I think pokerstars handles it perfectly fine. Absent stack is blinded out (player is either in sit-out status or auto-folded) and is eligible for prizes/points.
Tourney Player leaving mid-tournament (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter karsus
- Start date
Even Bob himself is not opposed to including additional house rules that act in the interest of fairness.
While I tend to favor very few, if any, house rules, believe the rules as they are typically are the way it needs to be, and special house rules can often have unintended negative effects, there is a "CHANGES MADE BY THIS CARDROOM" section at the end of the RRoP .pdf for a reason. Bob Ciaffone recognized there is always room for improvement and that special circumstances may warrant deviations from his rules.
EDIT: Forgot to include something and corrected a typo.
Mr Winberg
Full House
I played a tournament at a friend's place and he insisted on playing this horrible, repetitive, electric dance music. We all begged him to change, but apparently he had a house rule.
I know somebody with the exact same house rule. Everybody begged him to stop playing that music, too....until they realized it served a purpose. When he turned it off, I started singing. People begged him to put the music back on.
In our poker circles, playing background music with no lyrics is casually referred to as the 'Donna' rule.
Her singing is like two cats that hate each other having sex in a crowded doghouse.
As a witness to this, I can say without question, the description is incredibly accurate and maybe even a tad kind.
In a homegame STT my friend had to leave after 20 min of playing. I asked other players (we are all friends) if i can give him back the buy-in. They said its ok so i gave him back the money. Tournament with 1 rebuy, no bounty. Whould you do that too? From what point should i say no?
Personally, I'd say no every time. To me, "had to leave after 20 min of playing" is no different than a cooler or a bad beat.
Everybody pays their money and most of them lose it - that's poker, that's life, and neither are fair.
Sorry pal, see you next week!
vanislander
Pair
Reviving this rather than starting new thread. It happened last night. New player announced he had to go home and that he was going to shove until he was out. I allowed this, but in hindsight shouldn't have. Came here for answers and I'm not a fan of the options.
Have a theory to run past the brain trust: What if the abandoned stack posted an ante equal to the big blind, every hand until stack is gone?
It keeps the stack in play, and no advantage given based on seating order. Other than being a little labour heavy, am I missing a big downside?
Have a theory to run past the brain trust: What if the abandoned stack posted an ante equal to the big blind, every hand until stack is gone?
It keeps the stack in play, and no advantage given based on seating order. Other than being a little labour heavy, am I missing a big downside?
Mr Winberg
Full House
I'm not really sure how you couldn't have not allowed this. The all in move is perfectly legal. All rulings should have support from the rulebook.
If you do this and the dead stack never posts blinds, then yes, there'd be no positional advantage. If it still posts blinds then there will still be positional advantage.
If the former, then the stack is essentially removed from play, but reintroduced 1 BB at a time. That poses the question: If you're fine with removing the stack, then why do you need to reintroduce it?
Mr Winberg
Full House
Still surprised nobody appreciated this pun. Gotta be one of my top 5 poker related music puns!
vanislander
Pair
I don't mean i should have prevented it, i mean i wish i had handled it another way. So I came here for solutions.
I suppose I'm happy either way, it just seems more appropriate that since the buy in remains in play, that the chips tied to that buy in remain in play as well. Any thoughts on the matter are appreciated.
to elaborate on what happened: after the leaving player announced his intentions I was lucky enough to have decent enough hole cards to buy both pots either before or after the flop. Had i had crap cards, i would have had no chance at his chips. I understand that's poker, but on the other hand, I'm the host and honestly i feel a little bad that his departure benefitted me exclusively. I went on to win they tourney. I know my players are unlikely to think this was some diabolical scheme, but i don't want to put my game in that situation again.
Mr Winberg
Full House
I see.
I don't think you should worry about it, I can't imagine anyone blaming you.
BG's approach mentioned earlier in this thread might work for you?
I guess my 2 cents are that since he has bought in, his stack has a right to dwindle down 1.5BB per orbit, not e.g. 9 BBs per orbit (if there are 9 players at the table).
I don't think you should worry about it, I can't imagine anyone blaming you.
BG's approach mentioned earlier in this thread might work for you?
vanislander
Pair
I like the idea of them going into every pot so it doesn't provide a greater advantage to certain seats. In theory this would evenly distribute the chips to the remaining players in the most poker-ly fashion. (ya i made that up) If seeking to redistrubute the alternative is to just divide the chips by the number of remaining players, but I don't like this for some reason.
The BG approach I think you're referencing was to remove the chips from the table as the button passes over the seat. No advantage given there, but if you know the player isn't returning, wouldn't it be simpler to just remove all those chips from play in one swoop?
If it happens again (seems unlikely but best to be prepared) I'll likely just remove the chips from play.
The only other solution I can see here would be to use the horse race game to redistribute the abandoned buy in. I think I know what I have to do
The BG approach I think you're referencing was to remove the chips from the table as the button passes over the seat. No advantage given there, but if you know the player isn't returning, wouldn't it be simpler to just remove all those chips from play in one swoop?
