Sensation at the Sandcastle - Blackpool Disqualification!

[Tractor]

That what i was trying to put across Ariston.
It may have been difficult for any strangers playing away from "home" to make a decision with very limited facts at the time.

[Royal Flush]

I was just messing, sorry Russ i will remove it.

[RED-DOG]

i dont mind people scoring pints and making jokes about most things tom but my repuation/integrity is where I draw the line. I did take offence at that and have already spoken to flushy about it.

I will remove my quote of Flushies post, I won't comment further.

[I KNOW IT]

Its a shame that Ali is barred, he is good for the game and a good guy too.

Going back to whether the chips should have remained in play is a very difficult decision , either way it can cause problems.

1/ Problem caused by removing them:
 Imagine there is 1 million chips in play , Ali and A Nother both have 400k , giving  each of them  40% of the chips in play . If you remove Alis chips , A Nother now has nearly 70% of the chips in play.

2/ Problem with leaving unattended chips in play:
This actually happened at this years short handed event at WSOP.
I ll post link as it explains it better than I could.
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/7/wsop-updates-whos-chips-anyway.htm

So there is no easy answer.

[ariston]

I do feel sorry for Steve on this as he is in a no win situation and is still relatively new in the job. awful position for him to be put in and totally out of his control. Taking ali out of the situation completely there is an argument for taking the chips out of play, dividing the chips equally between the other players or leaving them there and letting him ante away. The best way to solve it? I wouldn't know and wouldn't want to have to make the decision as there is no fair way to resolve the situation and whatever happens it will favour either the big stacks or the small stacks.

[Colchester Kev]

Funny how people get really upset when someone makes a gag that might question their reputation/integrity, yet are happy to cast that shadow on other peoples reputations and integrity ....  its a strange world.

[booder]

 

[Royal Flush]

I was just trying to be funny!

Kev you have a point but i don't want to get involved, lol.

[tikay]

Its a shame that Ali is barred, he is good for the game and a good guy too.

Going back to whether the chips should have remained in play is a very difficult decision , either way it can cause problems.

1/ Problem caused by removing them:
 Imagine there is 1 million chips in play , Ali and A Nother both have 400k , giving  each of them  40% of the chips in play . If you remove Alis chips , A Nother now has nearly 70% of the chips in play.

2/ Problem with leaving unattended chips in play:
This actually happened at this years short handed event at WSOP.
I ll post link as it explains it better than I could.
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/7/wsop-updates-whos-chips-anyway.htm

So there is no easy answer.

Says it all Craig, good Post.

[tikay]

I do feel sorry for Steve on this as he is in a no win situation and is still relatively new in the job. awful position for him to be put in and totally out of his control. Taking ali out of the situation completely there is an argument for taking the chips out of play, dividing the chips equally between the other players or leaving them there and letting him ante away. The best way to solve it? I wouldn't know and wouldn't want to have to make the decision as there is no fair way to resolve the situation and whatever happens it will favour either the big stacks or the small stacks.

To make it even more difficult, Steve was not there this afternoon!

One has to feel some sympathy with Grosvenor, the whole thing is jolly difficult to resolve in a way that is fair to all.

[RED-DOG]

I do feel sorry for Steve on this as he is in a no win situation and is still relatively new in the job. awful position for him to be put in and totally out of his control. Taking ali out of the situation completely there is an argument for taking the chips out of play, dividing the chips equally between the other players or leaving them there and letting him ante away. The best way to solve it? I wouldn't know and wouldn't want to have to make the decision as there is no fair way to resolve the situation and whatever happens it will favour either the big stacks or the small stacks.

To make it even more difficult, Steve was not there this afternoon!

One has to feel some sympathy with Grosvenor, the whole thing is jolly difficult to resolve in a way that is fair to all.

It would have been much easier to resolve tomorrow.

[ariston]

Funny how people get really upset when someone makes a gag that might question their reputation/integrity, yet are happy to cast that shadow on other peoples reputations and integrity ....  its a strange world.

the only people whos reputations have ever been questioned by me have had no reputation worth a toss imo. I would never question anyone I would class as a mate or someone I thought was a decent sort. When shadows are cast they are usually cast for a reason. I did not ask for the posts to be removed above I had a discussion on msn with flushy where I told him i was offended and didn't think his comments were funny. I will take shots at me all day every day about almost anything but I draw the line at that and told him so. He appologised then removed his post- I removed mine as they looked out of place without the original post.
cheers for your feelings on me though.

[MadYank]

Interesting situation, this one.

I've played with Ali a few times at least and he seemed a decent fellow.

I'm not sure his friendships or relations with the other players left at the final are completely relevant though.

Purely from a TD perspective, I would more times than not leave his chips in play and award him whatever place money his unatteneded stack finished in. I believe this would have the least effect upon te rest of the final and be fairest to the removed player (in that no conduct during his tournament was the reason for his abscence) as this allowed his accumulated efforts from the previous 2 days to see some chance of futher profit.

Asking other players to chop/not play it out is unfair to them. If the 8 agreed on it fine, as TD I'd be happy about it, but I don't see a compelling moral obligation to chop.



Best Case: Grovesnor aren't idiots and let him finish the tournament then bar him.

Next Best: Get the players to agree to finish the tournament somewhere else with Ali in attendance. (A hotel room perhaps?)  Did anyone think about this as a possible solution?

Next Best: Finish the tournament and allow his stack to blind into an upper placing.

Blah Case: remove chips and give him 9th prize money

Worst Case: Remove his stack and don't give him anything/just a refund.


I understand some have strong feelings on this subject, but before you make your decision on what was right, consider a similar situatiion in a $500 tournament somewhere in yankland. You're at the final with 8 random yanks and one isn't allowed to play because he got in an argument with whoever about whatever. Would you say "hey boys lets do the right thing and chop it up in fairness!" if they were just 8 random starngers?

[Royal Flush]

It was all a ploy to stop Tikay coming 9th

[RED-DOG]

the only people whos reputations have ever been questioned by me have had no reputation worth a toss imo.

That's funnier than what Flushie said.