournament series").

Pros late reg because their hourly ev differs from tournament stage to tournament stage, and its not worth their time to grind the early stages of a tournament when they could be making more elsewhere.

These are both true, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a mathematical advantage to max late reg in many/most WSOP tourneys. Jesus Ferguson says so and he’s a smart guy.
However, I’m pretty sure that math doesn’t quite translate to the typical home game tournament. If there’s some guy who wants to late reg every tournament because he read that’s what the pros do at the WSOP, I want him at my table every time.

 

[MichaelBubly]

If you are a player that is roughly equally competent at all stages of tournaments and if you have an edge with respect to the field, late regging is -ev. As in you will take home less on average than if you didn't. It is not +ev to late reg, just as it not +ev to hit and run. If you think you are better after the early stages of a tournament, you are likely wrong but you would believe that late regging is +ev.

I think there are more factors here than just if you feel you have an edge. It also depends on how late you can register relative to the money and your chip stack on entrance.

Would you rather play 4 hours deep stacked and possibly build up a stack while dodging coolers or enter near the bubble with 10-15BB and need to win 1 maybe 2 doubles to cash. And potentially score more points than half the field by coming late for any leagues with point structures. A 30 min window really isn’t a big edge in either direction, but several hours can have more implications theoritically and while I’m not one to try and exploit a home game, I also don’t like when games are run with contradicting rules that may favour someone how could knowinglly or unknowningly get an edge by coming to A game late.

 

[NeutronHim]

I think there are more factors here than just if you feel you have an edge. It also depends on how late you can register relative to the money and your chip stack on entrance.

Would you rather play 4 hours deep stacked and possibly build up a stack while dodging coolers or enter near the bubble with 10-15BB and need to win 1 maybe 2 doubles to cash. And potentially score more points than half the field by coming late for any leagues with point structures. A 30 min window really isn’t a big edge in either direction, but several hours can have more implications theoritically and while I’m not one to try and exploit a home game, I also don’t like when games are run with contradicting rules that may favour someone how could knowinglly or unknowningly get an edge by coming to A game late.

if you need two doubles to get to average stack, the population has dwindled by a factor of four. Let's say there's 45 people, 10 cash, 15 left, and you need two doubles to get to av stack. Let's say you somehow get both these doubles at 50/50 odds. So you lose your buyin 3/4 of the time, bink like 1.25(?)x your buyin 8/40 of the time, and maybe bink 10x your buyin 2/40 of the time. Maybe these numbers are full of shit, but you're in for 1 buyin and out for 1.25x.2+10x.05=.75 buyins in this made up scenario which proves that there exist situations in which its "easier to cash" by late regging but still -ev.

I made those numbers up. My point is basically that if you late reg a small bit away from the bubble, you are gonna bust most of the time. You are gonna min cash the rest. If you tell me "cash this event and I'll give you a million bucks" I'm probably late regging. But aside from that million dollars playing to bust or mincash isn't "gaining an edge", it's pursuing the rush of winning (a couple bucks) rather than the path of maximal ev.

So the point is, if the time commitment isn't an issue then you would rather play 4 hours, build up a stack against the players who are on average weaker, and dodge coolers. When you make it to the ft, you are gonna win a LOT more than late reg Larry. Same idea as flopping top set on a flush draw board and shipping it for 3x pot instead of betting smaller to keep some draws in -- you could ask the analogous question of "would you rather a) make a little bit more money by betting small when the flush doesn't hit on the turn and potentially lose the pot and your entire stack or b) just take it down right here?," where the required response is a nuanced one that explains that the human aversion to risk (busting early or losing the pot) is ill suited to such probabilistic endeavors -- this aversion is, in fact, loosely related to why the gambling industry does so well.

If you go close enough to the bubble, some weird stuff probably starts happening. Agree that 30 minutes makes no difference.

 

[JustinInMN]

The situation: A low-stakes Hold'em freezeout. Home-game setting. Cards fly at 12:00, but players may buy in at any time between 12:00 and 12:30. Late entries receive the exact same stack as on-time entries; they do not pay a penalty, lose a bonus, or have chips blinded away in their absence.

