Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: IrishTom on October 24, 2013, 15:11:21 PM
-
We had a recent discussion via the forum on this very topic - we decided for Glasgow that those who have paid in advance of the event, or paid on the day (but still in advance of the event starting - or even a Late Entry or Alternate who does not take their seat straight away?) should have chips placed on the table and then be blinded off until the player takes their seat or the chips run out.
There are arguments that if they remain in play and get blinded off then it affects, either positively or negatively, players at that table (and dependent on position to the stack in question) - but also that it (sort of) affects players on other tables as they are not at the same (dis)advantage? to avail of the "free stack" up for grabs - a bit all too anal for me I have to say, but for some it obviously isn"t and could be an important part of their game.
Personally I don"t have any particularly strong view on this, but I do sway towards the view that what we"ve agreed for Glasgow should not be the case - I believe at a certain point the chips should be removed from the event - in the case of Glasgow I would have removed them at the start of the first break and therefore allowed Late Entries/Alternates to enter the event at this point - that of course is not good for the player who I would just have removed from the event, but I believe it is good for APAT, the tournament and those players who were unable to get a seat to start with (ie Alternates) overall.
Whether the chips get "blinded off" or alternatively, sit with the dealer to give to the player when they take their seats, I have no strong view on - but come the first break, I personally think they should be removed from the event.
I have seen many different ways that this problem/scenario has been approached - there is no consistency between event organisers.
At the recent IPO Dublin (well done Mr Hall!) the chips were in the control of the Dealer, they were not put into play until the player took their seat and if the player failed to take their seat by the end of the "late entry" stage then the chips were removed from the table/dealer and the player removed from the event (I can only presume with the loss of their entry fee).
Would be interested in your views.
ps this discussion does NOT affect Glasgow!
-
If they have paid then the chips are in play nomatter if they are present or not
-
At DTD if you buy in online for a comp, you start with a full stack assuming you arrive before the end of the re-entry period.
Other places have the chips in play from the start.
I like the DTD way but it does often have an issue where if you arrive and there are no seats, sometimes you have to wait for a seat to become available.
Oh, and AFAIK, if you don"t turn up you get your money back.
-
If they have paid then the chips are in play nomatter if they are present or not
not in all card rooms
-
Aye, I"ve seen it done many ways. Of the ways I"ve seen, I prefer the DTD solution that Adam mentions.
-
Chips should be in play IMO.. Think it"s standard practise for most tours?
-
If they have paid then the chips are in play nomatter if they are present or not
This - I think it"s a terrible idea to suggest that somebody could pay for a product (tournament entry), and then be denied it for showing up late.
It"d be like booking a hotel room but them letting somebody else have it just because you haven"t checked in by midnight, for example.
-
Chips should be in play IMO.. Think it"s standard practise for most tours?
+1
-
If they have paid then the chips are in play nomatter if they are present or not
This - I think it"s a terrible idea to suggest that somebody could pay for a product (tournament entry), and then be denied it for showing up late.
It"d be like booking a hotel room but them letting somebody else have it just because you haven"t checked in by midnight, for example.
Hotels do this, you know!
-
If they have paid then the chips are in play nomatter if they are present or not
This - I think it"s a terrible idea to suggest that somebody could pay for a product (tournament entry), and then be denied it for showing up late.
No-one is denying them a seat, they are being penalised for arriving late.
A "re-entry" period is just that...an option to re-enter.
Late entry comps are different animals and chips should not be taken from the start.
It"d be like booking a hotel room but them letting somebody else have it just because you haven"t checked in by midnight, for example.
That"s a common "rule" at many chain hotels....not that it is necessarily a good thing.
-
If they have paid then the chips are in play nomatter if they are present or not
This - I think it"s a terrible idea to suggest that somebody could pay for a product (tournament entry), and then be denied it for showing up late.
No-one is denying them a seat, they are being penalised for arriving late.
A "re-entry" period is just that...an option to re-enter.
Late entry comps are different animals and chips should not be taken from the start.
It"d be like booking a hotel room but them letting somebody else have it just because you haven"t checked in by midnight, for example.
