Situation - When someone has to leave

[drexah]

Ok so there were 4 left in a home game tournament that i hosted tonight. A friend of mine who was either chip lead or 2nd in chips had something come up where he had to leave the game (and probably wasn't returning). No one was really sure what to do. At first i just said well if he has to leave he leaves and his chips stay and he gets blinded out. However, two of my friends were still at my house and the guy who had to leave asked one of them if they wanted to play and split whatever they ended up winning. At first i rejected the idea but the guy he wanted to play for him was pretty awful and i finally gave in. Well as im sure you'd expect, the awful guy ended up sucking out his way to victory. Was this the correct call? If not what should of been done? When i think about it, he had to leave and it's his own fault so his chips stay and he gets blinded out. Top two in this tournament paid btw. Thanks in advance.

[Eric H]

He should have been blinded off. No way do you allow a sub.

[TenPercenter]

As a total guess, I'd say you let his stack get blinded off, simple as that. But what do you do when it gets to heads-up? It's over.

In order to put the onus (sp?) on him, tell him that if he comes back within an hour after it gets to heads-up he can play what's left. After that, it's conceded to the other guy that was heads-up with him.

Ten

[SenecaJim]

Hey, if it was something SERIOUS enuff to pull him away from POKER, especially when he was winning, he shouldn't even be concerned about what happens to his chips or money. And if it , well, wasn't serious enuff to leave poker game ( ie. no one was dying ) no sympathy. Kinda like the old Salem witch trials, ya know. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jaxUp]

How serious is this home game? If it is serious, he gets blinded, if it is just a low level thing pretty much for fun, then I would let his friend play.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
if it is just a low level thing pretty much for fun, then I would let his friend play.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. Do you think his buddy's a ringer? If you're playing the game for fun, it certainly seems more fun to let the buddy play.
-Sam

[drexah]

[ QUOTE ]
How serious is this home game? If it is serious, he gets blinded, if it is just a low level thing pretty much for fun, then I would let his friend play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well by no means is it WPT/WSOP "serious" but the prize money is large enough that everyone definitely cares about winning. Keep in mind that this was a very good friend of mine and he was giving his chips to someone who is so bad that it sometimes makes him good.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
he was giving his chips to someone who is so bad that it sometimes makes him good.

[/ QUOTE ]

an oxymoron...No such person exists...

-Gryph

[drexah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he was giving his chips to someone who is so bad that it sometimes makes him good.

[/ QUOTE ]

an oxymoron...No such person exists...

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

he is so bad that its almost impossible to read him. and he is so bad that he chases and ends up hitting sh*t and busting people on pure luck. what i meant was, giving him more chips than anyone else 4 handed is a disaster, as he is so reckless theres not much skill involved at that point.

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
he was giving his chips to someone who is so bad that it sometimes makes him good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me, but I don't buy this either. Also, it sounds like you got a good deal in that the chips of the biggest or second-biggest stack were handed from a good player to a bad player -- what's the problem, really? OK, so it didn't work out, but that's being results-oriented.

I'm sure that if this was a formal, serious tournament, e.g., in a casino, then you're absolutely right that the guy should be blinded out if he leaves. But are you guys that serious with each other?

At my home game, if we were playing a tournament, I'd be open to someone taking over another person's stack if a genuine emergency took the first person away. I mean, these are your friends, right?

[gmunny]

I had a similar situation at one of my home tourney's last year. I know we could have blinded him out, but because the person to his right may have more of an advantage to steal this guys blind, it was decided to split his chips evenly amongst the remaining players at his table. Although, this may have helped a low stack or give more ammo to a high stack, I and a few others thought it would be the most fair way.

We considered removing his chips from play, but in that tournament, the top 3 from each table made the final table, so it wouldn't be fair as they would have less chips to bring to the final table versus the others. If we didn't have the top 3 from each table going, I think the fairest thing would be to remove the chips from play. There has to be a rule somewhere on this.
G$

[spicychili]

Check out this PDF from homepokertourney.com

Page 3

http://www.homepokertourney.com/docs/rulebook/poker-rulebook-homepokertourney-5.pdf

Not that this is a hard and fast rule but it is somewhere to start.

Also repeated on this page in HTML toward the bottom of the page.
http://www.homepokertourney.com/rules_tourney.htm

[o0mr_bill0o]

in theory, i'm sure the correct answer is to have him blinded off. but in reality, dude, come on, he's your friend. it's not like he said he had dan harrington on the line to finish off the game for him. let him do what he will. i think you're being very results oriented about this one...