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

[Styleman]

You know the guy could turn around and announce he wants to go home when he has aces, and double up.

I get that. Speech play is a thing.

You will just need to take my word for it that this player isn't doing that. He genuinely wants to leave the table and go home.

 

[Styleman]

This is essentially a chip dump which is a huge no-no in tournaments.

Can you define a chip dump for me and how exactly I would single that out as opposed to repeated all-in plays that many others here are defending as valid. I would assume it's all about the telegraphing he's tired and wants to go home, which he absolutely does.

 

[merkong]

I get that. Speech play is a thing.

You will just need to take my word for it that this player isn't doing that. He genuinely wants to leave the table and go home.

The plot thickens.

“Like a pinch on the neck of Mr. Spock.”

“Earth outpost to Mother Ship. Earth outpost to Mother Ship. Specimen pick up. I repeat specimen pick up.”

 

[BGinGA]

Interesting situation. And now that we've learned that the 'offensive' player doesn't go all-in religously, but rather only 10%-to-30% of the time (or 20%-to-50%, depending on which post you read) and after announcing he wants to leave, that changes things a bit.

I'd talk to the player, and ask why he chooses to attend and then shortly afterwards tries to purposefully lose so he can leave. And suggest that a better (and more fair) exit strategy might be to simply leave when he tires of playing but keep his stack in play to get blinded out, rather than randomly either cripple or double-up another player via all-ins before eventually losing and leaving. Tournament host also has the option (via rules) to simply remove an abandoned stack.

Alternate scenario -- I was wondering how OP's player pool would react to the far opposite end of the strategy spectrum: a player who only plays 1%-5% of all dealt hands (top-tier holdings), preferring to basically fold their way into the money rather than playing using 'normal' strategy. Also very alien to their group-think strategy goals that make them not like Mr.All-In....

Also, which is worse for the game: having five Mr.All-In players in the field, or having five Mr.Fold'Em players in the field?

 

[JustinInMN]

Can you define a chip dump for me and how exactly I would single that out as opposed to repeated all-in plays that many others here are defending as valid. I would assume it's all about the telegraphing he's tired and wants to go home, which he absolutely does.

Simply put, a player cannot make wagers designed to transfer chips to another player. It's a form of collusion. In practice, players working together might get to a point where they decide to dump one players stack into another, so they work to arrange a pot where it's just the twO of them and one would signal, call this one no matter what, or something to effectively move chips into the other players' stack.

In this case it's doesn't sound like your "villain" is trying to work with anyone in particular, but he is trying to provide an unfair advantage to whoever finishes him off.

 

[Styleman]

In this case it's doesn't sound like your "villain" is trying to work with anyone in particular, but he is trying to provide an unfair advantage to whoever finishes him off.

Correct. He's definitely not dumping chips to any specific player. Something like that would be more likely if he got into a big pot against one opponent and was making weird folds late into the hand. This is most commonly preflop all-in's giving anyone the option to call.

Would this still qualify as chip dumping? He doesn't seem to care who gets his chips, but his intent to rid himself of all his chips to allow himself an exit home is genuine.

 

[Styleman]

Let me re-phrase something in a different way and see if the reaction is different.

If you guys had a player in a tournament (let's say within the first or second blind level) who had to leave in the next 5 minutes for whatever reason (wife went into labor, kid set the house on fire, got called into work, whatever) would you be offended if he kept going all in until all the chips in front of him were gone?

Or would you prefer and encourage him to surrender his chips back into the case and no longer remain in play?

 

[LeCoq]

Let me re-phrase something in a different way and see if the reaction is different.

If you guys had a player in a tournament (let's say within the first or second blind level) who had to leave in the next 5 minutes for whatever reason (wife went into labor, kid set the house on fire, got called into work, whatever) would you be offended if he kept going all in until all the chips in front of him were gone?

Or would you prefer and encourage him to surrender his chips back into the case and no longer remain in play?

suggest that a better (and more fair) exit strategy might be to simply leave when he tires of playing but keep his stack in play to get blinded out, rather than randomly either cripple or double-up another player via all-ins before eventually losing and leaving. Tournament host also has the option (via rules) to simply remove an abandoned stack.

I would let him leave and let his stack get blinded out to be fair to the game.

 

[ekricket]

I would let him leave and let his stack get blinded out to be fair to the game.