That"s a common "rule" at many chain hotels....not that it is necessarily a good thing.
lol I know some hotels do it - it"s pretty obviously a bad thing though
and
...Whether the chips get "blinded off" or alternatively, sit with the dealer to give to the player when they take their seats, I have no strong view on - but come the first break, I personally think they should be removed from the event. ...
That sounds like suggesting denying people a seat to me.
And I"ve arrived at an APAT tournament after blinding off to the first break, you"re still left with a playable stack so I see no reason at all to remove such a player from the tournament.
-
I think if you have paid your fee before the competition starts then your blinds should be in play from the start. I don"t agree with using it as a "late reg guaranteed seat" type of thing. It could be that you have paid and can"t make it for the start and somebody else has took a chance with turning up on the day and finds it is full only to see people arrive after them, join a table and start playing.
Late reg is different in that you are actually joining late and taking the chance that there are actually seats available for you within that period and for that risk you do deserve to join with a full chip stack.
In last weeks IPO the chips were with the dealer and the cards were still dealt to the seat, that was until the dealer forgot about it. I mentioned it twice during the late arrival period and once the dealer apologised and dealt to the seat again but the second time the players on the table said to just carry on nine handed...
Personally, I tend to be ready at the start and very rarely do I use the late reg facility online... Definitely sit down for the start of a live tourney though....
-
I think if you have paid your fee before the competition starts then your blinds should be in play from the start. I don"t agree with using it as a "late reg guaranteed seat" type of thing.
This...+1000.
PLUS...Under no circumstances should chips be removed from play once the buy-in has been paid.
I could be wrong but I have a vague recollection of a player not making an APAT event and their stack almost getting into the money a couple of years back.
Never happen in practice (with any proper structure) but if they have paid...they"re to the bitter end...IMO.
-
I think if you have paid your fee before the competition starts then your blinds should be in play from the start. I don"t agree with using it as a "late reg guaranteed seat" type of thing.
This...+1000.
PLUS...Under no circumstances should chips be removed from play once the buy-in has been paid.
I could be wrong but I have a vague recollection of a player not making an APAT event and their stack almost getting into the money a couple of years back.
Never happen in practice (with any proper structure) but if they have paid...they"re to the bitter end...IMO.
+1001
Don"t see the difference between not getting there till level 6 and sitting in your seat on your phone for 5 levels. Or what if the player sits down for hand no 1 then says "right, I have to go and check into my hotel" and comes back 4 hours later?
-
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 (http://www.wsop.com/2013/2013_wsop_rules.pdf)
-
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
(http://www.wsop.com/2013/2013_wsop_rules.pdf)
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.
-
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 (http://www.wsop.com/2013/2013_wsop_rules.pdf)
Saved me writing my own post, agree 100%
-
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
(http://www.wsop.com/2013/2013_wsop_rules.pdf)
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.
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.
-
The wsop run the biggest events in world poker and as such imho qualify as a decent organisation to emulate. It seems you disagree.
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.
-
The wsop run the biggest events in world poker and as such imho qualify as a decent organisation to emulate. It seems you disagree.
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.
Would you care to elaborate on the difference, relative to the rule obviously?
-
Would you care to elaborate on the difference, relative to the rule obviously?
Not really. You know more about the WSOP.
-
Ok I think there are 2 differen scenarios to look a here.
1. Player is running late and contacts cardroom to advise them prior to the start of the tournament. IMO the chips should not be put into play until the player arrives, so long as this is before the end of the late registration/re-entry/alternate period. If the player does not arrive by end of late reg period a full refund should be made.
2. Player does not arrive or do not advise cardroom that they will be late prior to start of yhe tournament. In this scenario the players chips should be in play and blinded out fully. At the end of the day the player has paid for the chips and they always have value whilst they are in the tournament. Who is to say that the player can"t turn up 3 hours late? He could have half start stack and still easily go on to win the tournament. In short the player has paid his money and therefore "owns" his equity in the tournament. The argument about creating a dynamic is moot, as poker players we should be able to adapt to different situations and this is just another situation.
