Tournament Home Game Issue - Player continually going all in within the first hour (1 Viewer)

[Jimulacrum]

This idea it's "unfair" for a player to win a large pot from someone making a weak play, absent any collusion, is totally foreign to me.

Are we gambling or are we not gambling? People are going to win and lose chips in a tournament. Sometimes someone's going to get a big stack early. Sometimes someone's going to bust early. Sometimes the game will end in under an hour because of a crazy run of hands. It is all part of the game, and it makes for a more robust poker experience.

If you don't prefer these outcomes, that's your preference, not a point of fairness.

 

[erdried]

not sure if this was said, but does it have to be a freezeout? Because this would be a great player to include if rebuys were allowed.

 

[Poker Zombie]

not sure if this was said, but does it have to be a freezeout? Because this would be a great player to include if rebuys were allowed.

Not always.

Many tournament players play poker for the social aspect first, and as a competitive game second. The all-in-abusive type player is not competitive, and is less fun for the social player that only brought a single buy-in. If you and your players have pockets of unlimited depth, sure, this type player would be great as he would pump up the prize pool - the 3rd, and typically the least impactful driver of the game - the money.

We once had a player (Robbie) that would play very aggressively. Shoving quite frequently, and rebuying as often as possible. We were struggling to maintain one table back then, and he would effectively eliminate 2-3 players who didn't want to rebuy against his deep pockets. He could win the tournament, and have a net gain less than 3rd place. Between games players would confide that they didn't like Robbie's style of play, and some quit attending all together.

Freezeouts were an unfavorable option as some players drove over an hour to get here, and bad beats do happen. So we created the "Robbie Rule". Players are limited to a single rebuy. The group loved it. All except Robbie, who quit playing. Last year we averaged 18.8 players per game, with 22 for the end-of-the-year event.

Sometimes you have to adjust the rules to the group's dynamic.

 

[drdr]

Not always.

Many tournament players play poker for the social aspect first, and as a competitive game second. The all-in-abusive type player is not competitive, and is less fun for the social player that only brought a single buy-in. If you and your players have pockets of unlimited depth, sure, this type player would be great as he would pump up the prize pool - the 3rd, and typically the least impactful driver of the game - the money.

We once had a player (Robbie) that would play very aggressively. Shoving quite frequently, and rebuying as often as possible. We were struggling to maintain one table back then, and he would effectively eliminate 2-3 players wo didn't want to rebuy against his deep pockets. He could win the tournament, and have a net gain less than 3rd place. Between games players would confide that they didn't like Robbie's style of play, and some quit attending all together.

Freezeouts were an unfavorable option as some players drove over an hour to get here, and bad beats do happen. So we created the "Robbie Rule". Players are limited to a single rebuy. The group loved it. All except Robbie, who quit playing. Last year we averaged 18.8 players per game, with 22 for the end-of-the-year event.

Sometimes you have to adjust the rules to the group's dynamic.

Well managed. Did similar but because my main game is no money. Had to limit continuous rebuys that meant nothing to done people. Dropped rebuy to 1/3 of starting stack.ost of the time keeping your current stack is a better option.

 

[HiveKueen]

I'm just reading this today due to the recent comments.

I also host a league and understand well the general concept of one player being annoying in some distinct way.

In this particular situation, what I would do as the host would be the following:
1. scrutinize the player for tells and
2. experiment with calling an all in, especially if I think I have a tell.

What you most need to know is, what hands is he going all in with and does he in any way telegraph what he has. This would put everyone in a better position to consider calling him (or not) more often.

I'd be willing to sacrifice a few nights of play to obtain this info for everyone to use against him.

If you haven't already ('I've not read all teh comments) please update up on what if anything you did do.