Tourney Procedure question - button and blinds (1 Viewer)

[Mental Nomad]

OK, I'm largely a cash-game player, but was at a tournament where an uncommon situation came up and the handling seemed awkward.

Six people at the table - call them Mr. A through Mr. F.

At the start of the hand, Mr. A and Mr. B have the small and the big, Mr. F has the button. Big hand ensues with a 3-way all-in; Mr. A and Mr. B are both busted out. The remaining four players are now C through F.

What is the proper way to place the button and post the blinds in the subsequent hands?

(If possible, please point to sources - as played in such-and-such tourney, as stated in RR, etc.)

 

[Mr Tree]

Dead button, dead small blind, big blind is player C because both blinds can't be dead.

Source- me because I'm right.

 

[dew4au]

I go by this..

http://www.homepokertourney.com/button.htm

Edit for clarity: Dead button rule.

 

[ChipTalker]

I usually assume this from RR

(b) Dead button – The big blind is posted by the player due for it, and the small blind and button are positioned accordingly, even if this means the small blind or the button is placed in front of an empty seat, giving the same player the privilege of last action on consecutive hands. [See “Section 16 – Explanations,” discussion #1, for more information on this rule.]

meaning C is the Big Blind and that is the only blind for that hand.

 

[atomiktoaster]

I think we'll all be in agreement for the dead button rule for this scenario. What happens if A, B and C bust out? I'd say D posts the BB, no SB, and next hand D is SB and E is BB, with the button effectively skipping an empty seat, but I'm not sure.

 

[Mental Nomad]

http://www.homepokertourney.com/button.htm

Edit for clarity: Dead button rule.

The difference between the Dead Button rule and the Moving Button rule seems to encapsulate the disagreement... this was a first-time tourney in a new group, and no rule had been declared beforehand - and the rule was presented as if it's unquestionable.

The homepokertourney.com site presents the Dead Button rule first.

Robert's Rules present the Moving Button first:

“Each round all players must get the button, and meet the total amount of the blind obligations. Either of the following methods of button and blind placement may be used:

(a) Moving button – The button always moves forward to the next player and the blinds adjust accordingly. There may be more than one big blind.

(b) Dead button – The big blind is posted by the player due for it, and the small blind and button are positioned accordingly, even if this means the small blind or the button is placed in front of an empty seat, giving a player last action on consecutive hands.”

Which is actually most common around the country, and are there differences between tours, casino, and home play?

 

[mummel]

Who deals in the event of a dead button?

Oh and dead buttons/blinds seem more fair IMO.

 

[Mr Tree]

I think we'll all be in agreement for the dead button rule for this scenario. What happens if A, B and C bust out? I'd say D posts the BB, no SB, and next hand D is SB and E is BB, with the button effectively skipping an empty seat, but I'm not sure.

This. The big blind moves as much as it has to until it finds the next live player.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Oh and dead buttons/blinds seem more fair IMO.

I'm not so sure about that. In no-limit, having the button is a big advantage.

If you're playing Dead Button with six players, and both blinds are knocked out, then in the span of one four-handed orbit, there will be six four-handed deals, and a single player will have had the button three times! They actually have the button four times in seven deals, but the first time is natural in a six-handed deal.

(In addition, one small blind is dead for the table - but I think we can agree this is a minor side-effect.)

Both approaches have advantages/drawbacks.

 

[mummel]

Who deals in the event of a dead button?

 

[RowdyRawhide]

Mr. C is BB and no SB posted

Who deals in the event of a dead button?

Oh and dead buttons/blinds seem more fair IMO.

this probably isn't that big of an issue as long as the proper order is followed. IMO CO would probably be easiest as they would first position to the right of the BB (in this example in the OP)

 

[mummel]

I'm not so sure about that. In no-limit, having the button is a big advantage.

If you're playing Dead Button with six players, and both blinds are knocked out, then in the span of one four-handed orbit, there will be six four-handed deals, and a single player will have had the button three times! They actually have the button four times in seven deals, but the first time is natural in a six-handed deal.

(In addition, one small blind is dead for the table - but I think we can agree this is a minor side-effect.)

Both approaches have advantages/drawbacks.

Yeah but that guy in the button would be in late position anyway for a hand or two, so its that weighed against hitting someone with 2X big blinds in a hand or two. Not sure though. But I think the dead button seems more fair.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Yeah but that guy in the button would be in late position anyway for a hand or two

In a four-handed game, there's really no "late," is there? It's pretty much blinds, middle, and button. (Or Blinds, UTG, Button.)
And button is much better than middle or UTG.

