blonde poker forum

In a tourney a player has to leave the game.. due to entirely unforseen circumstances.. what happens to his stack?
Three suggestions..1) his stack remains but gets blinded out 2) his chips are shared out amongst the other players on the table or 3) His chip stack is withdrawn.. I must say i favour 3) as it withdraws him entirely.. 2) disadvantages other tables and 1) skews the tables natural ying and yang ..if you will!!

any views appreciated??

I'd nearly go with the 'blinded out' theory.  Also, pretty sure I read somewhere, that after maybe 10 or 20 minutes, there is a blind into the pot every hand.

I favour the blinding away option - but that's possibly because I have played loads more online than live and that's what I'm used to.

I believe a while ago there was something like this that happened in a fairly decent sized tourney (TJ reported on it happening, I think) and the players chips were removed from the table.

Hi K9
        We would withdraw the chips from play.

Withdrawing the chips and then balancing the tables ASAP appears to be the fairest way at first glance.

Like jakally said, that's not how it's done online (for obvious reasons, such as how would the card room know a player isn't coming back), and I've also been in tournaments where the player is blinded out normally, or is blinded out each hand.  This certainly isn't the fairest way as players on other tables are disadvantaged, and also players in specific seats will have an advantage.

Is there a 'standard' rule, or is it each venue doing its own thing again?

I'm not saying I'm against it, however if someone pre-registers and then doesn't turn up then their chips are left and they are blinded out. Happened recently when an empty chair was applauded on it's exit from an APAT tourney.

Why does someone that has possibly fell ill not get the same opportunity.


Geo

The OP is saying the player has to leave (and I took it from that, that they're not going to be returning).  If they are coming back, then they are just blinded away as if there were sat at the table and folding every hand.

Still doesn't change anything imo. The person pays for their chips and therefore should be able to do what they want with them (except cheating of course.) I had a situation at one of the OP tourneys where I was ill but managed to luckbox to the FT. At one point I had to leave the table and was violently sick. On this occaission I was ok to return and complete the game.

But what if I had felt so ill that I couldn't continue? would I not be entitled to leave my chips at the table in an attempt to ladder?

Geo

option 2 is the most ridiculous suggestion, favours the shortstack and we all hate the shortstack.

option 3 almost as bad imo. let's say 2 players leave at the same time from different tables, 1 informs the TD, 1 doesn't. now 1 table gets free blinds and the other just gets a stack removed

option 1 please and only ever option 1.

111111111111111111


I assume you're talking about the Ali Mallu case. his chips were removed as he received a casino ban half-way through the tourney, this was probably the correct decision to prevent him laddering. very different from someone just going home

Obv option 1, the rest are ridic

why?

in fact let me repharase that

why, why, why, why, why?

Option 1.

Options 2 & 3 are not options.

The line that it "disadvantages players on another tale" holds no water. Sometimes the wind blows with you, sometimes against you, life is like that. It's no big deal if a few chips are in, or out, of reach. It's 1.5 BB's per orbit! 

Only Ever Option 1

Malu's case was completely different.

and also no, no, no, no, no to the BB paid every hand. hopefully most venues that used to do that have now stopped

Correct - a complety different kettle of fish, & very much a "one-off" unique situation. In his case, the chips were removed to stop HIM from profiting which, under the circumstances, was correct.

Got to be option 1 for me also.

I assume you're talking about the Ali Mallu case. his chips were removed as he received a casino ban half-way through the tourney, this was probably the correct decision to prevent him laddering. very different from someone just going home


[/quote]

No I think this was a case where someone couldn't play because his wife had fallen ill or something. Don't remember the details exactly but it was something like that.

the chips get taken of the table not blinded away

no,no,no,no,noooooooooooooooo

Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeeesssssssssssss

Unless it's changed in the last 3 mnths it has been the rule @ all Grosvenors that if a player leaves the comp due to illness, emergency or they throw them out (or anything else) all his/her chips will be re-moved from play.

I've seen poker on the telly I know the rules.

not in events I played at both Walsall and the Vic last year they didn't. in both a player left, the dealer and TD were aware of this and they were blinded away

if a player is away for a hour they leave them if they know that they are leaving for good they are taken away.

