Suitable all-in policy? (poll)

[Gaming Club]

We can't promise that the results of this poll will necessarily lead to a change in policy (since for ring games the policy is set by Prima), but we'd nonetheless love to hear what y'all think on this score.



Note that this is just in respect of ring games. Last night's $10k tourney setup error notwithstanding, the policy at our site remains no all-in protection for tourneys of any sort.

[Lori]

Or do what Stars do and have tables for each /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Lori

(Personally, I have a crap computer and still don't believe in all-in protection except maybe in the biggest of big fixed limit games with consent between the players)

[mrbaseball]

All in protection is bad, get rid of it completely. It's one of the risks you run if you wanna play online.

I'd rather get legitamately get disconnected and lose out on a pot than get cheated constantly by the bucket of scum that inhabits online poker.

[moronloose1]

about taking away all-ins. It's a lot of money over the year for me. How am i supposed to fill the fridge ? My cats need food too !! I could accept to only get 4 all-ins per day. But please.......don't take away the all-ins. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Alobar]

All ins for any type of NL or PL game (tourny or ring) is a VERY bad thing.

All-ins for a ring game is ok, because it very rarely gets abused. I'd be willing to bet everyone here has made more money from being saved in a pot the rare time your computer has crashed in a hand, then you have lost because someone abused it.

Besides, the only time its harmful in a ring game when someone goes all in is when your bluffing, and the jackass 90% of the time would have called your bet anyway. If youve got a legit hand and he goes all in, your only losing out on 1 bet if it was a river bet. and If he does it on the turn because hes drawing, then actually you save money. Hes never going to call you on the river with his busted draw anyway, so you still only lose the 1 bet. And the times he makes his draw he wont be able to raise you because he's all in.

And for the people who say if you've got a crap connect, go play in a B&M, I offer you this little story. I was in LP with QQ, I 3 bet it it gets capped and like 5 people see the flop. Qd, Xd, X, it was 3 bet before it even got to me, postive either an AA or KK is out there, and at least one flush draw. Turn comes diamond that pairs the board, cha ching! I'm a rich man, I 3 bet when it comes to me. I see it get capped and before It comes back around to me, THE F'ING POWER GOES OUT!!!!! Should everyone with out a generator backup go play B&M? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Gaming Club]

[CrackerZack]

I'm fine with it in limit ring games and actually think its a good idea. In NL or any tourney, it has no place.

[Aragorn]

It's fine in ring games, IF you are willing to get rid of players that abuse it. But in my experience, very few cards rooms, online or B&M will bar players. I've been in B&M card rooms where getting caught cheating gets the cheater barred for a week at the most.

[jasonHoldEm]

I think all-in protection is important and should be available; however, I think it should have MUCH stricter rules.

The problem with abuse is that the sites allow it to happen...unlimited all-in resets, etc. I think each player should have one all-in and if they use it they cannot have it reset for 24hrs. I have had a broadband connection since I started playing internet poker (first cable and now DSL) and I have used an all-in maybe 3-5 total times in the last year. I think one a day is more than fair and will eliminate abuse.

Just my .02,
Jason

[Gaming Club]

[ QUOTE ]

Alobar
All-ins for a ring game is ok, because it very rarely gets abused. I'd be willing to bet everyone here has made more money from being saved in a pot the rare time your computer has crashed in a hand, then you have lost because someone abused it.


[/ QUOTE ]
We'd probably agree with your assessment, but its very hard for a player to hear this when they've just been done out by intentional abuse -- usually accompanied by much mudslinging and machismo all round (btw, we find it quite entertaining that the online analogue to "step outside and we'll see who's boss" often seems to be "step on over to the the HU tables and we'll see who's boss" ... kind of like "my dad is bigger than your dad" all over again /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[ QUOTE ]

CZ
I'm fine with it in limit ring games and actually think its a good idea. In NL or any tourney, it has no place.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's our current policy (last night's error in the $10k tourney aside).

[ QUOTE ]

Aragorn
It's fine in ring games, IF you are willing to get rid of players that abuse it. But in my experience, very few cards rooms, online or B&M will bar players.