If it happens again (seems unlikely but best to be prepared) I'll likely just remove the chips from play.
The only other solution I can see here would be to use the horse race game to redistribute the abandoned buy in. I think I know what I have to do
In a friendly home game or social hall tourney, many players might consider dealing to an empty seat and blinding them off as more of a pain in the ass than anything worth the free chips, regardless of what is technically correct.
HaRDHouSeiNC
Straight Flush
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,475
- Reaction score
- 15,387
I had a guy get pissed off and leave the tournament after like 10 mins
LOFL WAS TOO funny
Was live though
Just picked his chips up and put them back in the rebuy box
LOFL WAS TOO funny
Was live though
Just picked his chips up and put them back in the rebuy box
I’ll go you one better. Years ago I played in a game hosted by a tall, gruff, older Austrian cross-dresser.
Really.
Anyway, he played only John Philip Sousa marching music, or else bagpipe records.
We begged him to play something else—anything else—but it was his game and that’s what he liked.
Mr Winberg
Full House
Because that player has the right to keep his chips in play. BG's approach achieves that, but without any positional advantage given to anyone at the table.
Let's say someone needs to leave due to an emergency while being the chipleader at or close to the bubble (or even ITM). Those chips have every right to climb the money ladder. I know your scenario wasn't close to ITM, but where would you draw the line?
A really weird example:
Let's say the first break arrives and one player says he has to leave due to an emergency. Another player goes to the bathroom.
If your house rule is to remove all chips, then the emergency guy's chips are removed and he is eliminated. The bathroom guy is still in it. Both in the tournament and in the bathroom, because his IBS has now kicked in big time! He is fighting for his life while the rest of the table all get premiums dealt, all are all in, chipleader wins and has all the chips! Except bathroom guy's, of course.
Bathroom guy comes back from the restroom and sits down ITM. The emergency guy returns as well: "It was a false alarm, I can play!".
So one player who was absent taking a shit gets money, but the other absent players gets jack shit. Why? Why was one reason worth elimination but the other wasn't? Because he gave notice instead of just disappearing to the bathroom? (Edit: I.e. the one who gave notice is penalized for this and is eliminated, whereas the one who disappeared got to keep his stack and won money)
Similar scenarios could happen with your "1 BB per hand" approach since the stack dwindles down too fast.
Mind you this is highly hypothetical, but I just want to show that a paid spot has the right to stay in the game, regardless of how remote the chances are to win anything.
You're on to something!!
Last edited:
grebe
Full House
I am honestly blown away that this is such a hot bet topic. You pay your money, you get the opportunity to win in whatever cocomany (spell check) strategy or lack thereof you choose to employ. Whether you shove every hand or have to leave and not come back, or you call every hand preflop and hope to hit, or play like a nit. They are all the same....you paid in, you deserve whatever you get on the other side of that....even if you get up and leave.
Rules should not change just because it is a home game amongst friends.
That being said, I am a mostly online guy and this is a standard practice that everybody knows happens. Sometimes, it happens on purpose for strategic reasons (not good ones, mind you but everybody is entitled to play how they want). Sometimes, people have to go (one time I jumped in to a nano stakes PLO tourney just to play some poker in the morning. I had a tee time and was running well....I handed it off to my daughter and told her to either raise or fold...got like 15th). Sometimes, like my brother....he fell asleep mid game. Still made the money and got paid appropriately.
Also, if I am running late, I will call in advance and tell them to just blind me off until I arrive. It's the fair way in my mind, and I am happy to pay the penalty for my tardiness.
Rules should not change just because it is a home game amongst friends.
That being said, I am a mostly online guy and this is a standard practice that everybody knows happens. Sometimes, it happens on purpose for strategic reasons (not good ones, mind you but everybody is entitled to play how they want). Sometimes, people have to go (one time I jumped in to a nano stakes PLO tourney just to play some poker in the morning. I had a tee time and was running well....I handed it off to my daughter and told her to either raise or fold...got like 15th). Sometimes, like my brother....he fell asleep mid game. Still made the money and got paid appropriately.
Also, if I am running late, I will call in advance and tell them to just blind me off until I arrive. It's the fair way in my mind, and I am happy to pay the penalty for my tardiness.
Another issue I didn’t notice mentioned (but may have missed it)...
If you’re keeping the stack on the table and blinding it off, someone has to deal for that position to keep the blinds in order, no?
A lot of casual players hate that. There can even be situations where someone has to deal three times in a row.
And: do you deal cards to the empty seat with chips?
I find in self-dealt games that if a player is not in their seat, or there is a dead small, or some other situation where things are not quite usual, you get more misdeals (yypically, because someone did not deal to the missing seat, or someone dealing for the missing person forgets and deals as if he’s the button).
Thinking it over, I’m considering making it a House Rule that if someone announces they are leaving the game for any reason, their stack gets removed once their current blinds have been paid.
If you’re keeping the stack on the table and blinding it off, someone has to deal for that position to keep the blinds in order, no?
A lot of casual players hate that. There can even be situations where someone has to deal three times in a row.
