Backward moving button on Party

[aces961]

These are some hand histories and emails pertaining to a sit and go tourament I played, I am posting both here and in 1 table tourneys since I think the flaw probably exists in both places.


***** Hand History for Game 1840527343 *****
200/400 TourneyTexasHTGameTable (NL) (Tournament 10984971) - Sun Apr 03 20:48:24 EDT 2005
Table Table 14451 (Real Money) -- Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 8
Seat 1: BoiledOver (885)
Seat 2: rlgetchips (1425)
Seat 3: XLhomestead (1150)
Seat 4: Jcardshark11 (2510)
Seat 5: Braindead9 (1610)
Seat 7: renjer5 (925)
Seat 8: LkyJeremiah (380)
Seat 9: MittRomney (1115)
renjer5 posts small blind (100)
LkyJeremiah posts big blind (200)
** Dealing down cards **
MittRomney folds.
BoiledOver raises (885) to 885
BoiledOver is all-In.
rlgetchips folds.
XLhomestead folds.
Jcardshark11 folds.
Braindead9 folds.
renjer5 folds.
LkyJeremiah calls (180)
LkyJeremiah is all-In.
Creating Main Pot with $860 with LkyJeremiah
Creating Side Pot 1 with $505 with BoiledOver
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 7c, Qs, Ts ]
** Dealing Turn ** : [ 6c ]
** Dealing River ** : [ 4c ]
** Summary **
Main Pot: 860 | Side Pot 1: 505
Board: [ 7c Qs Ts 6c 4c ]
BoiledOver balance 1365, bet 885, collected 1365, net +480 [ Kh Qc ] [ a pair of queens -- Kh,Qc,Qs,Ts,7c ]
rlgetchips balance 1425, didn't bet (folded)
XLhomestead balance 1150, didn't bet (folded)
Jcardshark11 balance 2510, didn't bet (folded)
Braindead9 balance 1610, didn't bet (folded)
renjer5 balance 825, lost 100 (folded)
LkyJeremiah balance 0, lost 380 [ Ac 4h ] [ a pair of fours -- Ac,Qs,Ts,4h,4c ]
MittRomney balance 1115, didn't bet (folded)

***** Hand History for Game 1840529412 *****
LkyJeremiah finished in eighth place.
200/400 TourneyTexasHTGameTable (NL) (Tournament 10984971) - Sun Apr 03 20:48:47 EDT 2005
Table Table 14451 (Real Money) -- Seat 7 is the button
Total number of players : 7
Seat 1: BoiledOver (1365)
Seat 2: rlgetchips (1425)
Seat 3: XLhomestead (1150)
Seat 4: Jcardshark11 (2510)
Seat 5: Braindead9 (1610)
Seat 7: renjer5 (825)
Seat 9: MittRomney (1115)
MittRomney posts big blind (200)
** Dealing down cards **
BoiledOver folds.
rlgetchips folds.
XLhomestead folds.
Jcardshark11 folds.
Braindead9 folds.
renjer5 raises (825) to 825
renjer5 is all-In.
MittRomney calls (625)
Creating Main Pot with $1650 with renjer5
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 6d, 7d, 6c ]
** Dealing Turn ** : [ Jc ]
** Dealing River ** : [ 4s ]
** Summary **
Main Pot: 1650 |
Board: [ 6d 7d 6c Jc 4s ]
BoiledOver balance 1365, didn't bet (folded)
rlgetchips balance 1425, didn't bet (folded)
XLhomestead balance 1150, didn't bet (folded)
Jcardshark11 balance 2510, didn't bet (folded)
Braindead9 balance 1610, didn't bet (folded)
renjer5 balance 0, lost 825 [ 7h 8h ] [ two pairs, sevens and sixes -- Jc,7h,7d,6d,6c ]
MittRomney balance 1940, bet 825, collected 1650, net +825 [ Td Jd ] [ two pairs, jacks and sixes -- Jd,Jc,Td,6d,6c ]

***** Hand History for Game 1840531713 *****
renjer5 finished in seventh place.
200/400 TourneyTexasHTGameTable (NL) (Tournament 10984971) - Sun Apr 03 20:49:12 EDT 2005
Table Table 14451 (Real Money) -- Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: BoiledOver (1365)
Seat 2: rlgetchips (1425)
Seat 3: XLhomestead (1150)
Seat 4: Jcardshark11 (2510)
Seat 5: Braindead9 (1610)
Seat 9: MittRomney (1940)
MittRomney posts small blind (100)
BoiledOver posts big blind (200)
** Dealing down cards **
rlgetchips folds.
XLhomestead raises (1100) to 1100
Jcardshark11 folds.
Braindead9 folds.
MittRomney folds.
BoiledOver folds.
** Summary **
Main Pot: 1400
BoiledOver balance 1165, lost 200 (folded)
rlgetchips balance 1425, didn't bet (folded)
XLhomestead balance 1450, bet 1100, collected 1400, net +300
Jcardshark11 balance 2510, didn't bet (folded)
Braindead9 balance 1610, didn't bet (folded)
MittRomney balance 1840, lost 100 (folded)


