Tournament Home Game Issue - Player continually going all in within the first hour (2 Viewers)

[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.

 

[fishandchips]

No outcome yet ?

And we still don't know the structure! Perhaps you are starting at 25BB and this is a passive aggressive way of saying he wants a deeper structure.

I'm new here but I have to pile in because of so many bad takes in the thread. I assume this is from cash players who don't understand what a live no-rebuy tournament feels like. Sadly I've had to take part in and host these for years (although they do allow a half stack 'saver' rebuy so it's not quite so bad).

If you travel to attend a game with the hope of spending 2 to 4 hours drinking and chatting and playing poker, you don't want someone shutting down the play until someone has to risk going home to sort out the problem. This is a world of difference from having to risk a buy-in or three at +EV to get rid of him.

 

[JustinInMN]

No outcome yet ?

And we still don't know the structure!

It appears the original poster has not been on the site in over 3 months now.

Hope he enjoyed his crazy 4-day trip on the PCF Express.

 

[JustinInMN]

Perhaps you are starting at 25BB and this is a passive aggressive way of saying he wants a deeper structure.

I'm new here but I have to pile in because of so many bad takes in the thread. I assume this is from cash players who don't understand what a live no-rebuy tournament feels like. Sadly I've had to take part in and host these for years (although they do allow a half stack 'saver' rebuy so it's not quite so bad).

If you travel to attend a game with the hope of spending 2 to 4 hours drinking and chatting and playing poker, you don't want someone shutting down the play until someone has to risk going home to sort out the problem. This is a world of difference from having to risk a buy-in or three at +EV to get rid of him.

Perhaps you are right, we should know more about the structure.

FWIW, I host both cash and tournaments, though I do very much prefer cash, personally. When I do host tournament I always have a rebuy option through the first break, so everyone that travels has the opportunity to play through the first break if willing to rebuy. Sometimes I cap rebuys at 3, sometimes I don't.

I think no-rebuy tournaments are the exception these days so I understand where you would be coming from that there is a lack of understanding of that finality in a no-rebuy tournament.

But I think to summarize my biggest opinion in this thread, (and you are free to take it for whatever) many hosts say "if you aren't recruiting your game is dying," and it's good advice. Disinviting players is the opposite of recruitment. I'm not saying never do it (I've had to do it a few times myself), but when you disinvite a player, know as host, you need to compensate harder on the recruitment end.

And this becomes impossible if a host is disinviting for light reasons, especially if it is a bad situation where a group of players are trying to curate a lineup for their own advantage.

 

[fishandchips]

Yep, I never understood why my lot like the freezeout structure. They say they like the deep stacks at the start. But if you like deep stacks, play cash where it just gets deeper instead of turning into a shovefest. That's why I have hope of converting them.

 

[upNdown]

Yep, I never understood why my lot like the freezeout structure. They say they like the deep stacks at the start. But if you like deep stacks, play cash where it just gets deeper instead of turning into a shovefest. That's why I have hope of converting them.

I’ll argue in favor of freezeouts forever. Everybody gets the same stack and when your stack is gone, so are you. Tournaments are about stack management while adapting to constantly changing circumstances.
Once you allow rebuys, people aren’t on the same footing - deeper pockets have a bigger advantage. Look how the top pros, like Dnegs and Deeb play rebuy tournaments - it’s almost like a Martingale strategy; just keep jamming and rebuying until you have a big stack.

I understand that freezeouts stink for home games, and that’s one of the reasons I host cash games instead of tournaments. So there’s no perfect answer. But to me, a real tournament is a freezout, and the more rebuys you allow, the closer you are to a cash game.

 

[fishandchips]

I understand that freezeouts stink for home games, and that’s one of the reasons I host cash games instead of tournaments. So there’s no perfect answer. But to me, a real tournament is a freezout, and the more rebuys you allow, the closer you are to a cash game.

When I'm on pokerstars and chatting to my mate, we play the SitNGos. So I do like the format (and it's what I'm familiar with). Just not if I have to travel and there is nothing to do after I'm out.

