Sensation at the Sandcastle - Blackpool Disqualification!

[Poppet7]

Hmm...

Tough decision. I know how strict Grosvenor are with their bans, he should've been let back in to continue the game but they didn't so I think that the chips should've been divided equally between the players. 9th place money is acceptable because they couldn't have given him any more than that.

I agree with RED-DOG, if they let him start it, they should let him finish it.

[totalise]

the problem with the chip equity is that is over-values the bigger stacks, so the smaller stacks would be shooting themselves in the foot if they agreed to do it... and I dont think they should leave his chips in play if he is disqaulified, how can a person 'ed move up a pay ladder?

Saying all that, I agree completely with Red that if they are gonna let him start, they should let him finish.

[Bongo]

I agree with you and flush on that Red.

[tikay]

who were the other players?

The overnight situation was, in Seat Order (after the re-draw), with blinds at 2k-4k for a full 45 minute level......

tikay                                                                 36,000

Mark Greenwoood (aka The Chaser? from AWOP?) 29,000

A Booth                                                           42,000

Ali Mallu (DISQUALIFIED)                                   135,000

Andy Bradshaw                                                 62,000

Ron "Victor Meldrew" Haworth                            28,000

P Ioannou                                                      141,000

J Morgan                                                         36,000

R (blondeite "Action Man") Trigg                        60.000

I had an early misread, followed by Mark Greenwood, & then the unlucky Action Man, who had a big setback with AK.     

I departed shortly after exiting, I am sorry to say the atmo in the Final was not exactlty "warm", though I'm very pleased to say we all shook hands when I departed.                       

[TightEnd]

I agree with RED, if he was ok to start the comp, he must be allowed to finish it

Giving him 9th place money is bad too..if you leave his chips on the table then a few might get knocked out( shortstacks etc) while he is blinded away thus you are denying him a chance to ladder up, making the ignominy even worse!

If I was one of the 8 remaining, I'd be arguing loud and strong for a nine way chop out of fairness to a competitor hard done by. Unfashionalble maybe. Equitable? I think so.

[Ginger]

But was he hard done by? we don't know the reason for the ban. If Mr M knew he was likely to be banned from other/all of the chains casino's then on his head be it if he gets pulled out before the finish.

[Royal Flush]

I think that the chips should've been divided equally between the players.

So the big stacks should get punished?

Like i said, if you let him start the comp let him finish.

I can't see how he can be disqualified either, let him blind out.

[thetank]

9 way chop, followed by an 8-man £800 buy-in STT.

[Royal Flush]

9 way chop, followed by 4000 8-man £800 buy-in STT's.

[tikay]

9 way chop, followed by an 8-man £800 buy-in STT.

Was suggested, & rejected. (By the players in both cases).

[thetank]

Ioannou is Cid fae Cincins surname.

Chip leader any relation?

[tikay]

But was he hard done by? we don't know the reason for the ban. If Mr M knew he was likely to be banned from other/all of the chains casino's then on his head be it if he gets pulled out before the finish.

I don't believe he was aware of any imminent Ban. He told me there was an argument elsewhere on Wednesday, & nobody had said any more, he assumed it was history. He arrived today to find himself barred.

[tikay]

I agree with RED, if he was ok to start the comp, he must be allowed to finish it

Giving him 9th place money is bad too..if you leave his chips on the table then a few might get knocked out( shortstacks etc) while he is blinded away thus you are denying him a chance to ladder up, making the ignominy even worse!

If I was one of the 8 remaining, I'd be arguing loud and strong for a nine way chop out of fairness to a competitor hard done by. Unfashionalble maybe. Equitable? I think so.

Final paragraph - strongly suggested, & strongly rejected. (In both cases, by the players).

[byronkincaid]

I don't understand how you can all be saying he shoulda been allowed to finish without knowing what he is supposed to have done? If hypothetically it was something minor like counting cards at blackjack then of course he should be allowed to finish, if it's something really horrific or hypothetically cheating at poker then they would be right IMO.

I realise that lots of people here are friends of his and know what happened. I don't know the guy and have no idea what happened but I can think of lots of hypothetical reasons why it would be the right decision.

[Poppet7]

I think that the chips should've been divided equally between the players.

So the big stacks should get punished?

Like i said, if you let him start the comp let him finish.

I can't see how he can be disqualified either, let him blind out.

OK, maybe not equally, but fairly