Each seat normally plays button once and middle once after paying the blinds... but instead, they'll be button three times and then middle once. That feels like a big advantage to me.

weighed against hitting someone with 2X big blinds in a hand or two

With Moving Button, no player ever pays 2X big blinds. Each player only pays the big once, and then only pays the small once... but it does introduce the oddness that one person will post the big blind while on the button. Arguably, posting the big blind in early position is more costly than posting it on the button... especially since the pot will also be rich because of extra blinds.

So playing Dead Button gives player F the advantage of playing the button two extra times without paying a blind for it.

Playing Moving Button gives player C the advantage of playing the button while he pays his late blind.

It's not at all clear to me which situation is "more fair;" it seems more of a preference call.

 

[Blaster]

As mentioned by @Mr Tree , I always found it easy to think of the fact that there simply "Is always a big blind, next player in clockwise order, & there may not be a SB, due to bust out(s)." That, combined with realizing that the SB never skips or jumps over a player that was just BB, makes it easy....

 

[RowdyRawhide]

In a four-handed game, there's really no "late," is there? It's pretty much blinds, middle, and button. (Or Blinds, UTG, Button.)
And button is much better than middle or UTG.

Each seat normally plays button once and middle once after paying the blinds... but instead, they'll be button three times and then middle once. That feels like a big advantage to me.



With Moving Button, no player ever pays 2X big blinds. Each player only pays the big once, and then only pays the small once... but it does introduce the oddness that one person will post the big blind while on the button. Arguably, posting the big blind in early position is more costly than posting it on the button... especially since the pot will also be rich because of extra blinds.

So playing Dead Button gives player F the advantage of playing the button two extra times without paying a blind for it.

Playing Moving Button gives player C the advantage of playing the button while he pays his late blind.

It's not at all clear to me which situation is "more fair;" it seems more of a preference call.

I guess it depends on if you want emphasis on the button/position or the blinds in this situation, IF you (or your group) wants emphasis on the button then (per OP) you could move the button to Mr C (and he post a SB and BB), Mr D is now SB (and posts a BB as well) and then Mr E is now BB. From what you are writing then this seems to be the neutral ground in your scenario; position moves and everyone is evened up for their "missed blinds" the only caveat is that now there is more money up front in the pot...... However, AFAIK there is no rule that presents it this way

 

[BGinGA]

The difference between the Dead Button rule and the Moving Button rule seems to encapsulate the disagreement... this was a first-time tourney in a new group, and no rule had been declared beforehand - and the rule was presented as if it's unquestionable.

The homepokertourney.com site presents the Dead Button rule first.

Robert's Rules present the Moving Button first:

“Each round all players must get the button, and meet the total amount of the blind obligations. Either of the following methods of button and blind placement may be used:

(a) Moving button – The button always moves forward to the next player and the blinds adjust accordingly. There may be more than one big blind.

(b) Dead button – The big blind is posted by the player due for it, and the small blind and button are positioned accordingly, even if this means the small blind or the button is placed in front of an empty seat, giving a player last action on consecutive hands.”

Which is actually most common around the country, and are there differences between tours, casino, and home play?

Every place i've played live has used the dead button rule. I noticed the other night that pokerstars used the moving button rule.

Who deals in the event of a dead button?

The dealer.
If passing the deal, typically whoever is closest to the button.

 

[phaze12]

This is the only instance that someone can "have" the button effectively 3 times. Now this is the "standard" tourney rules. I know it doesn't seem fair but them is the breaks.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I noticed the other night that pokerstars used the moving button rule.

Interesting - but PokerStars uses a different variant of Moving Button than described on HomePokerTourneys.com...

The Moving Button rule described on HomePokerTourneys always moves the button to the next active player, and has people post last big and small blinds as necessary so that no blinds are "missed." This means that when one or two blinds bust out, the players ahead of them will be posting some late blinds to compensate for the button moving quickly.

The PokerStars rule - which they call "Forward-Moving Button," simply moves the button to the next active player and has the standard blinds posted based on the button position. This means that when one or two blinds bust out, the people ahead of them will skip one or more blinds, depending on how far the button moves.

So now we have three rules variants described:

Dead Button
Moving Button (late blinds are posted)
Forward Moving Button (late blinds are just skipped)

You can argue about which method is most fair in context of the game... and all three are necessarily fair if it's decided and declared ahead of time, because the odds of it happening to anyone are roughly equal.

I'll definitely say that the PokerStars rule is probably the easiest to explain and to execute at a table without causing confusion among people who've never seen it done, but of course, anyone who has only seen one of the other methods is liable to think that it's being done wrong!