I suppose if your man cave has a pool table as well, then that would persuade me to make the journey.

It's the nothing to do after part that is the killer. So I'm talking about 1 table home tourneys. A 2 table tourney with a cash game when the tourney goes down to 1 table would also be OK.

 

[drdr]

When I'm on pokerstars and chatting to my mate, we play the SitNGos. So I do like the format (and it's what I'm familiar with). Just not if I have to travel and there is nothing to do after I'm out.

I suppose if your man cave has a pool table as well, then that would persuade me to make the journey.

It's the nothing to do after part that is the killer. So I'm talking about 1 table home tourneys. A 2 table tourney with a cash game when the tourney goes down to 1 table would also be OK.

I just run a cash table for those that bust from the tournament.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I just run a cash table for those that bust from the tournament.

Running a cash table is pretty standard, but there can be issues:

• Unless you are one of the early knockouts, you will need someone else to run your bank, or you will have to split your time.
• Not everyone has space or an extra table.
• Good cash game players may find the unlimited rebuy format of the cash game far more profitable than the tournament (or simply more enjoyable). The net effect is akin to chip-dumping as the cash game player can overplay a hand with little risk of losing anything.
• A short-stack has less incentive to play well one the cash game begins. We all know "a chip and a chair" is possible, but it's a longshot. Blind-shove and get into the cash game where you have equal equity with the rest of the table.
• A cash game is a disincentive to rebuy into a tournament. A tournament rebuy is (in almost all cases) less than the average stack at the table, so your equity is less than the cash game where your equity is always equal to your buy-in.

I'm not against running a cash table after players are KO'ed. We run one freezeout each year. Players that travel long distances should get a certain amount of sustainable enjoyment for their effort, so we run a cash game following that event only - but I made the decision with full knowledge

 

[fishandchips]

Running a cash table is pretty standard, but there can be issues:

These are good points.

OP is about a single table freezeout tourney. So I think my original take is good and I shouldn't have expanded my post game entertainment ideas to include a cash game.

 

[drdr]

These are good points.

OP is about a single table freezeout tourney. So I think my original take is good and I shouldn't have expanded my post game entertainment ideas to include a cash game.

All cool and fine with related responses.
Probably not popular, but before having room for two tables I'd run the cash game on the same table. Opposite ends.

 

[fishandchips]

All cool and fine with related responses.
Probably not popular, but before having room for two tables I'd run the cash game on the same table. Opposite ends.

Ah yes, I can remember a Turbo tourney breaking out at the other end of the table at least once.

 

[GreatWhiteDope]

Your post has struck a chord with me as a life-long poker player and having run a club for the last 20 years that started as a home game. A lot of the earlier posts effectively summarize most of the principles/conundrums in play here:

• You don’t want to let one player that doesn’t fit with the group ruin a good thing for the rest. But poker is a game that can be played a huge number of different ways and you should not be able to dictate to anyone how they play and a good poker player should learn to deal with all of them.
• To last long term, sometimes a game has to be tweaked to suit the group of players as a whole. But almost inevitably, making changes to suit one group will alienate others so this should be done carefully and as infrequently as possible.

I had the temptation to explain any number of situations I have experienced through the years and the thought process that went into them but I will spare you that and just give you what I have concluded is the bottom line… I think Curly in the movie City Slickers summed this up nicely. Being happy in life (or running a poker game) comes down to “one thing.” But YOU have to decide what that one thing is. It’s your game and you have the right to decide what it is. For me, that has been having a competitive poker game that welcomes different playing styles and personalities but simultaneously, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, maintaining the camaraderie and social enjoyment of the home game from which it started.

What does that mean in practice?

I have an “asshole rule.” So over the years, I have uninvited a handful of players that were either unethical or whose personality was so repugnant to the group that they diminished the enjoyment of the group. My group has ranged anywhere from 10 to 30 players over the years with probably 100 different players in total. I believe the number of expulsions totals 5, 2 we believed were cheating, one for starting a fist fight, one for threatening other players and one for not following the rules. For many years, this was purely at my discretion based on input from the group but a few years ago we implemented the expulsion vote at the end of each year, that entails everyone getting an index card on which they can write down the name of anyone they don’t want to play with. If any name appears on more than half the cards, that person is not invited back the following year. No one has ever been kicked out in that process but it provides an avenue for it if enough people genuinely don’t like playing with someone. But when push comes to shove, it is harder for someone to actually write down a name than it is for them to just bitch about them.

