Poker Forum > General Discussion
I didn't take my seat for start of a tournament- what should happen to my chips?
Jon MW:
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on October 24, 2013, 19:53:39 PM ---
There is no perfect answer to this problem and unfortunately the rules are not uniform across the various card rooms. The chips in play rule is fine though it does cause an unfair positional dynamic around the unmanned stack, good for some and bad for others.
This dynamic is increased as blinds get bigger, which is why I like when these stacks are removed at the first break and replaced with a player. See rule 15 here http://www.wsop.com/2013/2013_wsop_rules.pdf[/url
--- End quote ---
When people go out for a cigarette it changes the positional dynamic, if there"s a particularly bad player/good player/noisy player it changes the dynamic - as does 100"s of other factors which give some players a random advantage or disadvantage on random tables - the actual total effect on the whole tournament result is going to be microscopic - so does it really matter that this one factor could be regulated? Just because something can be changed, doesn"t mean it should be.
AAroddersAA:
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on October 24, 2013, 19:53:39 PM ---
There is no perfect answer to this problem and unfortunately the rules are not uniform across the various card rooms. The chips in play rule is fine though it does cause an unfair positional dynamic around the unmanned stack, good for some and bad for others.
This dynamic is increased as blinds get bigger, which is why I like when these stacks are removed at the first break and replaced with a player. See rule 15 here http://www.wsop.com/2013/2013_wsop_rules.pdf
--- End quote ---
Saved me writing my own post, agree 100%
TheSnapper:
--- Quote from: Jon MW on October 24, 2013, 21:02:31 PM ---
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on October 24, 2013, 19:53:39 PM ---
There is no perfect answer to this problem and unfortunately the rules are not uniform across the various card rooms. The chips in play rule is fine though it does cause an unfair positional dynamic around the unmanned stack, good for some and bad for others.
This dynamic is increased as blinds get bigger, which is why I like when these stacks are removed at the first break and replaced with a player. See rule 15 here http://www.wsop.com/2013/2013_wsop_rules.pdf[/url
--- End quote ---
When people go out for a cigarette it changes the positional dynamic, if there"s a particularly bad player/good player/noisy player it changes the dynamic - as does 100"s of other factors which give some players a random advantage or disadvantage on random tables - the actual total effect on the whole tournament result is going to be microscopic - so does it really matter that this one factor could be regulated? Just because something can be changed, doesn"t mean it should be.
--- End quote ---
You are correct John, but the examples you quote and the myriad of others don"t factor into a ruling issue. Again, there is no perfect solution with these situations so it"s obviously prudent to consider all implications and choose the least disruptive solution.
The wsop run the biggest events in world poker and as such imho qualify as a decent organisation to emulate. It seems you disagree.
MintTrav:
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on October 25, 2013, 00:17:20 AM ---
The wsop run the biggest events in world poker and as such imho qualify as a decent organisation to emulate. It seems you disagree.
--- End quote ---
I don"t think that logic necessarily works, Brendan. The WSOP is very different to APAT. It has players running from one tournament to another and has lots of no-shows when people go deep in an event and drop the second one they had entered. Obviously, many of their rules are models for us to emulate, but not all, and this would seem to be one of the times when their scenario is different to ours.
I don"t actually have an opinion on what our rule should be - if I think about it I might end up agreeing with your position, but I don"t think the WSOP experience of no-shows and late attendance is at all similar to APAT's.
TheSnapper:
--- Quote from: MintTrav on October 25, 2013, 00:43:52 AM ---
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on October 25, 2013, 00:17:20 AM ---
The wsop run the biggest events in world poker and as such imho qualify as a decent organisation to emulate. It seems you disagree.
--- End quote ---
I don"t think that logic necessarily works, Brendan. The WSOP is very different to APAT. It has players running from one tournament to another and has lots of no-shows when people go deep in an event and drop the second one they had entered. Obviously, many of their rules are models for us to emulate, but not all, and this would seem to be one of the times when their scenario is different to ours.
I don"t actually have an opinion on what our rule should be - if I think about it I might end up agreeing with your position, but I don"t think the WSOP experience of no-shows and late attendance is at all similar to APAT's.
--- End quote ---
Would you care to elaborate on the difference, relative to the rule obviously?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version