I didn't take my seat for start of a tournament- what should happen to my chips?

[Jon MW]

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

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]

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

Saved me writing my own post, agree 100%

[TheSnapper]

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

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.

[MintTrav]

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.

[TheSnapper]

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?

[MintTrav]

Would you care to elaborate on the difference, relative to the rule obviously?

Not really. You know more about the WSOP.

[GiMac]

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.

[AJDUK]

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.

[AMRN]

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

[Sef]

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!

[Paulie_D]

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.

[KarmaDope]

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.

[AMRN]

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??

[Sef]

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!

[Jon MW]

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!

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.