This. He may make it into the money this way.

 

[JustinInMN]

Correct. He's definitely not dumping chips to any specific player. Something like that would be more likely if he got into a big pot against one opponent and was making weird folds late into the hand. This is most commonly preflop all-in's giving anyone the option to call.

Would this still qualify as chip dumping? He doesn't seem to care who gets his chips, but his intent to rid himself of all his chips to allow himself an exit home is genuine.

I think so, it's at least an act you can draw as outside the rules.

 

[upNdown]

it's at least an act you can draw as outside the rules.

how so?

 

[Poker Zombie]

f you guys had a player in a tournament (let's say within the first or second blind level) who had to leave in the next 5 minutes for whatever reason (wife went into labor, kid set the house on fire, got called into work, whatever) would you be offended if he kept going all in until all the chips in front of him were gone?

Or would you prefer and encourage him to surrender his chips back into the case and no longer remain in play?

I have had the following happen since 2005.

1. Was "done" so he declared it quits.
2. Wife called, so player had to leave.
3. Dog bit the neighbors kid.
4. Wife was tired (she has MS and sudden onset fatigue is real) she was already eliminated.

#1 was before the TDA rules came out, so we let him jam until dry. He was never invited back.
#2 the chips remained in play, following the TDA rules. He wanted to "cash out" but we told him that wasn't allowed. He never returned. Some may find this "unfair" because someone has position on a dead stack, but when seats are random, it is only unfair because of the luck of the draw.
#3 The chips remained in play, following the TDA rules. There was a real chance that the bite was minor and he could return and play again (it wasn't minor) Some may find this "unfair" because someone has position on a dead stack.
#4 Was a 'Survivor' tournament (once the bubble breaks, the tournament is over and players get paid according to what they have left in their stack. Player technically finished in the money... for $0 (double knockout). Some may find this "unfair" because someone has position on a dead stack.

The player with position on the dead stack just so happened to be different every time, so who really is getting the unfair end of the stick? With a player that repeatedly laves early that variance is going to level out, and strategy can be altered to account for the dead stack.

I would talk to the guy and point out that his shoving is allowed, but not fun for the group. Ask him to politely leave and you will blind out his chips - per the accepted rules of tournament poker. You can text him in the morning to let him know what his endurance rating is (if he really cares, this would be a fascinating statistic).

 

[BGinGA]

I have had the following happen since 2005.

1. Was "done" so he declared it quits.
2. Wife called, so player had to leave.
3. Dog bit the neighbors kid.
4. Wife was tired (she has MS and sudden onset fatigue is real) she was already eliminated.

#1 was before the TDA rules came out, so we let him jam until dry. He was never invited back.
#2 the chips remained in play, following the TDA rules. He wanted to "cash out" but we told him that wasn't allowed. He never returned. Some may find this "unfair" because someone has position on a dead stack, but when seats are random, it is only unfair because of the luck of the draw.
#3 The chips remained in play, following the TDA rules. There was a real chance that the bite was minor and he could return and play again (it wasn't minor) Some may find this "unfair" because someone has position on a dead stack.
#4 Was a 'Survivor' tournament (once the bubble breaks, the tournament is over and players get paid according to what they have left in their stack. Player technically finished in the money... for $0 (double knockout). Some may find this "unfair" because someone has position on a dead stack.

The player with position on the dead stack just so happened to be different every time, so who really is getting the unfair end of the stick? With a player that repeatedly laves early that variance is going to level out, and strategy can be altered to account for the dead stack.

I would talk to the guy and point out that his shoving is allowed, but not fun for the group. Ask him to politely leave and you will blind out his chips - per the accepted rules of tournament poker. You can text him in the morning to let him know what his endurance rating is (if he really cares, this would be a fascinating statistic).

One point that may sway his decision is that simply leaving and getting blinded out speeds his exit (if he really just wants to leave).

Also wanted to point out that the advantage of having position on the blind-out stack is far less than that gained by the 'lucky' player who scores a KO on the all-in player.

And that the least disruptive / most fair solution is to simply remove the stack when he leaves (but requires a house rule).

 

[Taghkanic]

I don't see the point of blinding out an abandoned stack in a one-table tournament.

Either remove it or distribute the chips evenly to the tackle. Putting his chips in slowly every orbit is a needless PITA and arbitrarily advantages whoever happened to be seated to his right.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I don't see the point of blinding out an abandoned stack in a one-table tournament.