-
1. Player is running late and contacts cardroom to advise them prior to the start of the tournament. IMO the chips should not be put into play until the player arrives, so long as this is before the end of the late registration/re-entry/alternate period. If the player does not arrive by end of late reg period a full refund should be made.
Come on Gordon this is ridiculous. There"s so much wrong with it that it isn"t worth the time.
-
Ok I think there are 2 differen scenarios to look a here.
1. Player is running late and contacts cardroom to advise them prior to the start of the tournament. IMO the chips should not be put into play until the player arrives, so long as this is before the end of the late registration/re-entry/alternate period. If the player does not arrive by end of late reg period a full refund should be made.
2. Player does not arrive or do not advise cardroom that they will be late prior to start of yhe tournament. In this scenario the players chips should be in play and blinded out fully. At the end of the day the player has paid for the chips and they always have value whilst they are in the tournament. Who is to say that the player can"t turn up 3 hours late? He could have half start stack and still easily go on to win the tournament. In short the player has paid his money and therefore "owns" his equity in the tournament. The argument about creating a dynamic is moot, as poker players we should be able to adapt to different situations and this is just another situation.
#1 is a totally unrealistic, but #2 is spot on
-
I don"t think WSOP rule on this could apply to APAT. Blinds for instance are much longer in WSOP, refunds would be an issue in APAT tournies in terms of more work for the guys behind the scenes and prizes lost in the unlikely event the seat isn"t filled. If I could pay my buy in n woke up that morning hungover or something n thought "cant be arsed playing today but it"s fine, I know I"ll get my money back." Not much of a penalty for not turning up. IMO the chips should be in play from the start. If you have paid your money you have paid for a stack and a seat and that is what you should have from the start.
I played a few tournies where the chips are in play and if the player isn"t seated by the 2nd orbit of the table then they are a big blind every hand til they show or blind out. I thought that was a fair way as the player has paid and deserves the chips to be there but is being penalised for not showing up. As for dynamics Gimac hit the nail on the head... adapt!
-
Ok I think there are 2 differen scenarios to look a here.
1. Player is running late and contacts cardroom to advise them prior to the start of the tournament. IMO the chips should not be put into play until the player arrives, so long as this is before the end of the late registration/re-entry/alternate period. If the player does not arrive by end of late reg period a full refund should be made.
2. Player does not arrive or do not advise cardroom that they will be late prior to start of yhe tournament. In this scenario the players chips should be in play and blinded out fully. At the end of the day the player has paid for the chips and they always have value whilst they are in the tournament. Who is to say that the player can"t turn up 3 hours late? He could have half start stack and still easily go on to win the tournament. In short the player has paid his money and therefore "owns" his equity in the tournament. The argument about creating a dynamic is moot, as poker players we should be able to adapt to different situations and this is just another situation.
I get what Gordon is saying here but I do think that he"s being a little unrealistic.
To my mind it comes down to when did I pay my money?
Pre-reg/Pre-pay
If my money is on the table, as it were, then GiMac"s second paragraph applies. My chips are on the table, in play, and they"re there to the sticky end.
Late Reg / Re-entry / Alternate
I haven"t paid any money so I have no equity and so my chips should not be on the table (or least not in play).
If, as late running player, i can negotiate any sort of refund then that"s a bonus but it certainly shouldn"t be a given.
-
I was under the impression at DTD that the rule of buy-in online but not have your chips go into play was to stop penalising players who bought in early against players who turned up late - eg Jim and Bob turn up at the same time, halfway through Level 3 of a comp. Jim has bought in online and Bob hasn"t, but Bob gets a full stack as a late reg player whereas the more organised player has less than starting stack because he bought in before the tournament started.
-
I played a few tournies where the chips are in play and if the player isn"t seated by the 2nd orbit of the table then they are a big blind every hand til they show or blind out. I thought that was a fair way as the player has paid and deserves the chips to be there but is being penalised for not showing up. As for dynamics Gimac hit the nail on the head... adapt!