The question: A player arrives at 12:05. The game is already underway. If the player wants to play, must he buy in right at that moment, or can he choose to wait until any time he prefers, up until 12:29:59?

Inspired by a situation of @Schmendr1ck's making.

Rules say he can wait until 12:29:59, so he has no obligation to buy in upon arrival. Now that said, if the game were oversold, he might lose out on his seat by waiting. But I don't see any reason to rule against waiting until the true deadline to buy in.

 

[JustinInMN]

I voted to make him buy in right away because I feel it's important to the fairness of the game, but I could go the other way too. In fact, I think we have to let him buy in whenever he wants, right up until 12:29:59, if we're following a strict interpretation of the rule.

If this is the case then the truth is you shouldn't be allowing late registration at all, or there needs to be some stack penalty/denial of on-time bonus however you want to look it.

 

[MichaelBubly]

if you need two doubles to get to average stack, the population has dwindled by a factor of four. Let's say there's 45 people, 10 cash, 15 left, and you need two doubles to get to av stack. Let's say you somehow get both these doubles at 50/50 odds. So you lose your buyin 3/4 of the time, bink like 1.25(?)x your buyin 8/40 of the time, and maybe bink 10x your buyin 2/40 of the time. Maybe these numbers are full of shit, but you're in for 1 buyin and out for 1.25x.2+10x.05=.75 buyins in this made up scenario which proves that there exist situations in which its "easier to cash" by late regging but still -ev.

I made those numbers up. My point is basically that if you late reg a small bit away from the bubble, you are gonna bust most of the time. You are gonna min cash the rest. If you tell me "cash this event and I'll give you a million bucks" I'm probably late regging. But aside from that million dollars playing to bust or mincash isn't "gaining an edge", it's pursuing the rush of winning (a couple bucks) rather than the path of maximal ev.

So the point is, if the time commitment isn't an issue then you would rather play 4 hours, build up a stack against the players who are on average weaker, and dodge coolers. When you make it to the ft, you are gonna win a LOT more than late reg Larry. Same idea as flopping top set on a flush draw board and shipping it for 3x pot instead of betting smaller to keep some draws in -- you could ask the analogous question of "would you rather a) make a little bit more money by betting small when the flush doesn't hit on the turn and potentially lose the pot and your entire stack or b) just take it down right here?," where the required response is a nuanced one that explains that the human aversion to risk (busting early or losing the pot) is ill suited to such probabilistic endeavors -- this aversion is, in fact, loosely related to why the gambling industry does so well.

If you go close enough to the bubble, some weird stuff probably starts happening. Agree that 30 minutes makes no difference.

I think it's closer than that. If you have a 25% chance to cash late regging and a 22% chance to cash by entering early that is a viable option. These are obviously very rough percentages with no data behind either number though.

By doubling twice you should be pretty close to average chip stack in that example meaning you still have a very solid chance of making a deep run when compared to someone who reges on time. You can also cash occasionally without doubling twice and just playing solid ICM poker.

I would still be showing up on time almost always in this case, but if you start considering league points and other factors it's very close on EV if not +EV for lesser skilled players to do this (not likely that they would consider this, but it's always possible)

 

[glynn]

These are both true, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a mathematical advantage to max late reg in many/most WSOP tourneys. Jesus Ferguson says so and he’s a smart guy.

No doubt, and without hearing his arguments, I agree with him.

Consider the Main Event as an example: Not only does it have a deep and slow structure, it is widely considered to be a lottery even accounting for the huge amount of dead money.

With that in mind, you can "profit" just from a utility perspective by sleeping in or enjoying a meal with your partner. Those levels are worth significantly less than in a shallower tourney. It's the difference between buying two lottery tickets versus one.

That's before folding in direct $EV gains from e.g. the extra rest. In an endurance contest such as the WSOP ME or any deep, multi-day grind, it doesn't take much to make up for value lost by missing the early levels. (Little raises the sleep example in his video.)