My first email to them

I have attached three consecutive hands from a sit and go I recently played, the hands occured in the order they are attached the top one first. You will notice that the game has over 6 players and on the first and third of the consecutive hands seat 5 is the button. An occurance like this is inexcusable and you need to act immediatly to correct this flaw in your tourney software or it may cause me to stop playing at your site completely. I would ask that the buy-ins of each player involved who was left when this occured be refunded either in cash or bonus, something like this compromises the fairness of the tournament in allowing the player who recieved the button twice an unfair positional edge in more hands than is his share.


The reply:

Dear (Player)

Thank you for contacting us.

Players inherit any obligations (taking the Blinds) or receive any
benefits (getting the button) when transferred as a result of their table
breaking down in a multi table tournament. However in a single table
tournament, if the player gets eliminated in that hand, where the button
had to move to that particular player, then the player who had the
button would receive the button again so that the player who has to post the
small blind can post his blinds.

Players are dealt in the next hand after a transfer (unless they are
moved into the small blind position). Players are informed when they are
transferred (and when others are transferred to their table).

In transferring players from one table to another to keep tables
balanced, we try to be "as fair as possible" to players to maintain the same
distance from the blind after the transfer.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to
contact our Customer Care Department at any time. We are here 24/7 to
assist you via email.

Thank you for choosing us as your online gaming site!

Shalini
Poker Customer Care

My reply to that:

Hello,
As this was a single table tournament I am
responding to the portion of your response concerning
those. The situation you describe is if the player who
would be the button the next hand is eliminated. Then
the button would stay in the same place for two
consecutive hands. While I may disagree with this and
would not do it in a tourney I was running, I
understand a large number of places do and believe it
is a valid way of handling the situation.
This is not what occured in this situation. What
happened there is in the 2nd hand I sent the player
who was the button was eliminated, instead of the
button moving to the next player at the table in the
correct direction, it literally moved backward a seat.
This is completely illogical and I can't see a
reasonalbe explanation for why it should be allowed to
occur.
As I provide your site with 150-200 dollars in
revenue a day I would hope in the future you could
actually take the time to read my complaints and
actually figure out what they are, I don't attempt to
waste your time with complaints that I don't believe
are warrented and I would appreciate it if you
wouldn't waste my time with responses that indicate
you haven't taken the time to actually read my email
completely.



I am still awaiting a reply for that 5 hours later.



If they don't actually do anything for me in their next email to me I have the following quote lined up for my reply from their rules on the website

"Texas Hold’em uses what is called a “dealer button” (a small disc) to indicate the theoretical dealer of each hand. After each hand is completed, the dealer button moves clockwise to the next active player. This player will be considered “the dealer” for that hand. In this way each player has equal opportunities to be in early, middle and late position."

[aces961]

So here is the latest reply

Dear Player,

Thank you for contacting us.

With regards to your email we would like to inform you that in hand
number 1840529412 seat 7 is the button, seat 9 posts the big blind and
there is no small blind. In this hand renjer5 ie seat 7 is eliminated. In
the next hand seat 9 should have been the small blind and the person
next to him should be the big blind. This is exactly what happened. The
button again does not move and should have remained with the player on
seat 7. However since there is no player on seat 7 the button was
represented by the player on seat 5 instead of being on the empty seat 7. It
did not skip seat 9.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please do not hesitate to
contact our Customer Care Department at any time. We are here 24/7 to
assist you via email.

Thank you for choosing us as your online gaming site!

Ameenddin
Poker Customer Care


So I've replied to this by giving them countless situations where the big blind goes out one hand, there is a single big blind the next hand who is the button the hand after that and pays no small blind. I've also quoted the rule page and explained that according to them the next active player to the left of the button in hand 2 should recieve the button in hand 3. We'll see what they say to that.

[Ace_Ren]

Pokerstars would have done it a little differently. Rather than skipping the SB, they would instead let the one guy get lucky and miss his BB on hand 2, but put in the SB instead, with the next guy putting in the BB.

As far as I know, both ways are acceptable, but I'm certainly no pro.

