I came across a thread in B&M that I found interesting: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...hat-do-1461237. It's about a late registration period that is still in effect when all remaining players reach the "money" places.

It occurred to me that I would handle this differently in a closed, private home game than in a cardroom that is open to the public. You can see my response for a cardroom in the thread (third post, page 2). The short version is that late reg must go on, as that is what is being advertised.

To me, late reg falls under the category of betting structure, and as such, it would be part of the information in the invite for my home game. As with all other specifications in the invite, it can be overridden by unanimous vote only. Basically, by showing up, the people at my game have expressed a unanimous agreement to play as specified in the invite, and the same is required to undo it. (The reason this shouldn't be done in a public cardroom, IMO, is that it affects more than only the remaining players.)

How do other hosts deal with something like this? I don't mean just a weird spot like this late-reg thing, but any demand arising to specifically alter one of the basic premises of the game, like game/variant, stakes, betting structure, buy-in limits, or anything else that was explicit upfront.

Overall I try to honour what was offered.

Yes. Whatever ye advertises ye shall provide.

Yeah . . . nothing tilts me more than a host who turns a freezeout into a rebuy because a buddy or two busted out in the first level of their deepstack event. Here's an idea . . . DON'T BET ALL 10k WITH BLINDS AT 25/50 !!!

Sorry . . . yes, play to what was advertised is always the best option.

I always leave things as is unless there is a consensus by the group to change things. Usually it isn't anything major, but something like NLHE is scheduled for 1AM and everyone would rather play another hour of PLO or PLO8. Any objections and it stays the same, if not, switch it up.

Good to know people are generally on the same page with me. I know I've seen things like stakes or the variant changed on a majority vote, and it's not one of my favorite things that can happen at a poker game.

I think the OP in the other thread isn't making any kind of a case that the registration should be artificially closed early just because "I waz in da money". It /feels/ wrong, because every other time you get to the money you can't get out of the money again, but there's nothing intrinsic to poker that I can think of that breaks when you allow this. It's just unfamiliar-wrong, not harmful-wrong.

You could make the case, I suppose, that a cluster**** would ensue if you "finished" a supersatellite with registration still open, and that deserves a mention in the rules.

If people are able to game their entrance time to a regular advantage, something is really wrong with the structure (like the rebuy period open way, way too long, as mentioned)

This, I think, is the biggest problem with this setup. I guess in theory it could happen with any tourney that has late registration, but if the structure is such that it's a greater-than-ridiculously-small possibility, it should definitely be addressed in the rules.

+1

I haven't slogged through that other thread yet, but boy is that screwy. I mean, what happens if the person entering pushes the prize pool to expand by one spot? Assuming the payout is more than money back, he makes profit just by registering.

The OP is fairly broad, tho. There's no one answer.

There are a lot of ways that situation from the B&M thread can get stupid.

IMO, the biggest issue, from a customer-satisfaction angle, is that running late reg so long makes it likely that exactly what did happen would happen: people got upset because they thought they were "in the money" when they weren't.

This does mean, however, that you can't buy yourself into the money just by registering late. Anyone else could register right behind you, expanding the field and making it possible to bust out with no prize.

We run our weekly game as a single re-buy game. On occasion we have voted to allow a player to re-buy more than once if they bust out twice early (in the first hour or so). It's 50/50 on whether the vote will pass, usually it depends on if we are playing mid-week, on a Friday, and how many people are playing. The poker game is more of a social get together for 75% of the field (buyin is only $20).

We also run re-buys up until the money and this has worked for us (people do sometimes buy in later than they should ie. buyin is 10 BB, but this grows the pot). I imagine if we did re-buys based on time we'd be voting to override that every other week.

Grant

We've changed our rules to just codify the most common exceptions, and now allow pre-first-break rebuys in our "non-rebuy" events.

As to the original subject, I'd have invoked the "best interest of the game" rule and closed out registration prior to the advertised late entry time, simply citing the state of the tournament. I'd offer the poor late player some sort of apology and token compensation for his trouble, and I'd use it as an opportunity to amend my tournament rules.

I can see the argument for letting the player play. I just choose the other side.

I'd say that's a solid approach, given that you're making the false-advertising issue right.

A lot of my point in making this thread, though, was to bridge it into a home-game scenario. Suppose that a comparable thing were to happen in a home game. Would you handle it the same way?