A player with chips has a theoretical chance of winning a prize - to remove these chips is inequitable.  There is absolutely no other correct ruling other than blinding away normally.

but the chips they ante away can only go to the people on that table so they have a advantage over everyone else in the comp , so they come off.

i own a poker book i know the rules

should we also spread the bad players around? it's unfair if some tables have easy chips and the others only have good players.

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

I dont think you do
This happened monday night at Walsall Grov when a player told everyone he had to leave , his chips where left on the table to be blinded off as in the correct ruling

tbh, no. I've never seen him get through 1 orbit

Look if someone leaves when they are on the bubble, they clearly have a chance of making the money.  If they leave when they are chip leader at the final table they clearly have a chance of improving their position.  If someone turns up 2 hours late for a comp, you can't remove their chips because the players at their table "have an advantage" because they are late.

Whatever stupid rules there are in uk casinos are completely irrelevant to the logical and equitable way to handle a situation correctly.

 

What is the difference between when a player just gets up and leaves and says nothing and when he announces he is leaving?
In both cases his chips remain on the table and are blinded off, he isnt there to defend them in either case

Grosvenor have some unique rules which  dont apply any where else in the world, but this isnt 1 of them

next thing you know poor old Tighty'll be sat at the table and the TD will remove his chips from in front of him 'cos it's unfair on the other tables that he's just being blinded away

Sigh & sigh.

I must say, I'm astonished at the suggestion they should be removed, especially from one so learned as phatomch.

There's no case to argue. It's just wrong. On so many levels. IMO, of course.

I must say that I do actually favour removing the chips if the player is definitely not returning.

If a seat is just getting blinded away it does affect the table dynamic.

If you had the choice of playing on a full table or on a table where an absent player was being blinded away which would you prefer to play on ?

I know that i would prefer to be playing on the full table.

Well yes, I can see that Ralph, but, you know, it's impossible to make everything totally equitable in life or poker, & given it's only 1.5BB's per Orbit, it's not really that big a deal.

We get tough tables, easy tables, suckouts & chunks of luck, it's all part of the game, learning to live with a little - very little in this case - advantage or disadvantage. It's never going to change the result of a Tourney.

Life was never totally fair.

Yes Tony, but that is the point.

By removing the chips the game is more equitable, and it does no harm that I can see.

Imagine it was a rebuy and you were in for a few rebuys and the recipient of those chips decided to leave and his chips were removed. You need to be able to have the chance of winning those chips back at some stage. If they were removed you wouldnt have that chance. Those chips are part of the prize pool and must remain in play

I see your point Craig, but those chips are only going to come back into the game at the rate of 1.5 BB's per orbit.

Would you not prefer that seat occupied by a live player ?

Eventually they will all be in play and I would definately want the chance at winning them, removing them takes that chance away
. A couple of years ago in the WSOP main event Layne Flack was feeling ill, after he doubled up he left and went to his room. If he never returned at what stage would you remove his chips?

If someone died at the table, so no chance of them coming back, would you remove their chips? If thet got left on and that dead person monied, who would collect the winnings?

Cue comments about there being plenty of dead money in most tournaments ayway...

...and what if the dead person had backers? Would they have a right to claim a chunk of any winnings if said dead person's stack remainied on the table and monied?

does this year's GUKPT still have the rule that an absent player cannot be blinded out of a tournament? if so your dead player could actually win

I did specify that was only what I would prefer if the player was definitely not returning.

Not 100% sure but I don't think so. Will get back to you once I've found out for sure.

A very interesting debate and personally I believe the chips should remain at the table and the player be blinded off. An interesting ruling at the Palm Beach casino about 12 months ago which was 1 of the main reasons I no longer play there:

Its a £250 FO and 18 runners are declared. The tournament starts on time at 830pm and 1 player is not seated at the start. His chips are blinded off as apparently he is in the building(this was prior to the 2005 Act) and doing his cobblers on the wheel. He is 1 of many high rollers on table games at the Palm Beach. Anyway by the time his stack has almost been decimated by being blinded out its announced by the TD that the casino have decided to give him his £250 + £25 reg fee since he has done his proverbials on the wheel. His remaining few hundred chips are removed from the table and play continues. I was sitting on the other table so the free chips were never on offer to me. As we reach the FT the TD produces a piece of paper with the prize breakdown and I see it totals £4250 which equates to 17 buyins. I quiz the TD and I'm not that due to the high roller not sitting down the casino have refunded him his stake. Obviously I'm not too happy since for starters the 8 players on the other table had helped themselves to 80% of his stack before the chips were removed from play. I make it quite clear to the TD that if the casino decided to refund the high roller his poker stake that they should have done this as an ex gratia payment and not removed it from the prize pool unless they had of removed his chips from the table prior to the start of the tournament. The TD couldn't give me a valid excuse apart from saying it was out of their hands and a casino manager was called into the room. He made it quite clear that if we didnt like their decision then so be it but they werent budging on it. I didnt cash in the tournament but since that day I havent been back to the casino and have no intention of doing so again, to me it was theft by the casino out of the tournament prize pool. So much for licenced premises in this instance.