And: do you deal cards to the empty seat with chips?
I find in self-dealt games that if a player is not in their seat, or there is a dead small, or some other situation where things are not quite usual, you get more misdeals (yypically, because someone did not deal to the missing seat, or someone dealing for the missing person forgets and deals as if he’s the button).
Thinking it over, I’m considering making it a House Rule that if someone announces they are leaving the game for any reason, their stack gets removed once their current blinds have been paid.
Exactly.
It depends on how the blinds are removed from the stack. If posting blinds normally, then yes -- the vacant seat also gets cards every hand (auto-folded), and the seat/stack is included in the normal Dealer--SB--BB--etc rotation. And yes, if a self-dealt game, somebody will need to deal for that seat when the button arrives. And the players to the right of that seat have a significant positional advantage.
But..... if both blinds are removed from the table when the button passes over the seat/stack, then 1) cards are never dealt to the seat/stack, 2) the button doesn't stop there (so nobody has to deal for the vacant player), and 3) nobody gains the positional advantage of being last-to-act multiple times per orbit. All while the stack is still in contention to move up the money ladder, as it should be.
Sounds like a win-win-win-win to me, with no real downside. YMMV,
Exactly.. Removing a stack from money contention is very -EV for no valid reason. If the game is doing this, the player should get some type of compensation for his resulting loss of equity that was paid for when buying his stack.
If actually wanting to re-distribute the player's chips to the remaining players in a fair fashion (although I fail to see the importance of doing so), it should be done by taking 1.5 big blinds from the seat/stack once per orbit, and dividing that amount by n (the number of remaining players), and then either a) distributing that small amount (1.5BB/n) to each of the remaining player stacks (once per orbit), or b) placing that small amount (1.5BB/n) into each pot for the remainder of the orbit (n hands). Either variation is way more trouble than it's worth, and would also require additional smaller denomination chips to handle the small amounts being distributed to either players or pots.
Just simply removing the 1.5BB in chips per orbit from play is a whole lot easier, and nobody is going to miss them.
If a player wants to sit there and fold every hand, the player is allowed to do so. So, what's the difference if he is there or not?
The answer is: not much, but there is one difference. I'll discuss that difference in a second. So, if a player can sit there, fold every hand until there are no chips left in their stack, and still cash and get points if earned; why would you not allow that player to cash and get points if the player is not there? There is no difference in that respect. There or not, the player paid the entry fee and is entitled to any reward. The player is also entitled to have their stack treated just as though they are there, even though they are not. Never should the stack be blinded off more quickly, simply removed, etc. They should lose chips no more quickly than if they simply folded every hand. IMO, not doing so and not giving the player any earned points or money is not only cheating but stealing
Now, the one minor exception. As @BGinGA has pointed out, a player not being in their seat creates a positional advantage for the player to the right of the empty seat. Basically, that player gets the button twice. That's where the difference comes into play. If Player B leaves, Player A (to Player B's right) knows Player B can't raise or call and basically gets the button twice; whereas, if Player B is there and just folding every hand, then technically, Player A doesn't know if Player B will suddenly decide to play a hand. Therefore, while I used to be on the fence about this, I'm now an advocate of @BGinGA's method of removing the players blinds when the button passes over them. It is fair and does not give a player an unintentional button advantage.
The counter-argument to removing blinds as the button passes is that, as long as the seating was randomly assigned, getting a "double button" is just luck of the draw. That's true; however, for most cases when it is "luck of the draw", things will even out over time; however, since this is a very infrequent occurrence, it is not likely that this type of luck will ever even out. Therefore, I don't agree with that counter-argument.
The answer is: not much, but there is one difference. I'll discuss that difference in a second. So, if a player can sit there, fold every hand until there are no chips left in their stack, and still cash and get points if earned; why would you not allow that player to cash and get points if the player is not there? There is no difference in that respect. There or not, the player paid the entry fee and is entitled to any reward. The player is also entitled to have their stack treated just as though they are there, even though they are not. Never should the stack be blinded off more quickly, simply removed, etc. They should lose chips no more quickly than if they simply folded every hand. IMO, not doing so and not giving the player any earned points or money is not only cheating but stealing
Now, the one minor exception. As @BGinGA has pointed out, a player not being in their seat creates a positional advantage for the player to the right of the empty seat. Basically, that player gets the button twice. That's where the difference comes into play. If Player B leaves, Player A (to Player B's right) knows Player B can't raise or call and basically gets the button twice; whereas, if Player B is there and just folding every hand, then technically, Player A doesn't know if Player B will suddenly decide to play a hand. Therefore, while I used to be on the fence about this, I'm now an advocate of @BGinGA's method of removing the players blinds when the button passes over them. It is fair and does not give a player an unintentional button advantage.
The counter-argument to removing blinds as the button passes is that, as long as the seating was randomly assigned, getting a "double button" is just luck of the draw. That's true; however, for most cases when it is "luck of the draw", things will even out over time; however, since this is a very infrequent occurrence, it is not likely that this type of luck will ever even out. Therefore, I don't agree with that counter-argument.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