[/ QUOTE ]
Does banning have to be the answer -- doesn't removing all-in protection privileges for abusive players achieve the desired goal (while still leaving them available for fleecing by you guys /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[ QUOTE ]

PO
I think all-in protection is important and should be available; however, I think it should have MUCH stricter rules.

The problem with abuse is that the sites allow it to happen...unlimited all-in resets, etc. I think each player should have one all-in and if they use it they cannot have it reset for 24hrs.
...
I think one a day is more than fair and will eliminate abuse.


[/ QUOTE ]
Our current policy (for fixed limit games only) is 2 per 24 hour period, with no resets inbetween.

We started this thread because we were considering removing all-in protection altogether given the levels of abuse being reported.

In light of the comments since made tho, it looks like reducing it to 1 per 24 hours might be the way to go, along with vigorous follow up on cases of reported abuse.

Anyone else want to add their 2c?

[BigBluffer]

1 per 24 hours in fixed-limit ring games only, with no resets until 12:01 A.M. seems like a reasonable policy.

Once again, thanks for taking our input into consideration.

BB

[Cyndie]

one per 24 hour period is not equitable...how about players who play 1000 hands per day compared to players who play 1000 hands per week?


And TGC, just taking away allin protection from abusers is right on...no sense making them go someplace else to abuse...just let them see what it is like when someone "accidently" goes all in against them...perhaps they should lose the right to protection against anyone caught abusing.

[rusty JEDI]

1 per 24 hours in fixed-limit ring games only


I would like to tweak this a little bit for all those that play 2 tables at a time.

You get 1 all in for a disconnect (not timeout) per 24 hours, but if you are at two tables or more at that time you are covered for all of those tables at that first disconnect of the day.


It has happened at other sites with 1 per day that i was in two tables at the same time and deep into a hand on each table and disconnected. Of course the small pot or eventual losing hand is the one credited with the all in and the other would have been winner auto folded.

[stripsqueez]

i think you should have all in protection for any game despite the obvious logic of not having it for games when the cheating all in player can most profit, such as tourny's, pot limit, no limit - that distinction appeals to good players (for good reason) but would not be as readily understood by most players - your computer doesnt choose which game its playing when it stuffs up

i also agree that banning abusers would be dumb - most people cheat because they are bad at the game so banning them doesnt appeal to me - the answer is surely to have a simple, clear, well advertised policy that accomodates the occasional genuine advantagous all-in - for example, 95% of any PR problem you might have with the person reporting the abuse would dissapear if you gave them prompt feedback about what action was taken and why

if a potential all-in abuse is reported, assuming that it was in a posistion that could benefit the player going all in, it should count against them as an offence of strict liability - ie no excuses accepted - i would give at least 1 warning before revoking there all-in's - if someone who had been warned does it again, but 6 months after the first time, and they are a regular player, you might consider a further warning - you could have formal parameters or an absolute discretion to decide - keeping a history will very likely reveal if its abuse or accident

the time periods i refer to are off the top of my head and i dont put them forth as an absolute - i think you can accomodate winning players like those on this forum who obviously hate all-in abusers (with good reason) such that they may of lost some perspective - and also not scare off genuine players who have the misfortune of a computer drama at the "right" time

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[AceHigh]

Get rid of it. My experience has been that B&M and internet card rooms are reluctant to punish cheaters. At least until they have cheated a signifigant amount.

Why not just remove the possibility of cheating?

[Terry]

The number of all-ins and frequency of resets will always be a matter for debate, but

[ QUOTE ]
vigorous follow up on cases of reported abuse

[/ QUOTE ]
is the part that really matters.

[stripsqueez]

"why not just remove the possibility of cheating"

i do have empathy for this view - to answer the question - because to do so infers that innocent players are cheating

not allowing any all-ins is a dramatic solution that will not appeal to most poker players and is impractical - it is also probably a marketing nightmare unless all other sites do the same thing

surely better to play in an environment where occasional cheating did occur but was quickly identified and punished than to play in an environment that has been created upon the assumption that everyone cheats

stripsqueez - chickenhawk