There are some different wrinkles to consider, including the fact that a non-profit game doesn't have a token compensation budget. And unless you had an secondary game planned, you'll have guests showing up at your house who can't do the thing that they came to do.

I have an explicit, printed, rule about this. Of course no one has ever read the printed rules, but I have it. Late registration in our tournaments usually runs up until the end of the first break. However, I don't allow (by house rule) late registration if the tournament has reached the money bubble (ITM +1), and I reserve the right to make a judgement call as TD at ITM plus 2 (situation has never come up, but I still explicitly reserve the right).

Late registration once our tournaments are in the money is patently ridiculous, as you'd be paying $X and instantly be eligible for more than that in payout. I suppose your mileage may vary depending on the structure of your tournaments. Late registration at the bubble may seem extremely unfair if there are some micro stacks at that point as you've just made it that much harder for them to squeak into the money. That's why I don't allow it at the bubble and reserve the right to disallow it at the bubble+1. These rules also protect me from the problem of what to do if the arrival of new player(s) changes the payout structure in a way that causes questions or problems regarding busted out players; by my own house rules the scenarios that cause problems that way are disallowed.

Which makes sense for the original scenario and I'm pretty sure that's what you also refer to here. Just for completeness, if any of my players ever did complain about "false advertising" in a home game scenario I'd show them the door, permanently, and hand them my attorney's phone number as a little barb on the way out. Ha.

All that said, I can only recall one time the "no, we're at the bubble" rule has come into play. It usually requires a small starting field and some crazy train wrecks to get anywhere near the problem scenarios.

I haven't thought too deeply about it, but for the tournament thing I'm leaning towards what Palimax said. I'm also re-evaluating the tournament structure because something is broken.

For most of the other stuff you listed, however, I'm not bending to pressure. Poker players often want what's bad for the game, and people respond well to consistency.

It's an icky situation regardless.

You get to tell a single player "sorry Bob, I know we said we'd take late registrations until 10:30, but we hit the bubble at 10:15, and the final table took that into consideration already -- and I have to let their bets stand." or you get to tell your final table, "sorry guys, I know you thought you were all in the cash, but you knew late registration ran until 10:30, and it is only 10:15."

Neither solution is wrong, at least not in my book.

I just picked the one that I think has the greatest intersection of least short-term impact to the game in progress, and the least long-term impact to my game as a whole.

The player dynamic in your game may be different - and my answer only works in a vacuum. I may choose differently depending on the game, players, stakes, mood of the crowd, etc.

Reading the B&M thread now. Many good points on both sides.

It's screwed up, on that we can agree. No matter what you do, someone will be pissed off. I'm still leaning towards ending registration when the bubble bursts.

I mean, let's say you have a three hour registration and only one person shows up at start time. Do you make him wait for three hours in case someone shows up? Do you deal him cards? Or let's say nobody shows up, or even that they actually do finish before the registration ends. Now someone shows up late and is pissed off it's not running.

Bottom line is that you were really really late and therefore sacrificed your opportunity to have a say in what happened before you got here.

One reasonable rule would be that late registrations will end after level X or when the bubble is reached, whichever occurs first. If somebody wants to game the system by arriving just before the end of level X only to find that the bubble has been reached is just SOL. If everybody knows the rule in advance, it's on them to act accordingly.

For my own games (all cash), we play as described in the invitation, but I'm not a total nit. There have been times when we've added or dropped a game from the rotation if everybody agrees. I don't view it as MY game as much as it is OUR game with me serving as cashier and floor.

Will check out the other thread in a few.

As far as rule changes, I don't like changing established rules with the "unless anyone objects" clause, but as adults who are friends (or at least know each other), I'm OK thinking that nobody will suffer in silence. We've changed from Spread Limit in all games, to some PL and NL in one dealers choice game. We usually play Dealers Choice, but will change to straight NLH or HORSE if we're short and everyone agrees.

I do worry about some changes to the rules/stakes, that might harm the long term health of the game. I'm trying not to worry as much these days.

Our crew for Fridays is so constant and regular that we all consider it OUR game at MY house. Most all changes or suggestions are put to the group for input. I suppose I have some more extra juice since I host, but I usually don't push it. Consensus and then consistancy make for a happier bunch of players.