Tournament Home Game Issue - Player continually going all in within the first hour (21 Viewers)

[LeCoq]

Welcome OP. I'm pretty simple minded. I would just not invite that person to anymore tournament games or better yet I would switch to a small buyin cash game with unlimited rebuys and enjoy splitting his money amongst the regular crew.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I respect all the opinions it’s just that what some folks are missing is that the host is sensing his game is going to possibly suffer. So while they’re looking for advice, and getting a wise variety of advice (good thing) they’re also having their game categorized and possibly miscatagorized.

There’s not a fine line between being helpful and even offering one’s personal opinion and being condescending.

We're definitely brushing each other a little wrong in this thread. Here, I do find some agreement.

I agree that the host should probably uninvite the wild player. Not because I think it's a solid move, but because it's the best thing for his game (i.e., in this moment, it's better than players leaving and it probably breaking), and it's his responsibility to be a good steward to the game.

Where we diverge is that I think it's a bad thing for his game to have turned into what it has turned into, and really it's damage control at this point.

It would be better in the long run to curate a game that helps them to actually improve their poker game instead of stunting it.

 

[Labrat]

Cash game.

Problem solved.

 

[merkong]

Cash game.

Problem solved.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Tell all your OMCs to stop being nits and embrace the variance. Life is too short.

 

[merkong]

We're definitely brushing each other a little wrong in this thread. Here, I do find some agreement.

I agree that the host should probably uninvite the wild player. Not because I think it's a solid move, but because it's the best thing for his game (i.e., in this moment, it's better than players leaving and it probably breaking), and it's his responsibility to be a good steward to the game.

Where we diverge is that I think it's a bad thing for his game to have turned into what it has turned into, and really it's damage control at this point.

It would be better in the long run to curate a game that helps them to actually improve their poker game instead of stunting it.

I’ve agreed with quite a bit of what you’ve said and this post makes it even more clear.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you’re saying. I think part of being a good host is to do exactly what you’re saying; encourage well rounded poker which does include squaring off against unconventional or even unpalatable styles of play.

I think you’re spot on in that this game has a social component that overall may stifle acceptance of these unavoidable play styles. That said, and you’ve said it from the start in so many words, the host has a right to act in a way that they feel best serves the game, the physical gathering of enough players to actually play, but there should be caution in deciding if any move does that only while hindering player growth.

I double back a bit and say why not talk to the player in question. Maybe this isn’t a shift in their paradigm maybe they’ve grown tired of something and are actually trying to be disruptive. And maybe not.

A little investigative inquiry and then, like all hosts, make your decision, grow from it, and live with it.

I appreciate the insight.

 

[Poker Zombie]

All the "cash game" posters are overlooking the 7 years of statistics the OP has built into the game. How do you judge time lasted? How do you get over the no rebuy principle?

Tournament poker and ring poker are two different animals. Playing without a net is more thrilling for some, while the unlimited winning potential is more thrilling for others. If the OP's core group doesn't like "All-in Jim", they're going to hate playing cash. You may as well tell the host to quit playing cards.

 

[Budha]

You might want to read what I wrote a little more carefully. I do support the host's right to right to curate his player pool to his own standards. I just disagree with his reasons for wanting to do so.

As to the smugness, you're not wrong. It's intentional. I'm returning the tone of the prompt.

The OP goes on and on about how seriously he and his players take the game. It's so competitive, such a profound gathering of poker minds, a real "thinking man's game," and the problem is that this big dummy and his donkish ways are positively ruining it.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard some version of this story. It always comes off roughly like this, and the person telling it is always roughly as oblivious as this about how ridiculous it comes off for a "thinking man's game" to get its panties so twisted over a strategy adjustment that barely qualifies as trivial.

As to whether I've hosted 100+ games and other arbitrary yardsticks, why should that matter? If you have something to say in response to the substance of my words, I'm happy to hear that. Not as interested in entertaining whatever this tactic is.

My first reaction to your position was - “I hear you, BUT…”. Then, I thought about it a little more and do think your OP highlights some interesting and valid points.

Based on my understanding from the OP, where I struggle is reconciling a no rebuy tourney with a donk going all in every hand until he busts. I can’t find any strategy in that. Is he just being obnoxious?

I do understand what you’re saying, but still can’t help but feel it’s bad for the game (his game specifically, and in general). To your point, maybe that’s just an emotional response.

Am I wrong - lol. (rhetorical question)

Basically , I agree with you, but don’t “want” to agree with you

Note: my comments are In the context of a no rebuy tourney only. Cash game, reload tourney - hell ya, he’s welcome anytime - lol.