Points...

• Player paid his money, so he deserves a chance to cash - no matter how slim.
• The extra chips (2x an orbit) are as predictable as an ante. The advantage goes to the player that can adjust for the occasional ante that never comes out of an active players stack.
• It is consistent with a player stepping away from a tournament for a beer/smoke/shit or any other reason. Nobody complains about "fairness" when Chatty Kathy steps away to make a phone call.
• It's a widely accepted TDA rule.
• It does not require changing the rule if the game grows to two tables, 3 tables or even more. Stack has aways stayed in play.
• It fits with the OP's desire to track stats. If absent player starts to last longer than he used to (before the sudden change of jamming with junk), player (and the group) may learn that they may play too aggressively.
• In the unlikely event that the player returns, he may still have chips.

An absent player is simply an uber-nit. I get that playing against a nit may not be fun, but it is legal - as legal as the jam, but less disruptive.

Also, I find it interesting that you think the player on the absent player's right has the advantage (an aggressive player's mindset). I think the player on the left has the advantage, as they get to be last to act twice an orbit. So in a game with as little as 5 players, one is missing, half the table has an advantage - assuming the other two cannot adjust their games. Knock out one player and everybody has an advantage!

I will also add that in addition to the 4 instances I listed above, we allow a player to buy in late (~1 hour after the tournament starts). If they are still not there, they can Venmo us and we will put their stack into play at the end of the late buy-in period. This prevents someone from getting caught in traffic after an hour and missing the buy-in. This has occurred on multiple occasions, and nobody had an issue about "unfair advantage" (although, it has always been a very short delay).

 

[Taghkanic]

Player paid his money, so he deserves a chance to cash - no matter how slim.

A player who leaves has effectively forfeited that (slim) chance.

The extra chips (2x an orbit) are as predictable as an ante. The advantage goes to the player that can adjust for the occasional ante that never comes out of an active players stack.

It's hardly an even playing field unless one pays no attention to position.

The advantage goes more to the players to the absent player's right (button and cutoff) who get to play for late position when his dead blinds are posted.

The players to his left (UTG and UTG) have less ability to steal these dead blinds.

It is consistent with a player stepping away from a tournament for a beer/smoke/shit or any other reason. Nobody complains about "fairness" when Chatty Kathy steps away to make a phone call.

This analogy is at best flawed and at worst dishonest.

There is a substantial difference between someone missing a few hands over the course of a long game and someone missing *every single hand*.

It's a widely accepted TDA rule.

Huge casino tournaments and one-table home tourneys are very different animals. Apart from the vast difference in the number of players, the former is also typically many times longer.

A good home host knows when to deviate from strict TDA adherence for the good of the game (also a TDA rule, right?).

Also: Some seem to ignore half of the phrase "home game." You step into someone else's home -- for poker or anything else -- you are a guest. It's a privilege to be respected, and one which the host can revoke if s/he wants to.

It does not require changing the rule if the game grows to two tables, 3 tables or even more. Stack has aways stayed in play.

The OP has not indicated any intention to host multiple tables.

It fits with the OP's desire to track stats. If absent player starts to last longer than he used to (before the sudden change of jamming with junk), player (and the group) may learn that they may play too aggressively.

The OP has specifically said that this behavior messes with their longstanding point system.

In the unlikely event that the player returns, he may still have chips.

Tough nookie. If you show up at a game knowing you don't want to be there, and acting that way, you can expect pushback.

An absent player is simply an uber-nit. I get that playing against a nit may not be fun, but it is legal - as legal as the jam, but less disruptive.

See my post above. Tanking 60+ seconds every street of every hand is legal, too. But it's not likely to result in future invitations.

Also, I find it interesting that you think the player on the absent player's right has the advantage (an aggressive player's mindset). I think the player on the left has the advantage, as they get to be last to act twice an orbit. So in a game with as little as 5 players, one is missing, half the table has an advantage - assuming the other two cannot adjust their games. Knock out one player and everybody has an advantage!

This is nonsensical. That player is only last to act when the empty seat *has no blinds in.*

As for shorthanded play, based on the description from the host, it seems unlikely that the stack would still be getting blinded off once they got shorthanded.