How is it fair to remove a big blind every hand at any point? Just because a player hasn"t shown up, should not devalue his tournament equity in any way - he has paid exactly the same as every one else for the same stack of chips. Just because he isn"t sat in his chair should not change the value of his equity. To draw a comparison, if a player turns up, sits in his seat, then goes on to fold every single hand until his stack is gone..... should he also be penalised a big blind every hand for failing to play any hands? Of course that"s an extreme comparison, but actually... what"s the real difference??
-
I played a few tournies where the chips are in play and if the player isn"t seated by the 2nd orbit of the table then they are a big blind every hand til they show or blind out. I thought that was a fair way as the player has paid and deserves the chips to be there but is being penalised for not showing up. As for dynamics Gimac hit the nail on the head... adapt!
How is it fair to remove a big blind every hand at any point? Just because a player hasn"t shown up, should not devalue his tournament equity in any way - he has paid exactly the same as every one else for the same stack of chips. Just because he isn"t sat in his chair should not change the value of his equity. To draw a comparison, if a player turns up, sits in his seat, then goes on to fold every single hand until his stack is gone..... should he also be penalised a big blind every hand for failing to play any hands? Of course that"s an extreme comparison, but actually... what"s the real difference??
I think fair may have been the wrong term. A good compromise for both ends of the debate, would be a better term.
Personally I have no strong feeling on it other than the chips go on the table at start of play. How they are played after that I couldn"t care less. Unless it"s my chips then everyone has to fold on my blind, I wont be long... promise! ;D
-
I played a few tournies where the chips are in play and if the player isn"t seated by the 2nd orbit of the table then they are a big blind every hand til they show or blind out. I thought that was a fair way as the player has paid and deserves the chips to be there but is being penalised for not showing up. As for dynamics Gimac hit the nail on the head... adapt!
How is it fair to remove a big blind every hand at any point? Just because a player hasn"t shown up, should not devalue his tournament equity in any way - he has paid exactly the same as every one else for the same stack of chips. Just because he isn"t sat in his chair should not change the value of his equity. To draw a comparison, if a player turns up, sits in his seat, then goes on to fold every single hand until his stack is gone..... should he also be penalised a big blind every hand for failing to play any hands? Of course that"s an extreme comparison, but actually... what"s the real difference??
I think fair may have been the wrong term. A good compromise for both ends of the debate, would be a better term.
Personally I have no strong feeling on it other than the chips go on the table at start of play. How they are played after that I couldn"t care less. Unless it"s my chips then everyone has to fold on my blind, I wont be long... promise! ;D
Doing it this way also has a much bigger effect on the table dynamics than just playing it out normally with a person missing from the table. Whether that person is missing because they"ve not turned up or because they"ve gone for a cigarette/toilet break/food run/whatever is irrelevant - I really can"t see how the person not turning up yet should be treated any differently to any of the other reasons why a player might be absent for a hand.
-
Keep it simple
You buy-in, your chips in play, whats the problem ;)
-
If they have paid their money, then chips should be on the table and just blinded out fully. simple as that. Really cant believe some of the comments here.
And if one person is missing, and you feel its changing the table dynamics, then so what? Its just another random event in a mass of randomness of a poker mtt, just like seat draws etc.
If you draw a really tough starting table you wouldnt run to the TD and say that good players are changing the table dynamics would you.
-
If they have paid their money, then chips should be on the table and just blinded out fully. simple as that. Really cant believe some of the comments here.
And if one person is missing, and you feel its changing the table dynamics, then so what? Its just another random event in a mass of randomness of a poker mtt, just like seat draws etc.
If you draw a really tough starting table you wouldnt run to the TD and say that good players are changing the table dynamics would you.
+1squillion
If you cant adapt to the situation, you shouldnt be playing.
-
If you draw a really tough starting table you wouldnt run to the TD and say that good players are changing the table dynamics would you.
Speak for yourself.
-
In my view, chips go on the table, blinds removed as normal. Don"t agree with taking them off at any time. As far as "table dynamics stuff" I"ve read here, its totally irrelevant, missing player could turn up, play a hand then leave and that"s not against any rule. Players simply have to adjust to the away player, the advantage it gives certain seat positions is just part of tournament poker.
