Sensation at the Sandcastle - Blackpool Disqualification!

[The Camel]

I am not friendly with Ali Mallu at all. I guess I have not exchanged more than 10 words with him in my entire life.

What Ali was barred for is none of the other players business. He was allowed to start so should be allowed to finish.

If the other players wanted to carry on playing, just give Ali the prixe his chip count entitled him to and recalculate the prize money accordingly.

And to answer Ron. Yes, If this situation was replicated in the States I would absolutely advocate a chop. (If a player was disqualified for an incident in the comp involved that is an entirely different matter obv)

[action man]

why should the players who want to play (get a decent payday) suffer from grosvenor's or ali's mistake? although poker is my living i don't play only for the money i actually enjoy sitting at a table and battling witts against other players, why should that option be taken away from others?

[rudders]

I have played with Ali, really like the guy and respect him as a player.....  Has anyone asked him what he would have done if it had been another finalist- or what he felt would be fair for the other players to have done? I applaud action mans post and totally respect his views- I cant say what i would have done- wasn't there, don't know all the facts-

I also would be intrested if those criticising the finalists actions would feel the same if it were a complete stranger that it happened too.
 Also consider this... what would have happened if one of the finalists were prevented from playing because of illness(not their fault) a car crash (maybe not their fault) or being arrested ( hmm not sure about that one). Do we chop? give them 9th? what? I don't like the way the grovesnor dealt with this- however something happened outside of this tournament to cause this- just like these other examples- where is the difference (to the other finalists that is?)

[totalise]

how do you apportion the prize pool to give him his "fair" share, and yet leave it as a good tourney for others?

you cant do it stars way because they give the CL's x% equity in each and every payout spot above 9th (minus 9*9th place of course) which REALLY favors the big stacks (of which he was one)..so they would have to work out his chances of coming in each position according to chip stack, and that is a mathematical nightmare. You cant get fair equity on the spot, so dealing here is going to make someone pissed, thats why trying to make a deal is out of the question.

[kinboshi]

The most logical way to deal with it for me (even though I don't agree with the rule) if they were intent on not allowing Ali to complete the tournament would have been for them to leave the chips on the table and apply the 'blinded out every hand after the first orbit rule' that they use in some places for absent players.  I'm not sure if this rule is in place consistently at all Grosvenors but it would have certainly been a more equitable way to do things than to simply take the chips out of play.

Not an expert on these matters at all, but leaving his chips on the table to be blinded out would definitely benefit some players more than others, and penalise others according to position - especially as he was the substantial chip leader.  Someone might have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but if it's a standard rule - it's not a good one (IMHO).

[The Camel]

I have played with Ali, really like the guy and respect him as a player.....  Has anyone asked him what he would have done if it had been another finalist- or what he felt would be fair for the other players to have done? I applaud action mans post and totally respect his views- I cant say what i would have done- wasn't there, don't know all the facts-

I also would be intrested if those criticising the finalists actions would feel the same if it were a complete stranger that it happened too.
 Also consider this... what would have happened if one of the finalists were prevented from playing because of illness(not their fault) a car crash (maybe not their fault) or being arrested ( hmm not sure about that one). Do we chop? give them 9th? what? I don't like the way the grovesnor dealt with this- however something happened outside of this tournament to cause this- just like these other examples- where is the difference (to the other finalists that is?)

In every other case he would have been anted away. That would have been the correct decision here IMO.

[action man]

keith you must understand that this gives an advantage to the players either side of his chips, it puts pressure on ali's button to either raise or let the sb take the free bb. Totally changes the complex of the game.

[totalise]

The most logical way to deal with it for me (even though I don't agree with the rule) if they were intent on not allowing Ali to complete the tournament would have been for them to leave the chips on the table and apply the 'blinded out every hand after the first orbit rule' that they use in some places for absent players.  I'm not sure if this rule is in place consistently at all Grosvenors but it would have certainly been a more equitable way to do things than to simply take the chips out of play.

Not an expert on these matters at all, but leaving his chips on the table to be blinded out would definitely benefit some players more than others, and penalise others according to position - especially as he was the substantial chip leader.  Someone might have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but if it's a standard rule - it's not a good one (IMHO).

this is the case of the two evils. If you leave the chips there, you give the seating arrangement an advantage, if you take the chips out of play, it messes with the structure.