 

[bergs]

I would just uninvite MatB and solve the problem that way.

 

[allforcharity]

I'm late to the conversation. My first observation: the problem player is playing within the rules of tournament play as defined and accepted. You may not like it, but it's allowed.

So, I see only two broad choices:

1) Uninvite him entirely or somehow restrict his attendance. A host has every right to determine who s/he lets into their home and their game. Period. It does not require explanation nor is there avenue for appeal.

2) Change the rules of the tournament. Allow limited rebuys, either paid or prepaid. Give some structural advantage to the less aggressive play styles.

 

[KHarp1]

...Based on my understanding from the OP, where I struggle is reconciling a no rebuy tourney with a donk going all in every hand until he busts. I can’t find any strategy in that. Is he just being obnoxious?

I do understand what you’re saying, but still can’t help but feel it’s bad for the game (his game specifically, and in general). To your point, maybe that’s just an emotional response...

And to my point, if he's a friend and he's playing this way...not historically, but more recent... then as a friend I'm going to try and find out what his end goal is. As a player I'm going to welcome his play, knowing that I'll take his chips more time than not, but, as a friend and a guy that I've been playing with for a while, I'd like to see what's up. Is it passive-aggressive towards my game? I'll be ok with saying you should find another game. Are you experiencing recent cognition issues? Feeling angry and agitated? Maybe there's something medically going on.

 

[Jimulacrum]

No tactic. I was just pointing out that absent of being able to read the majority and a game dies. Nothing more nothing less.

No ill will intended.

Fair enough. Perhaps I'm reading more ire than you're intending. Apologies if I pushed too hard.

In truth I've hosted probably just over 100 live games, but not all continuously, and cash games far more often than tournaments. For tournaments, I've run a bunch of random one-offs, a NLHE league season and a half, and two summer mini-seasons. For cash games, I've run all kinds of stuff. (Triple Board 3-Card Hold'em, anyone?) Include online games and it's more like a few hundred, but that's a bit of a different animal.

Over time I've found the best approach to be a balance of leadership and democracy—leadership for the stuff that really matters to the functioning, fairness, and longevity of the game, and democracy for preferential matters. Curating the player pool hits a little of both schools. The host is the final word on the invite list, but players can exercise their own preferences by threatening not to come, or not coming.

The smaller the game, the more power players have to do this, and that's the problem here in my eyes. The game is pretty small, so the players really do have the leverage, and they're using it to push the host to make a decision that's bad for the game and for their poker growth, both in terms of skill and maturity. He may have to do it if he wants the game to survive in the short-term, but in the long term it's a harmful decision and a terrible precedent. It not only forces out a player, shrinking the player and prize pools and robbing players of experience and growth, but it shows everyone that he'll bend to a mutiny over concerns that are barely legitimate.

 

[drdr]

Yep.
Let him bust early and the others can enjoy the +ev. Rather than awkwardly discuss with donkey, I'd talk to the grumbling players. Reinforce with them it's good for their profits and perhaps point them toward a strategy article on how to counter continuous all-ins. All part of being a poker player, adjust your game, get dead cash.

I think many are over thinking what to do.
A healthy game (a thinking person's game) accommodates other's playing styles, which are part of poker. Educate those who are unhappy with all-in Jim. Push the line that it's good for the game, in terms of money and learning to adapt. That way you keep all players and some of them grow in ability.

 

[Mojo1312]

He jammed on me!

 

[Labrat]

All the "cash game" posters are overlooking the 7 years of statistics the OP has built into the game. How do you judge time lasted? How do you get over the no rebuy principle?

Tournament poker and ring poker are two different animals. Playing without a net is more thrilling for some, while the unlimited winning potential is more thrilling for others. If the OP's core group doesn't like "All-in Jim", they're going to hate playing cash. You may as well tell the host to quit playing cards.

So because he has "7 years of statistics" he should never try something different?

 

[Taghkanic]

If you're dead set against rebuys, I think you have to disinvite the player for the health of the game long-term. He's just not a fit, and he has to realize his approach is antisocial in this context. No different than if he insisted on showing up not having showered for a month.

 

[glynn]

A challenge question for you, @Styleman. If it weren't true that:

The player in question has let us know on some nights that they are tired and it almost seems like they are looking for an excuse to leave early within the first 90 minutes.

Would you still be considering adjusting your game, going so far as to stop inviting this player? If so, then I would exclude this element from your calculus since it has no bearing on it and can only bias your thinking.