I've played a couple times in games where a stack was blinded off... It's just an annoyance that may please some people's love of abstract theory but in practice is a pain.

I will also add that in addition to the 4 instances I listed above, we allow a player to buy in late (~1 hour after the tournament starts). If they are still not there, they can Venmo us and we will put their stack into play at the end of the late buy-in period. This prevents someone from getting caught in traffic after an hour and missing the buy-in. This has occurred on multiple occasions, and nobody had an issue about "unfair advantage" (although, it has always been a very short delay).

Again, that's a different situation entirely: an occasional courtesy which happens once in a long while, and not for the whole game, is different than someone leaving behind a stack on the first level.

When I hosted tourneys (several hundred times), I would make reasonable allowances for unavoidable circumstances. Someone who needed special treatment every single game, however, was not going to last long on my list.
In short: I don't find a single reason cited persuasive, sorry.

 

[Poker Zombie]

A player who leaves has effectively forfeited that (slim) chance.



It's hardly an even playing field unless one pays no attention to position.

The advantage goes more to the players to the absent player's right (button and cutoff) who get to play for late position when his dead blinds are posted.

The players to his left (UTG and UTG) have less ability to steal these dead blinds.



This analogy is at best flawed and at worst dishonest.

There is a substantial difference between someone missing a few hands over the course of a long game and someone missing *every single hand*.



Huge casino tournaments and one-table home tourneys are very different animals. Apart from the vast difference in the number of players, the former is also typically many times longer.

A good home host knows when to deviate from strict TDA adherence for the good of the game (also a TDA rule, right?).

Also: Some seem to ignore half of the phrase "home game." You step into someone else's home -- for poker or anything else -- you are a guest. It's a privilege to be respected, and one which the host can revoke if s/he wants to.



The OP has not indicated any intention to host multiple tables.



The OP has specifically said that this behavior messes with their longstanding point system.



Tough nookie. If you show up at a game knowing you don't want to be there, and acting that way, you can expect pushback.



See my post above. Tanking 60+ seconds every street of every hand is legal, too. But it's not likely to result in future invitations.



This is nonsensical. That player is only last to act when the empty seat *has no blinds in.*

As for shorthanded play, based on the description from the host, it seems unlikely that the stack would still be getting blinded off once they got shorthanded.

I've played a couple times in games where a stack was blinded off... It's just an annoyance that may please some people's love of abstract theory but in practice is a pain.



Again, that's a different situation entirely: an occasional courtesy which happens once in a long while, and not for the whole game, is different than someone leaving behind a stack on the first level.

When I hosted tourneys (several hundred times), I would make reasonable allowances for unavoidable circumstances. Someone who needed special treatment every single game, however, was not going to last long on my list.
In short: I don't find a single reason cited persuasive, sorry.

I take no disagreement with your posts indicating the host's right to disinvite a player for disruptive play. However these are longtime friends and may want to continue to extend the invite out of loyalty, or just to get an extra seat filled in the hope the player will reform.

As for "advantage", I agree there may be a sight advantage. I've played in multiple games where someone had the advantage (hundreds of games, if you count the online heyday). I never felt slighted when an opponent got that empty seat to pillage. I can adjust my game to prevent the pillager from running the whole stack. Is it unfair? Maybe, but is it also unfair that Player A got pocket aces 3 time in the tournament and I never got better than pocket 2s? Quit whining, and play better.

As for forfeiting, does a player that has to leave while the tournament is on the bubble forfeit? What if he is the dominant stack? He paid his money, let the chips ride.

As for "House rules", sure, I accept that house rules can overrule TDA rules. I also think the TDA thought through the "advantage", and decided to leave the chips in play, despite the fact that the chance of them cashing in a casino MTT is far slimmer than a home game.

OP has options.

• Ban/disinvite player. He knew that before he went to the forum, so I suspect this is not his preferred option.
• Allow player to continue to jam. Host knows this, but it is also not his preferred option, hence going to the forum.
• Tell the player that he cannot jam. The forum seems uniformly against this idea, unless there was a format change (Limit/Pot-limit).
• Eliminate the player when he leaves, thus making the absent players only reasonable option to Jam (thus preserving some EV)
• Let the chips play.

 

[k9dr]

If I’m playing a tennis game at 20 bucks a game, I’d like my opponent to play his/her best because I want a fun competetive match.

