Recent Home Game Arguement

[ QUOTE ]
On the WPT last weekend they had the episode from the Borgato. It came down to Daniel Negraneau and David Williams. Williams had just lost a big pot and didn't have enough chips to post the blind for the next hand, so the match was declared over. So the guy has a point, I think it would be an acceptable rule variant to do it this way, as long as it's announced beforehand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is emphatically NOT what happened on that episode. What happened was that both Daniel and David went all-in after the flop. They were close in chips (after blinds and antes and pre-flop betting), so no one knew who had who covered.

Daniel won the hand and they both had to count the chips to see how much they had. Daniel had more chips so he had David covered. David had no more chips left, so he was out and Daniel wins.

The reason this seemed odd was that, in most TV tourneys I've seen, one player obviously has the other one covered. So if the low stack loses the all-in, everyone knows and the winner can be declared. Here, no one knew who was the low stack until the hand was over.

Thanks, I thought it was wrong as well

[Lottery Larry]

Same thing happened to me in a home tourney recently. 3 of us, I'm in BB, UTG pushes and I called. When I won, we found out that I'd actually had him covered by a chip, not the other way around as we'd all assumed.

[smoore]

Hahaha... what a marooon. Of course you're correct. Please urinate on him again for me.

[Richard Tanner]

Honestly, I would wake this dumbass up with a golden shower everyday until he gave you a written apology.
It's at this point I feel I should qualify my anger. It isn't that he made a mistake, we all make mistakes, but it's that (from your story) he sounds so adament in his belief of his mistake, and I HATE it when people actually try to rationalize mistakes as there is no where (credible) they could've gotten that info.

Cody

[six_4off]

You could make cases for defication here. nothing says i told you so like a cleaveland steamer!

[grandgnu]

You should've said that the game couldn't continue and you'd have to split the prize pool evenly, w00t!

But, I'm glad you came back to win it, you were correct. He just has to post whatever you have left for that hand (i.e. not the full $4)

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
He just has to post whatever you have left for that hand (i.e. not the full $4)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite right, but I know what you mean. For clarity's sake:

Blinds $2/$4. BB has $3 left. He posts all his chips as the BB. SB still posts $2. SB can then fold or call the additional $1. The SB doesn't have to "post whatever" the BB has left, but that is how much he'd half to call if he is going to play his hand, and of course should do so with any two cards.

[Lottery Larry]

He's an idiot.

If you can't pay the short blind, what happens to your cards? Do you get to keep your chips until next tourney?

Silly- it's not a gambling debt that has to be paid in full.

[Colquhoun]

This is funny. According to his rules, if you can't pay the blind and have a few players still in, you can sit back and see hand after hand after hand for free...just wait till you pick up a nice pair and go all-in. Quite silly.