A ruling please.....

[I KNOW IT]

i own a poker book i know the rules

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

[gatso]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

[doubleup]

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

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.

 

[I KNOW IT]

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.

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

[gatso]

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

[tikay]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

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.

[Karabiner]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

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.

[tikay]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

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.

[Karabiner]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

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.

[I KNOW IT]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

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

[Karabiner]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

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 ?

[I KNOW IT]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

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?

[AlrightJack]

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?

[gatso]

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

[Karabiner]

we do have you seen how often tk gets moved

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

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?

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