But if not, then I would consider that the most likely reason that:

this player makes the effort to drive to the game

Is because he actually does want to be there, he is putting on an act, and he has out-thunk the "thinking man's game".

 

[Taghkanic]

One other idea... Make it pot limit for the first 2-3 levels. This would not prevent reckless play, but would force the maniac to play multistreet poker, and somewhat decrease the chance that someone gets bad beated early.

But I'm still in favor of either just disinviting him or doing so if he doesn't recognize that he's disrupting a longstanding game.

 

[Budha]

View attachment 1396158

He jammed on me!

@Mojo1312 when he gets felted by the donk’s one outer on the river.

 

[glynn]

I will note that I wouldn’t be shocked if you hadn’t hosted a longstanding game (100+ sessions) nor would I be truthful if I said I wasn’t offput by what I feel is a little tone of smugness.

What a shitty thing to say to an experienced host.

 

[merkong]

What a shitty thing to say to an experienced host.

Oof.

 

[DeadheadDave]

I’d talk to him and explain you have two options - lose multiple players or lose him unless he stops his annoying behavior. If he ignores your warning, you lose him and keep the others.

I have had to have this very conversation before. And, it’s perfectly acceptable as the TD to have frank discussions. The “it’s either you or everyone else…” conversation works. They either acquiesce or leave. Either way, you are back to what poker is all about: Winning. Sorry, I meant “ fun”

 

[Taghkanic]

I look at it this way:

The host used to hold a 6-10 player no rebuy tournament.

Now he's effectively holding a 5-9 player no rebuy tournament where one player arbitrarily gets doubled up during the first level.

The host did not choose this change; it was forced upon him by a player who claims he doesn't even want to be there.

Give the man his wish. Tell him he can't be there.

 

[BarrieJ3]

I just laugh at this.

Why not just limit all ins? It's hosting a freezeout tournament with no rebuys, so what if two serious players get it all in Kings vs Aces pre? One guy is out on first hand and has to drive home? Introduce rebuys, introduce post tourney cash games, etc. Easy peasy.

Don't want to do that? Kick the player out. Boom, decision done.

I say this as *that* player. I'm all in pre. Tourney? Yup. Cash? Yup. I'll actually jam all in pre at least first buy in, up to a couple buy ins. Nothing like lighting $300 on fire to settle in and play for real. Even once playing for real, I love to bet heavy early and shove flops/turns putting pressure on the other player.

The funny thing is, even at a completely non social game, host will still ask me to adjust play. I've watched serious players squirm and bitch to change buy in rules because they've gotten stacked on repeat and want to "get their money back" from me. I suck at poker, I barely play, but lifetime I'm up in Vegas, I'm up at home games, I'm up everywhere overall. I never understand people wanting to adjust play so that the "real poker players" can be comfortable and play meta - meanwhile getting pushed around by a dumbass ready to donate/play the role of whale.

Why not just.....take our money? Or if your interest is just in holding a $20 tournament hang, kick em out. Seems easy peasy to me.

 

[upNdown]

Nothing like lighting $300 on fire to settle in and play for real.

Yea but when there are no rebuys, that strategy is suspect.

 

[Jimulacrum]

My first reaction to your position was - “I hear you, BUT…”. Then, I thought about it a little more and do think your OP highlights some interesting and valid points.

Based on my understanding from the OP, where I struggle is reconciling a no rebuy tourney with a donk going all in every hand until he busts. I can’t find any strategy in that. Is he just being obnoxious?

I do understand what you’re saying, but still can’t help but feel it’s bad for the game (his game specifically, and in general). To your point, maybe that’s just an emotional response.

Am I wrong - lol. (rhetorical question)

Basically , I agree with you, but don’t “want” to agree with you

Note: my comments are In the context of a no rebuy tourney only. Cash game, reload tourney - hell ya, he’s welcome anytime - lol.

Read the OP carefully and you will find that he is probably not describing a person who actually goes all-in preflop literally every hand. A lot of it reads as exaggeration. It's hard to reconcile, for example,

There may be anywhere from 3 to 10 all-ins preflop from this player within the first hour of play, in certain cases back to back hands

with

They go all-in nearly every hand pre-flop

unless this tourney is only getting through a hand or two per level. So I read it with the same amount of salt with which I hear stories about someone who "raised literally every hand all night," except the ones he folded and called.

This is to say I don't think what OP is describing is happening every hand. It may not even be happening more than 50% of hands, and I doubt it's always preflop too. It's hard to say what's the exact case for sure, but OP's version is clearly more of a spirited narrative than a precise recounting.