They shot him just as he was getting to the good bit ...

shame, I  was enjoying the story up to then

Sorry chaps its edited now

I preferred the first draft ... I love a mystery.

Maybe I should have left it for you to finish lol

Mine would have had norkage at least !!!

FFS lemme re-edit it quick lol

An absent player can be ante'd out of a comp. The only rule Grov's / gukpt has every had is that you cant be knocked out of a comp in a chip race.

Thanks for the back handed compliment TK but I was only posting what Grosvenor's rules have been for atleast the last 6 yrs.

The comments that they are'nt being followed throughout the group should'nt surprise anyone who has played over the years or read many of the post's on here. Although Grov's have a rules committee (of which J Raab is on) few of the T'DS follow it, so we have different rulings across the estate.

But the Grosvenor rule is that if a player is removed from play or gives us notice that they will not be returning the chips will be re-moved.

this was certainly not the case for GUKPT last year. at the Vic a player at my table went home in a strop after a bad beat leaving a few chips behind. he survived at least 4 all-ins as it was ruled he could not be ante'd out of the tourney so his hand was live each time he was all in.

also happened in one of the side events at Walsall, in that case the absent player survived an all in on the bubble and actually went on to cash.

Hey like i say td's dont follow the rules that are on the board.

They also have a rule stating that if you are'nt at your seat when the cards are dealt your hand is classed as dead if you are a blind its tough.

So the person that was all in should have had his hand folded..  Such a bullshit call by the td on that one, they should of been folded.

another option whic  i detest is after 3 hands missing from a table you post a bB every hand

this soon gets rid of your chips and is used in the international casino

personally i hate it as it means rushing when going to bathroom and certain people not washing ther hands

also if you are going for a pee and a smoke you go for one rush back to table see a hand dealt then off again

Grov's had this for a while aswell but it's like putting Kev in charge of the buffet, JUST WRONG

That is why he re-raises without looking at his cards....

They still have it during  rebuy tournys with guarenteed prizepools (only during the rebuy period). I wonder why

i left in sept 07 and it had been taken of the rules a few mnths before that, any Grosvenor cardroom still using it should be named and shamed on here, I know that although he does'nt post on here that russell (head of Grov's cardrooms) does read posts.

This was happening at Walsall, albeit only during the rebuy period in prizepool guarenteed tournys, after the rebuy period finished it reverted back to only post when its your turn in sb/bb

I remember at meetings the gm of Walsal paul was unhappy because they had to top up prize funds when they guaranteed games, it was when they started charging extra for comps you'll prop find that he has told staff to do it that way so people stay in their seats so they keep re-buying, which is against the national Grosvenor rules   ...... UNLESS THEY HAVE CHANGED THEM IN THE LAST 3 MNTHS. But seeing as that was a old rule we got rid of i cant see them bringing it back so soon.

Its pretty obv why they do it, as you have also posted, it shouldnt happen but it does.
It only happens in gtd tournys the others use the sb/bb rule

Lets face it most of the td's in england at least for Grosvenor are a shower of shite, the meetings when we all used to come together where a joke you had people running these comps who where totaly clueless.

Despite what rules you agree with or not if it's in the rules you follow it.

Now don't get me wrong apart from danny at dtd I think that grosvenor has the best top 10 td's in england but it's the other 30 that Grosvenors got that bring the whole thing to a holt.

Zac at Walsall is very good too. If you have any suggestions in possibly improving something, hes always willing to listen

yes i would put zac in the top 5, the first 4 are the staff at the vic

 ;popcorn;

jeff
andy
nick (dtd)
zac
brian