[The Camel]

how do you apportion the prize pool to give him his "fair" share, and yet leave it as a good tourney for others?

you cant do it stars way because they give the CL's x% equity in each and every payout spot above 9th (minus 9*9th place of course) which REALLY favors the big stacks (of which he was one)..so they would have to work out his chances of coming in each position according to chip stack, and that is a mathematical nightmare. You cant get fair equity on the spot, so dealing here is going to make someone pissed, thats why trying to make a deal is out of the question.

This is obviously a unique situation. Whether or not people are getting correct equity to the pound is pretty petty here. It's a matter of doing the right thing. And players making money out of this unfortuante situation is clearly the wrong thing IMO.

[Sheriff Fatman]

The most logical way to deal with it for me (even though I don't agree with the rule) if they were intent on not allowing Ali to complete the tournament would have been for them to leave the chips on the table and apply the 'blinded out every hand after the first orbit rule' that they use in some places for absent players.  I'm not sure if this rule is in place consistently at all Grosvenors but it would have certainly been a more equitable way to do things than to simply take the chips out of play.

Not an expert on these matters at all, but leaving his chips on the table to be blinded out would definitely benefit some players more than others, and penalise others according to position - especially as he was the substantial chip leader.  Someone might have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but if it's a standard rule - it's not a good one (IMHO).

But, fair or not, its the rule that would apply for a player absent from play for any other reason (traffic, etc).  Jen was subject to this penalty at Luton in one of the festival comps a while back and got virtually blinded out in a short space of time and still came back to win the comp!

However, surely they should treat him in the same way as any 'absent' player as he's not been disqualified for anything he's done in the comp.  He's just been prevented from getting to the table.  Whatever rule applies for other delays should have applied here.

[rudders]

I have played with Ali, really like the guy and respect him as a player.....  Has anyone asked him what he would have done if it had been another finalist- or what he felt would be fair for the other players to have done? I applaud action mans post and totally respect his views- I cant say what i would have done- wasn't there, don't know all the facts-

I also would be intrested if those criticising the finalists actions would feel the same if it were a complete stranger that it happened too.
 Also consider this... what would have happened if one of the finalists were prevented from playing because of illness(not their fault) a car crash (maybe not their fault) or being arrested ( hmm not sure about that one). Do we chop? give them 9th? what? I don't like the way the grovesnor dealt with this- however something happened outside of this tournament to cause this- just like these other examples- where is the difference (to the other finalists that is?)

In every other case he would have been anted away. That would have been the correct decision here IMO.

so why ask the finalists to accept a different decision here?

[totalise]

how do you apportion the prize pool to give him his "fair" share, and yet leave it as a good tourney for others?

you cant do it stars way because they give the CL's x% equity in each and every payout spot above 9th (minus 9*9th place of course) which REALLY favors the big stacks (of which he was one)..so they would have to work out his chances of coming in each position according to chip stack, and that is a mathematical nightmare. You cant get fair equity on the spot, so dealing here is going to make someone pissed, thats why trying to make a deal is out of the question.

This is obviously a unique situation. Whether or not people are getting correct equity to the pound is pretty petty here. It's a matter of doing the right thing. And players making money out of this unfortuante situation is clearly the wrong thing IMO.

the problem is that short stacks give up maybe £500 (prolly less, who knows) to "be fair" to someone that might have broken the casinos rules. Why should you throw away money just for someone elses benefit?

[The Camel]

keith you must understand that this gives an advantage to the players either side of his chips, it puts pressure on ali's button to either raise or let the sb take the free bb. Totally changes the complex of the game.

I understand this totally and sympathise to a point. The players in the final were in a difficult situation. But, if Ali had not turned up, he would have been anted away.

Profiting from this situation, which you clearly did, seems just plain wrong.

[action man]

hold on a minute fella. it had nothing to do with me. if i were barred they would have carried on

[The Camel]

I have played with Ali, really like the guy and respect him as a player.....  Has anyone asked him what he would have done if it had been another finalist- or what he felt would be fair for the other players to have done? I applaud action mans post and totally respect his views- I cant say what i would have done- wasn't there, don't know all the facts-

I also would be intrested if those criticising the finalists actions would feel the same if it were a complete stranger that it happened too.
 Also consider this... what would have happened if one of the finalists were prevented from playing because of illness(not their fault) a car crash (maybe not their fault) or being arrested ( hmm not sure about that one). Do we chop? give them 9th? what? I don't like the way the grovesnor dealt with this- however something happened outside of this tournament to cause this- just like these other examples- where is the difference (to the other finalists that is?)

In every other case he would have been anted away. That would have been the correct decision here IMO.

so why ask the finalists to accept a different decision here?

Rudders, check out my first post. I said anteing him away was the correct decision here.