[Frequitude]

I didn't read the HH's in detail, but it sounds like the button is dead on the spot where the all-in guy was. This is very common and i would prefer it was handled this way than allowing someone to miss their BB. At the later stages in the tournament, missing a BB is MUCH more helpful than having the button twice.

[DeeJ]

agreed. I like missing the BB on another site if the former BB gets eliminated or moved. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Late in a tourny it gives you an advantage since you can see more hands/shortstack than your opponents can. Party seem to have it better.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't read the HH's in detail, but it sounds like the button is dead on the spot where the all-in guy was. This is very common and i would prefer it was handled this way than allowing someone to miss their BB. At the later stages in the tournament, missing a BB is MUCH more helpful than having the button twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that given how party handles situations where the big blind is eliminated in hand 1, and no one is eliminated in hand 2, a much more common occurance, there is no way that there handling of this situation where the button of hand 2 is eliminted is correct.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
agreed. I like missing the BB on another site if the former BB gets eliminated or moved. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Late in a tourny it gives you an advantage since you can see more hands/shortstack than your opponents can. Party seem to have it better.

[/ QUOTE ]
What party usually does is if on hand 1 the big blind is eliminated on hand 2 the previous small blind gets the button and the previous utg player gets the big blind. Then on hand three the previous big blind player gets the button and the utg player of hand 2 gets his big blind skipped. I've tried arguing with them that this is incorrect, but the fact is a large number of places do it this way and party does have a valid defense for it.

I'm saying once party decides to do it this way what they have done in the three hand histories I posted is unaccpetable by any standards.

[Frequitude]

Well, I'll admit, I went back over and reread the histories in detail. I understand the title now because it looks like these all-ins made Braindead the button, then the CO, and then the button again.

I understand that this was wierd, but it comes from them maintaining proper blind order. Unless I misread, it looks like the Big Blind rotates around the table properly. In hand 3 Braindead isn't necessarily the button, the button is just dead and Braindead happens to benefit. Again, I'd much rather have this than someone skipping their big blind. I think the site got it bang on.


edit: aw, what a weak 100th post. I sure hope I'm right now! I could have at least posted a picture of my member so that I could join these ranks. Maybe I'll get me an avatar instead.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'll admit, I went back over and reread the histories in detail. I understand the title now because it looks like these all-ins made Braindead the button, then the CO, and then the button again.

I understand that this was wierd, but it comes from them maintaining proper blind order. Unless I misread, it looks like the Big Blind rotates around the table properly. In hand 3 Braindead isn't necessarily the button, the button is just dead and Braindead happens to benefit. Again, I'd much rather have this than someone skipping their big blind. I think the site got it bang on.


edit: aw, what a weak 100th post. I sure hope I'm right now! I could have at least posted a picture of my member so that I could join these ranks. Maybe I'll get me an avatar instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that it appears that the third hand is handled correctly is blind luck on their part. The way they handle blinds when the big blind is eliminated is the following
I'm going to assume a 10 handed table players at seat 1 -10 seat 1 is button on first hand
On hand 1 seat 1 is button, 2 sb, 3bb. If the big blind is elminated they do the following on hand 2
On hand 2 seat 2 is button 4 is bb, then on hand 3
On hand 3 seat 4 is button, 5 is sb, 6 is bb.

So what happens in these situations is that seat 4 never pays a small and seat 5 never pays a big. This is what I find to be the major problem party has, but they'll never correct it and I think lots of us have tried.

The only possible way to keep the blinds correct and such when the big blind is eliminated is to in hand two have seat 2 be the button and seats 4 and 5 both post bigs, then in hand three seat 4 is the button and sb and seat 5 is sb, seat 6 bb. This would be way too complicated for party to ever realize it is correct.

Now in the situation where it appears the big blind moves backward, they try to pass it off as the dead button rule, but the dead button rule only apllies when the person who would be the button is eliminated. In this case the person who is supposed to inherit the button isn't eliminated. What I suspect happened is in programming their dead button rule they made a line of code saying to hold the button back if the small blind of the previous hand is elminated, this works just fine assuming they always have a small blind, which by their dumb system for handling things when the big blind does out they don't.

[Ace_Ren]

I am not a party player, but considering the hand history you showed, I believe they do indeed have it correct. However, you seem to be misinterpreting it.

What you advocate them doing is blatantly wrong.

Based on your scenario and what I know of party, this is what would actually happen.
Hand 1: seat 1 is button, 2 is SB, 3 is BB. 3 gets eliminated.
Hand 2: Seat 2 is button, 4 is BB.
Hand 3: Seat 2 is button, 4 is SB, 5 is BB.

You should not have 2 people posting the BB, except as a buyin to get into the first hand of a ring game. Plus, your recommendation has seat 4 missing his SB.