Button disagreement

[Freaky J]

this is a weekly no limit holdem game tournament style. Its a low buy in at a Legion, but its a small town and has a very home game like feel.
anyways, the button disagreement is about when a small blind or big blind busts out. when the small blind busts out the player on the button keeps the button and deals again. when the big blind busts out the button moves and there is only a big blind, no small blind. this is what i think is right and this is how we do it most of the time. there is one guy who insists that the button allways moves and there is both a big and small blind, even if it means that someone gets to skip paying a blind that round. To alot of people that way seems fine and they want to do it that way, but when someone explains how the other way its keeps the blinds in order everyone, even if they don't fully understand it, go along with it no prpblem. most people there are there more so for the social aspect then to make money (me included). the one guy who always insists on doing it the wrong way says thats how they do it at the casinos and if someone misses paying a blind thats just the way it works lucky for them. this guy isnt stupid and does play alot at casions and knows the difference between cash games and tournaments. i think this guy is lying just to get out of paying a blind, i know thats hard to belive anyone would do something like that, but if anyone would it'd be him. i know there's another way its done to keep the blinds equal for everyone where sometimes someone is the button and a blind and theres two small blinds or two big blinds. this way it seems needlessly complicated, and still its nothing like what this guy is talking about.
ok finally my question is whats the offical rule on button and blind placment when something like that happens? do different tournaments have different ways of dealing with this? there is no way this guy is right, any half ass organized tournament is going to have some way of keeping the blinds equal for everyone in a situation like that, right?

[Poker Clif]

I don't remember all the details, but a similar arguement happened when I was playing at a small local tournament (about 50 players). It was a charity fund-raiser regulated and licensed by the state of Michigan.

My table was broken up, and a player at the table to which I was moved was complaining. Her contention was that somehow the table changes caused her to be in a blind earlier than expected, which would put her nearly all-in on the next hand.

She said if she had known that she was that close to being blinded out, she would have played some previous hands differently.

I have only played in three of these Michigan-licensed tournaments, and all of them seemed to do things a bit differently. For example, one tournament didn't seem to know what to do when two tables were still playing close to midnight.

The rules stated that play had to end at midnight, so you would think there would be a plan for this situation. Everyone was playing tight, not wanting to be busted out at 11:55 p.m., because they weren't sure exactly what was going to happen at midnight.

I don't know what finally happened. I was a spectator at that point, and left around 11:30 P.M.

All I can say is that when I encounter a situation like this, I write to the tournament director asking that the policies be clearer before the next tournament.

[phydaux]

What is "worse" - Someone having the button two hands in a row, or someone having the big blind two hands in a row?

Some tournaments have a "must move button" rule. In this case, one person can not have the button two hands in a row. The button must move to the next player in turn, regardless of who it is. This can lead to situations where the same person has the Big Blind two hands in a row.

Other tourament directors move the big blind, not the button. In this case, no person will ever have the big blind two hands in a row, but someone could have the button two hands in a row.

[PantsOnFire]

In a tournament, the button and blinds always move one player. This means that if a player busts out, there may be a case where there is a "dead" small blind or a "dead" button ("dead" meaning the just emptied seat gets that position).

In the case of the "dead" SB, there is simply no SB that hand. In the case of the "dead" button, the CO effectively has the button that hand. The only exception is when UTG busts out. UTG+1 becomes the BB next hand.

I don't have the math but it is much less advantageous to have the effective button twice rather than miss a blind.

In a tourney, the only time a player can miss a blind is on a table move like two tables collapsing to the final table. It is usually physically impossible to do this where everyone is placed esactly where they belong.

[Freaky J]

thanks for the replies.
i completely agree with pantsonfire about it being less advantageous to have the effective button twice rather then miss a blind.
putting a button on the empty seat is a good way to make it clear what is going on to people who aren't sure about it, our game is player dealt and there is no actual button moved around. but i don't think this guy honestly thinks he is right, i really think he is trying to get out of paying a blind. its happened more then once and just when it involves him. having very little casino experence i've never wanted to start a big thing with him, but maybe next time, and i'm sure there will be one, i'll be a little more vocal.

[mutiger91]

Both approaches are valid. This is a matter of house rules. Whatever the "floor" decides should be the way it is always done. Since this isn't a casino, you just need to get a ruling from your sponsor.

I play at a casino where the rule is that there can not be a dead button (button always moves in either scenario I have seen)

For example, if you were going to be the small blind and the guy who was going to be the button busts out, a small blind is placed on the button and each of the next two players pays a big blind. The next hand, there will still be a small on the button, a standard small blind and a big blind. After that, it plays normally.

The other way is to allow a button to be dead and reside with the empty seat - effectively giving a player the button twice.

[Maura]

Here's a good explanation of the two methods of handling these situations

http://www.homepokertourney.com/button.htm

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
What is "worse" - Someone having the button two hands in a row, or someone having the big blind two hands in a row?

Some tournaments have a "must move button" rule. In this case, one person can not have the button two hands in a row. The button must move to the next player in turn, regardless of who it is. This can lead to situations where the same person has the Big Blind two hands in a row.

Other tourament directors move the big blind, not the button. In this case, no person will ever have the big blind two hands in a row, but someone could have the button two hands in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd rather give my opponent the button twice instead of me getting the BB twice. I don't have the math but I'll wager it backs me up.