All of this said, a hyper-aggressive player is only bad for the game if he's beating the game*—and here I only mean "bad" in the long-term theoretical sense that any winning player brings to any game. That is to say, he's extracting money from the other players, and every dollar he wins from them creates entertainment burden the game has to meet to keep them playing. (Think of the lengths to which casinos go to keep people at the tables.) But his presence is still another butt in a seat, more money in the prize pool, and more potentially interesting and educational changes to the game texture, all of which are generally positive developments.

If he's a losing player, he's also contributing positively to the money dynamic by increasing everyone else's net win or decreasing net loss, whatever the case. He may even nudge a breakeven player into a net winner, who will now be self-motivated to play because he's getting paid, instead of having to be entertained, which is a pretty nice conversion if you think about it.

As to specifically OP's game, I think you're right that it is bad for his game, for exactly and only the reason you stated: emotions. That is the only legitimate concern in my eyes, and everything else reads like a prolonged bad-beat story. I have to wonder if there was a particular incident that spurred this whole complaint, like a night when the maniac won the whole game or busted someone out early, and someone got bent out of shape about it.

But those aren't worthy complaints; they're just things that happen in the game sometimes. People raise. People make bad calls. People win. People bust early. You have to be mature about it.

Unfortunately, OP seems to have one or more players who are not mature about it, but his player pool is small enough that they're staging a successful mutiny over their opposition to a player who is likely good for the game, just in a way that makes them ornery. What can he do?

Spoiler: *

This is agnostic to what kind of personality he brings to the table. I'm basically ignoring that aspect because it's not really part of the discussion as OP has framed it. But in reality it's huge, and it may even be a factor in why OP's crew doesn't want him in the game. If they liked the guy or even just found him socially interesting, I can't imagine they'd threaten to leave over his attendance. @Styleman, if my brashness hasn't turned you off to replying to me, was there anything noteworthy about his personality, conduct, etc., aside from his poker actions? I'm also curious what his results were like. Did he ever cash? Win?

 

[BarrieJ3]

Yea but when there are no rebuys, that strategy is suspect.

Yeah and I'm all for that. I can calm down if there's 0 rebuys and it's a $5-20 social tourney game. But at that point......why not invite your buddies over to watch a movie? I don't mean to sound elitist or out of touch but......if there's 0 impact monetarily, don't tell me you're game is a bunch of middle aged men doing something to be competitive, because this is twiddly winks then. Make it count at least a little, or just simply kick the guy out because he doesn't think the same.

Pretty straightforward!

 

[upNdown]

Yeah and I'm all for that. I can calm down if there's 0 rebuys and it's a $5-20 social tourney game. But at that point......why not invite your buddies over to watch a movie? I don't mean to sound elitist or out of touch but......if there's 0 impact monetarily, don't tell me you're game is a bunch of middle aged men doing something to be competitive, because this is twiddly winks then. Make it count at least a little, or just simply kick the guy out because he doesn't think the same.

Pretty straightforward!

Equating a poker game to a Sunday matinee, because the stakes arent high enough for you?
Whatever, gambler. You do you.

 

[Taghkanic]

As to specifically OP's game, I think you're right that it is bad for his game, for exactly and only the reason you stated: emotions.

It's potentially problematic in another way which does not have anything to do with emotions.

If the guy is truly committed to busting very early, this means (a) the game always loses a player early, making it shorter-handed than normal every week; and (b) he is creating a 2x stack on the table very early every game, which skews the early gameplay in a specific way (assuming the doubled up guy knows how to use it to his advantage).

Sure, that could happen naturally -- AA vs KK on the first orbit, etc.

But if it is happening *every* game then the reckless/suicidal player has effectively made a unilateral change to the format.

Another odd result of his approach: I assume that some nitty players are *never* calling his early all-in with anything but premiums... whereas a couple others probably realize that calling with any pair, any Broadway combo, any suited ace, or really just any top 25% hand is probably a good move if you don't mind leaving early roughly a third of the time.

In other words, the reckless player is gifting the thinking players with a giant new edge. Nice for them but again the reckless player has skewed the longstanding dynamic in a way which is more random than the host likes.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Equating a poker game to a Sunday matinee, because the stakes arent high enough for you?
Whatever, gambler. You do you.

Lol, I mean free money is free money!

Hold ‘em tourney? Solved game is solved game, why not do checkers or chess

But yeah you right, I’m prob wrong person to be commenting here. But! Don’t worry! Cash games playing with $1k buyins are scared of the same thing, they don’t like playing with abusive all in preflop too. Which blows my mind because it should be printing money….