Interesting Home Game Dilemma

[mlagoo]

So a friend of mine runs a tournament at his house probably once every few weeks, buyin typically between $20 and $50.

Anyway, at this particular tournament (was a $10 R+A), we had got down to the final four players, one of whom had to leave very badly. He had a gig that night, or something, and had to go.

The problem was he had accumulated about 200,000 of the 300,000 chips in play. He was the dominant chip leader by a MILE. I was playing at the final table, and basically what had happened was he had adopted a "get rich or get broke" strategy (knowing that he had to leave soon), calling allins with ridiculous hands and sucking out like a madman.

So, finally we're down to 4, and he's at a point where he really has to leave. First, he wanted his friend that was there to "sub in" for him. All of us that were at the table were not happy with that, and the guy who was running the game also thought that was absurd, so it got vetoed.

Their second idea was to give him something like second place money and have us divvy up the rest of the prize pool accordingly.

Of course, what the three of us remaining players wanted to do was blind the dude off and keep playing poker, guarenteed 3rd or better money.

FWIW, the payouts were something like $60 for 4th, $120 for 3rd, $255 for 2nd and $455 for 1st.


What is the right ruling on the part of the guy who was running the game?

To me - this is an easy one. It's that player's responsibility to make sure he's got time. If he didn't do that - that's really not your problem, nor is it anyone elses.

As far as I can see - he's really got three options:
1) Keep playing and see where he ends up when the tournament is complete
2) Walk away and take 4th place (given that there were 4 still at the table)
3) Make an agreement with the other 3 players.

It's up to the people at the table to decide anything but option 1 or 2 - not up to the guy running the tournament. The players are the ones with equity in the tournament.

[PokerGoblin]

[ QUOTE ]
The players are the ones with equity in the tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. The options are make a deal or blind him off. If he decided to leave and I were still in it I would make a pact w/ the other players not to play another hand until he was out of chips.

Yes, it is the player's responponsibility to make sure he has enough time to finish. IF he's gotta go, he makes the choice, not you.

PG

[JonPKibble]

[ QUOTE ]
He had a gig that night, or something, and had to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Already had plans? Blind him off.

[mlagoo]

ok great. i guess we all felt bad... we ended up kicking in an extra $100 to him (in addition to the 4th place finish), and then playing for the rest of the prize pool.

it would have been different, i guess, if the chips were split more evenly... but he was such a dominant chipleader that we felt bad.

the bad news is i ended up winning the tournament and winning a bit less because we gave him some money. i guess that makes this a bad beat post =) we just weren't sure what was the ethically "right" thing to do.


the other consideration we had was that this guy and his friends were all HUGE fish, and we wanted them to come back for the next few tournaments. meh.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
If he decided to leave and I were still in it I would make a pact w/ the other players not to play another hand until he was out of chips.



[/ QUOTE ]

That's collusion and illegal.

[smoore]

Well, "by the book" you're going to blind him off, but I think everyone already knows this.

Honestly, as either the host or a participant here's what I'd suggest:

Give the guy 3rd place money and remove his chips from play... it's a home game and this is where I draw the "friendly" line. All other chipstacks are counted and the remaining prize pool is split "along those lines". Everyone is offered the deal. If one person still playing won't accept it then it's played out for the new modified prize pool. If everyone accepts it we can play another game, either cash or another tournament.

The guy leaving doesn't have a choice, he's gotta accept it or stay and play, "OK man, I'll cya tomorrow and tell you how you finished when I give you your cash... It may be second or it may be fourth."

Not perfect but it is an out.

BTW, if he "took his chances" I would make sure he finished fourth, "Whoops."

[tonypaladino]

The correct ruling is that the player has his blinds posted and hands folded until he is out of chips. If he happens to get blinded ITM, then he gets paid, if not, TS.

[PokerGoblin]

[ QUOTE ]
That's collusion and illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally, I'd agree with this. But look at it from this standpoint. The leaving player has 66% of the chips in play. The average chip stack among the other three is 33k. Surely at least one of the remaining players would be eliminated before he blinds out. With the difference in payouts as it was, I can't imagine that the players still in would want to take a chance at elimination when they're guaranteed a top three finish by waiting it out. Dividing up his chips would be 66k apiece for the remaining players. I imagine the blinds are pretty high at this point.

PG

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's collusion and illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally, I'd agree with this. But look at it from this standpoint. The leaving player has 66% of the chips in play. The average chip stack among the other three is 33k. Surely at least one of the remaining players would be eliminated before he blinds out. With the difference in payouts as it was, I can't imagine that the players still in would want to take a chance at elimination when they're guaranteed a top three finish by waiting it out. Dividing up his chips would be 66k apiece for the remaining players. I imagine the blinds are pretty high at this point.

PG

[/ QUOTE ]

So your argument is that collusion is okay as long as it benefits you.