What do you do when the chip lead leaves?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would blind him out as long as you are down to a single table. If you still have multiple tables and there is no way the person leaving can make the money if blinded out, I think it is more fair to split the chips among all players left in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you still have multiple tables in a tournament, dividing the chips evenly isn't going to make that big a difference to the stack sizes. I mainly would chose that over removing the stack entirely just to keep the total chip count even.

As for blinding off versus removing, I think you're giving large and unfair advantage to the players at the table with the stack being blinded off. It's basically like you are dividing the absent player's chips just between players at that table, leaving nothing to players at other tables.

I'm curious as to your reasoning for this distinction. As far as I know, standard tourney rules (at least at tourneys I have played in, including WSOP prelim events) allow for blinding off regardless. It does not seem fair to penalize the larger remaining stacks by dividing his chips equally. Also, why is there a distinction in treatment between players who leave for a while, versus those who do not plan on coming back.

Given that it is a home game, any rule is fine as long as it is agreed ahead of time. Dividing up the chips at all differs from what is done in larger tourneys and doing so evenly is inherently unfair, but its ultimately up to the host of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you still have multiple tables in a tournament, dividing the chips evenly isn't going to make that big a difference to the stack sizes. I mainly would chose that over removing the stack entirely just to keep the total chip count even.

As for blinding off versus removing, I think blinding off gives a large and unfair advantage to the players at the table with the absent stack. It's basically like you are dividing the absent player's chips just between players at that table, leaving nothing to players at other tables.

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
As for blinding off versus removing, I think blinding off gives a large and unfair advantage to the players at the table with the absent stack. It's basically like you are dividing the absent player's chips just between players at that table, leaving nothing to players at other tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point that blinding off unfairly benefits the table with the dead stack. However, I still have a big problem with dividing up someones chips when they have paid an entry fee and have started to play. Where do you draw the line exactly? If someone needs to leave and thinks they "might" be back, what do you do? If someone says they will be "right back", but has been gone for an hour, what then?

Given that we are talking about a home game, I think any rule is fine as long as it is decided and communicated up-front and people who have a major problem with the rule can choose to not play. I also think that the rule should be as unambiguous as possible. Something like, "if you are dealt out of X number of hands, then you lose all claim to the prize pool and your chips are divided evenly among remaining players" would be an acceptable rule, even though I feel that it benefits short stacks at the expense of large stacks.

As I noted previously, if you are following formal tourney rules, then blinding off is appropriate.

[warewulf]

[ QUOTE ]

As for blinding off versus removing, I think blinding off gives a large and unfair advantage to the players at the table with the absent stack. It's basically like you are dividing the absent player's chips just between players at that table, leaving nothing to players at other tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, we were down to 6 (final table), so other tables weren't an issue. I agree with you though if there were still multiple tables.

I do also think there should be a rule to adress this in the future.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for blinding off versus removing, I think blinding off gives a large and unfair advantage to the players at the table with the absent stack. It's basically like you are dividing the absent player's chips just between players at that table, leaving nothing to players at other tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point that blinding off unfairly benefits the table with the dead stack. However, I still have a big problem with dividing up someones chips when they have paid an entry fee and have started to play. Where do you draw the line exactly? If someone needs to leave and thinks they "might" be back, what do you do? If someone says they will be "right back", but has been gone for an hour, what then?

Given that we are talking about a home game, I think any rule is fine as long as it is decided and communicated up-front and people who have a major problem with the rule can choose to not play. I also think that the rule should be as unambiguous as possible. Something like, "if you are dealt out of X number of hands, then you lose all claim to the prize pool and your chips are divided evenly among remaining players" would be an acceptable rule, even though I feel that it benefits short stacks at the expense of large stacks.

As I noted previously, if you are following formal tourney rules, then blinding off is appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone is planning on coming back, then the only fair think to do is to blind him off until he comes back. I think you can "draw the line" by asking the leaving player whether he wants his chips to stay on the table or not. If he is leaving for good and has no chance of blinding into the money, then he shouldn't care whether he is removed or not.

[Colima420]

Standard tourney rules state that he is still there. You have to post his blinds and deal him cards every single time until he has no more chips. If he makes it into the money, then he gets paid.

If you guys don't want to go thru the hassle of posting his blinds and dealing him cards, and he agrees to it , then you should just remove all his chips from the table. There is just no reason why his chips should be divided into other players.

Now the problem with removing his chips is that the chip count on the table will be lower than it should be.
This is why the best way to go is just treat your tournament like a casino one.

Whenever a player leaves (either for 10 minutes, 2 hours, or forever), just post his blind and deal him the cards.

Colima 420

[dedmoney]

this came up at a game I play in last week. We decided to give the stack to one of the guys already out, and if the guy won, he'd split the winning with the guy who had to go. It's a real casual game and everyone was ccol with it. If it weren't a friendly game or not a winner take all situation, I would have said blind him off as well, it only makes sense.

[Phntm]

This is retarded, anyone with any clue (both the player and the host) should be fine with the stack being blinded into the money, this is how it is done in any "real" tournament. Haven't you heard about the time Stuey was so far ahead in a tourny, then od'ed and couldnt finish, but still cashed, sheesh. The only people who should want the distribution of chips are the pathetic angling short stacks, the big stacks are big stacks for a reason, and so is the stack that has to leave, to take his equity because he cannot actually "be" at the table is absurd, if he blinds off before the money than so be it, to take his stack prematurely is just a freakish abberration of the nature of poker.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
As for blinding off versus removing, I think blinding off gives a large and unfair advantage to the players at the table with the absent stack. It's basically like you are dividing the absent player's chips just between players at that table, leaving nothing to players at other tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think happens when players bust out? Their chips end up in the piles of one or more players at that table. Taking someone's chips, rather than blinding him off, is basically stealing from his potential winnings. In addition, it also places everyone at his table in an unfair situation, as there are now probably less chips in play at this table than at other tables.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for blinding off versus removing, I think blinding off gives a large and unfair advantage to the players at the table with the absent stack. It's basically like you are dividing the absent player's chips just between players at that table, leaving nothing to players at other tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think happens when players bust out? Their chips end up in the piles of one or more players at that table. Taking someone's chips, rather than blinding him off, is basically stealing from his potential winnings. In addition, it also places everyone at his table in an unfair situation, as there are now probably less chips in play at this table than at other tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't stealing from the leaving player's potential winnings if that player has no chance of cashing. If the player has a chance of cashing, then you blind them off.

And there is a big difference between between winning chips by busting another player and winning chips by blinding off an absent stack. Everyone in the tournament has a chance to bust other players by putting their own chips at risk. But blinding someone else off give players at that person's table an opportunity to collect chips without any risk that players at the other tables don't have.