-
1. Player is running late and contacts cardroom to advise them prior to the start of the tournament. IMO the chips should not be put into play until the player arrives, so long as this is before the end of the late registration/re-entry/alternate period. If the player does not arrive by end of late reg period a full refund should be made.
Come on Gordon this is ridiculous. There"s so much wrong with it that it isn"t worth the time.
Why? I have done this at both GUKPT and GPS, lol. Please take the time to give me your reasons rather than just dismissing it. If it"s good enough for 2 of the biggest UK tours why not here? ::)
p.s. thinking about it I would remove the refund option to be fair and just enter their chips at the end of the late reg if they have not arrived and then just blind them out as per #2.
-
Ok I think there are 2 differen scenarios to look a here.
1. Player is running late and contacts cardroom to advise them prior to the start of the tournament. IMO the chips should not be put into play until the player arrives, so long as this is before the end of the late registration/re-entry/alternate period. If the player does not arrive by end of late reg period a full refund should be made.
2. Player does not arrive or do not advise cardroom that they will be late prior to start of yhe tournament. In this scenario the players chips should be in play and blinded out fully. At the end of the day the player has paid for the chips and they always have value whilst they are in the tournament. Who is to say that the player can"t turn up 3 hours late? He could have half start stack and still easily go on to win the tournament. In short the player has paid his money and therefore "owns" his equity in the tournament. The argument about creating a dynamic is moot, as poker players we should be able to adapt to different situations and this is just another situation.
#1 is a totally unrealistic, but #2 is spot on
Why is #1 unrealistic? I have done this at both GUKPT and GPS, lol.
p.s. thinking about it I would remove the refund option to be fair and just enter their chips at the end of the late reg if they have not arrived and then just blind them out as per #2.
-
Ok I think there are 2 differen scenarios to look a here.
1. Player is running late and contacts cardroom to advise them prior to the start of the tournament. IMO the chips should not be put into play until the player arrives, so long as this is before the end of the late registration/re-entry/alternate period. If the player does not arrive by end of late reg period a full refund should be made.
2. Player does not arrive or do not advise cardroom that they will be late prior to start of yhe tournament. In this scenario the players chips should be in play and blinded out fully. At the end of the day the player has paid for the chips and they always have value whilst they are in the tournament. Who is to say that the player can"t turn up 3 hours late? He could have half start stack and still easily go on to win the tournament. In short the player has paid his money and therefore "owns" his equity in the tournament. The argument about creating a dynamic is moot, as poker players we should be able to adapt to different situations and this is just another situation.
#1 is a totally unrealistic, but #2 is spot on
Why is #1 unrealistic? I have done this at both GUKPT and GPS, lol.
p.s. thinking about it I would remove the refund option to be fair and just enter their chips at the end of the late reg if they have not arrived and then just blind them out as per #2.
#1 is fair enough, as long as the seat is paid for and the tournament isn"t at capacity. Chips should go in play at the point where the "running late" player would be taking the last available seat.
-
Yesterday I played Day 1a of a two day tournament. On the table was a stack which was blinded away completely to nothing.
Today the no show player will turn up to play Day1b because he has made a mistake of thinking that he is on today"s list.
His friend was trying to contact him all night but was unable to.
His seat which he won was worth £220, should the casino compensate him in some way?
-
Yesterday I played Day 1a of a two day tournament. On the table was a stack which was blinded away completely to nothing.
Today the no show player will turn up to play Day1b because he has made a mistake of thinking that he is on today"s list.
His friend was trying to contact him all night but was unable to.
His seat which he won was worth £220, should the casino compensate him in some way?
Not in my opinion Craig. The player needs to take responsibility for his mistake.
-
Yesterday I played Day 1a of a two day tournament. On the table was a stack which was blinded away completely to nothing.
Today the no show player will turn up to play Day1b because he has made a mistake of thinking that he is on today"s list.
His friend was trying to contact him all night but was unable to.
His seat which he won was worth £220, should the casino compensate him in some way?
Not in my opinion Craig. The player needs to take responsibility for his mistake.
+1