Possible personal solution to all-in abuse?

[StikyIcky]

Long-time lurker, first time poster. I was going to post this in the Zoo, but it's a pretty naive question, so I guess it belongs here. Here goes:

I was playing a $25 NL on Party, and long story short, hit a set with JJ, had one caller to the river (the board had paired on the turn), where I bet all-in (I had him covered). Of course, the jackass "disconnects," and I see his top pair [censored]-kicker lose to my boat, screwing me out of a few bucks.

So, I got to thinking, how could I prevent this? The best solution I could come up with (short of the ideal--getting the online cardrooms to change their policies, or at least punish known abusers) was this:

If you have someone covered, and you want to go all-in, just bet $0.05 less than what they have in their stack. This leaves them the option of folding, calling, or raising their last $0.05. If they "disconnect," they fold and have 0 chance of taking your money. If they call or raise (effectively a call, as you'll obviously pay $.05 more to see their hand), it plays out like it should--the winner and the loser each get what they deserve.

Here's my question: does this solution indicate my total misunderstanding of what all-in abuse is? Does all-in protection only kick in when a player is all-in, or does it kick in whenever a player has cards in front of him and money in the pot (isn't a side pot created, at least for multiway play, in this situation)? I mostly play limit online and pot-/no-limit live, so I don't often see this situation arise.

Anyway, enough rambling. Thanks in advance for your responses.

[George Rice]

I thought Party had a automatic fold policy in no-limit. Guess I was wrong. Maybe that's in tournaments.

The "all-in" means that if the player disconnects he is considered all-in for what's in the pot up to then, regardless of whether he has chips in front of him or not. If more than one other player remains then there is a side pot. If the player had all of his chips in the pot then it wouldn't matter (shouldn't matter) whether he's disconnected or not. If he doesn't have all of his chips in the pot he keeps his stack and the portion of the pot he contributed to may be won by him.

[Piiop]

The all-in protection kicks in when a player has cards in front of them. If they time-out or disconnect and still have a live hand, its like a pretend all-in. A side-pot will be established for any other betting between players in the hand. At the showdown, the all-in player can still win from the main pot they were in originally.

They player does not actually have to be all-in for this to work. The all-in protection was created for situations when you lose internet connection or your computer goes down (i.e. legitimate reasons) but you are still part of a hand.

Your plan would not affect the outcome of the hand. The player would still time-out or disconnect which would put him all-in.

You should report any all-in abuse right away and encourage other players at the table to do the same.

[RydenStoompala]

I do not see how the other guy is advantaged by disconnecting. I only see downside. This is like asking those morons who continually play limit games close to all-in so they can get all-in mid way through a hand.
Why do you do this? [ QUOTE ]
So I do not have to put more money into the pot to stay in.

[/ QUOTE ] Isn't that an idotic approach if you have the best hand? [ QUOTE ]
I don't know, I'm a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If all-in abuse is an issue, play at 'Stars. If you disconnect, you're folded regardless of money already in the pot.

[rayrns]

I believe if you are still connected and time out, the hands is folded. But if you are disconnected and time out you are put all in.

[crockpot]

boy, would it be a happy day for 2+2ers if party ever implemented this policy, be it tournaments or side games. i really don't get what they have to gain by allowing so many blatant intentional all-ins. when someone cheats and goes all-in, it annoys 9 out of the 10 players at the table, most of whom verbally assault the player. usually at least three players report the violator, wasting a lot of paid time of the support people. is it really worth all that to make one cheater feel welcome at your server?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No. 'Stars does not have all-in protection in it's tournies.

[StikyIcky]

Thanks for your responses. I had a feeling that what I was thinking was too good to be true.