Wait, you're saying we could have played tennis for money in Stockholm

 

[Eriks]

Wait, you're saying we could have played tennis for money in Stockholm

Next time

 

[allforcharity]

If a tourney player had to leave a stack, or they paid and couldn't show, has anybody ever just divided that stack as evenly as possible among the rest of the players at the table? Is that against the laws of fair play?

 

[upNdown]

If a tourney player had to leave a stack, or they paid and couldn't show, has anybody ever just divided that stack as evenly as possible among the rest of the players at the table? Is that against the laws of fair play?

I’ve never heard of it, but hosts are free to establish their own rules.
But would you do it evenly, or would you give everybody a percentage based on their stack size? Because if you divided it up evenly, you’d be giving a disproportionate benefit to short stacks.

 

[Coyote]

That guy has proved to be an enormous pain in the @ss for a whole forum.

 

[allforcharity]

I’ve never heard of it, but hosts are free to establish their own rules.
But would you do it evenly, or would you give everybody a percentage based on their stack size? Because if you divided it up evenly, you’d be giving a disproportionate benefit to short stacks.

As a % of the short stack size, it does appear as a disproportionate benefit. But as a % number of additional big blinds, it is even among players.

 

[JustinInMN]

I’ve never heard of it, but hosts are free to establish their own rules.
But would you do it evenly, or would you give everybody a percentage based on their stack size? Because if you divided it up evenly, you’d be giving a disproportionate benefit to short stacks.

Does such disproportionality matter to the game any more than a disproportionate gain in terms of stack size for a raise-it-take-it preflop? For example, does it matter that a guy that wins the blinds moving all in with 6BB stack gets a 25% stack bump versus a guy that does the same thing with a 15BB stack only gets a 10% bump?

 

[upNdown]

Does such disproportionality matter to the game any more than a disproportionate gain in terms of stack size for a raise-it-take-it preflop? For example, does it matter that a guy that wins the blinds moving all in with 6BB stack gets a 25% stack bump versus a guy that does the same thing with a 15BB stack only gets a 10% bump?

I can’t tell if you’re just messing with me.

If i’m at a table where everybody’s got around 40 bb, except for one guy who’s got 5 bb, and somebody quits, and we all get 10 extra bb, yeah, I think that’s a disproportionately big advantage to the shorty.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Does such disproportionality matter to the game any more than a disproportionate gain in terms of stack size for a raise-it-take-it preflop? For example, does it matter that a guy that wins the blinds moving all in with 6BB stack gets a 25% stack bump versus a guy that does the same thing with a 15BB stack only gets a 10% bump?

If there was only a way to tell if players lasted longer in a tournament after an absent player's stack was left to blind off...

Now I think the OP must (for the sake of the forum) ask the player to leave his chips on the table and blind him off. With 7 years of data to compare the new data against, it is the only option left.

 

[JustinInMN]

I can’t tell if you’re just messing with me.

If i’m at a table where everybody’s got around 40 bb, except for one guy who’s got 5 bb, and somebody quits, and we all get 10 extra bb, yeah, I think that’s a disproportionately big advantage to the shorty.

I really wasn't. Just working this out in my head. I get what you were saying about how simply dividing the chips would help the shortest stacks the most, but a game example came to mind that made me think, that's not the worst thing.

 

[upNdown]

I really wasn't. Just working this out in my head. I get what you were saying about how simply dividing the chips would help the shortest stacks the most, but a game example came to mind that made me think, that's not the worst thing.

We’re all just working this out in our heads, but I’m not sure why. I’d blind a guy off because that’s how it works. But if that’s a problem, I’d also be fine with taking the chips off the table.
I can’t imagine why anybody would want to redistribute the chips and we may all be dumber for entertaining the thought.

 

[chippitydoodah]

Does this player make statements like "The pussy I get, all class", "I bring the hitz" & "The baller I am" ?

 

[JustinInMN]

We’re all just working this out in our heads, but I’m not sure why. I’d blind a guy off because that’s how it works. But if that’s a problem, I’d also be fine with taking the chips off the table.
I can’t imagine why anybody would want to redistribute the chips and we may all be dumber for entertaining the thought.

Yeah, we have gone way off the rails from the original topic now.

I know some of this came up in a thread I started last year.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/had-a-player-leave-mid-tourney-last-night.102543/