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, has opinions on changes they think you should make to make the club what THEY think it should be. You should listen to them but only implement those that you believe genuinely benefit the group as a whole. So you have to get comfortable with tactfully explaining to people, that THIS is what the club IS and you are free to decide whether you play or not play.

And when choosing which of the posts here to follow, I would ignore those that tell you what your game SHOULD be. You make that decision first, then figure out if any of the other suggestions will genuinely benefit your group. Good luck.

 

[AlbinoDragon]

• You don’t want to let one player that doesn’t fit with the group ruin a good thing for the rest. But poker is a game that can be played a huge number of different ways and you should not be able to dictate to anyone how they play and a good poker player should learn to deal with all of them.
• To last long term, sometimes a game has to be tweaked to suit the group of players as a whole. But almost inevitably, making changes to suit one group will alienate others so this should be done carefully and as infrequently as possible.

On two separate occasions over nearly 20 years of hosting, I've had to "ice" a player in my game because they no longer fit the dynamic. Once I did so while I still interacted with them socially outside of poker (they were a teammate on my pub trivia team) and the other who naturally sifted outside "the bubble".

The first would be distracted with things outside the game (once brought a laptop to the game to work on software coding between hands or was otherwise checking the price of Bitcoin at that moment) they were no longer paying attention to the game and had to be reminded it was their turn to deal or act. The second was fun to be around but was such a mismatch to the game and tone of the game as a whole they became more of a distraction.

I felt bad about how I excluded both of them (I just dropped them from the invite list unannounced), but at both occasions the game was suffering enough with their presence that games were being cancelled simply because they expressed interest in attending leading to other regulars dropping out.


At some level, the good of the game as a whole is better then catering to one or two.

I'm currently in a lull where I have a hard time getting a game to go simply because my player pool is rather shallow (almost entire my fault and not being able to recruit because of my work and life schedule) and one or two dropping out makes a difference. I did have these situations where a single player would affect the number of interested players and dropping them from the invite list had a positive outcome in the end.

 

[Zymotech]

I would split the amount from the all in player among the rest of the players after he leaves. Just keep track of what he put in on the all in, so you can split it later if he takes awhile to leave. Only do this for the first number of blinds where it seems reasonable among the rest of the players. Seems like an easy solution and then you have his entry fee to add to the winnings as well. Has he ever won?

 

[grantc54]

I would split the amount from the all in player among the rest of the players after he leaves. Just keep track of what he put in on the all in, so you can split it later if he takes awhile to leave. Only do this for the first number of blinds where it seems reasonable among the rest of the players. Seems like an easy solution and then you have his entry fee to add to the winnings as well. Has he ever won?

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You take the risk to take a player out and then split the reward?

The best option seems to get rid of the player that doesn't seem to want to play. Either that or raise the stakes enough that the game is taken more seriously.

 

[Zymotech]

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You take the risk to take a player out and then split the reward?

The best option seems to get rid of the player that doesn't seem to want to play. Either that or raise the stakes enough that the game is taken more seriously.

Just a suggestion mostly in jest. I would just leave the all in guy to play his game and be licking my chops waiting to get a chance to bust him. That's poker sometimes. I'd not call the all in unless I was holding the top tier hands.

 

[grantc54]

Just a suggestion mostly in jest. I would just leave the all in guy to play his game and be licking my chops waiting to get a chance to bust him. That's poker sometimes. I'd not call the all in unless I was holding the top tier hands.

I used to be in the let people play bad camp but I have seen how bad play/behavior can make a game unpleasant for the majority of players and how much more enjoyable it can be without those players.

Think some curation of players can be a good thing occasionally (some games can be a free for all).