 

[NeutronHim]

I think a lot of the arguments for max late regging events go something like "your time / life is worth more than marginal spots at the beginning of tournaments."

To which I respond sure, but if we're gonna factor in all that then you have to at least entertain the possibility that playing a small buyin for fun in this guys home game is +life ev in and of itself. Are we really in this scenario where theres some pro that gets 30 minutes extra of life ev for a small loss in moneyEv and you call that exploiting the player pool because they had to play those extra thirty minutes for minimal gain? Because those players were arguably having some fun in those 30 minutes as well. At the wsop, there's a lot more on the line and it probably feels more like a job.

There might be some situations where late regging is +$ev ignoring life ev. I'm not well acquainted with these spots. I'm sure, for example, that the WSOP main is not one of these spots. It is very possible that late regging is always +ev once considering life ev, but I think it's a little thin to police people making choices to increase their life ev (even if this additional live ev is at the modest detriment of other players.)

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Yeaahh, soon as the term 'life ev' is tossed around I'm out lol. We can speak purely about the math of a tournament and what late vs normal reg means, but I keep that convo wholly separate from the one about doing whats best for me & mine. Definitely why Im going to show up on time for any home tournament cause I know its easier on the host and I don't like being late to anything.

Good conversation though, I'm thinking more about it.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Yeaahh, soon as the term 'life ev' is tossed around I'm out lol. We can speak purely about the math of a tournament and what late vs normal reg means, but I keep that convo wholly separate from the one about doing whats best for me & mine. Definitely why Im going to show up on time for any home tournament cause I know its easier on the host and I don't like being late to anything.

Good conversation though, I'm thinking more about it.

Yeah, my interest is purely the questions of the mathematics within the game. You could be doing any of a number of "life" +EV or –EV things during those 29 minutes and 59 seconds. Sure. As the host, I don't care unless it affects me or the game.

The main reason I made this post/poll is because my gut reaction to @Schmendr1ck's late-reg rules is that they're more unfair than the rules he previously tried (blinding off stacks and, separately, a late penalty), which his players didn't like. The rule strikes me as exploitable off the bat. But the more I think about it and pore through this discussion, the more convinced I am that it's not unfair at all.

In fact, the only shred of advantage it seems to offer is that it allows softer players to sit out for a while for free. Skilled players would generally do better to enter on time and play their hands. Any gain, if it exists, is small, and the types of players who can glean it probably don't understand it enough to do so.

So I stand corrected. My gut was wrong on this one. This kind of rule is probably fine unless the players themselves make a problem out of it (and then the problem is your players). I still like a late penalty, personally, but open late reg with no penalty seems reasonable too.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Yeah, my interest is purely the questions of the mathematics within the game. You could be doing any of a number of "life" +EV or –EV things during those 29 minutes and 59 seconds. Sure. As the host, I don't care unless it affects me or the game.

The main reason I made this post/poll is because my gut reaction to @Schmendr1ck's late-reg rules is that they're more unfair than the rules he previously tried (blinding off stacks and, separately, a late penalty), which his players didn't like. The rule strikes me as exploitable off the bat. But the more I think about it and pore through this discussion, the more convinced I am that it's not unfair at all.

So what you're saying is that even a broken clock is right twice a day!

In fact, the only shred of advantage it seems to offer is that it allows softer players to sit out for a while for free. Skilled players would generally do better to enter on time and play their hands. Any gain, if it exists, is small, and the types of players who can glean it probably don't understand it enough to do so.

So I stand corrected. My gut was wrong on this one. This kind of rule is probably fine unless the players themselves make a problem out of it (and then the problem is your players). I still like a late penalty, personally, but open late reg with no penalty seems reasonable too.

At the time I honestly didn't consider the question of exploitability or small edges for players of different skill levels, beyond simply ensuring that the rule change applied equally to everyone. For my specific circumstances - a very low stakes, very casual weekly home tourney - allowing open late registration seemed to be the best way to keep the game fun and fair, and to keep players coming back each week.