Thanks for pointing that out.

However, at a small, casual home game, I really don't think that's a concern in the long-run. People come to play. If they "hit and run", you don't want them back anyway.

Unfairness in the short-term is a problem, though, so here is a modified rule set that problem:


REVISED BUY-OUT RULE

1. Absent Player's stack is blinded off

2. Meanwhile, all rebuys/add-ons chips come out of Absent Player's stack, until it is depleted. These funds will go back to Absent Player, up to X% of the amount that he/she contributed to the fund. (You decide X, e.g., 100%, 50%, etc.)

3. If rebuy period is almost over, it is extended until Absent Player's stack is depleted, either through blinding or rebuys.



First, let's not be too conservative. Every once in a while an innovation is an actual improvement.


Second, it is "standard" for home games to be slightly less standard, and there are good reasons for it.

OP needs to figure out how "formal" his game is.

If the game is all strangers who he recruited via internet, and if the stakes are large, then obviously he should be mostly by the book.

On the other hand, if the game is full of old buddies, then sometimes being lax about the rules is better. "Hey guys, can we increase the blinds now? This is taking forever." "Tsk, all right... fine."

A good hosts knows where is game is located within the casual-formal continuum, and acts accordingly.

I thought this situation was pretty black and white till i started reading what everyone thought.

Its not the home games job to accommodate for the player, the players should know the rules.

At my home game, if they think they will be back, we will blind em out till the final table and then take his chips off the table, no refunds.

So you stack a player, he re-buys and the money doesn't get added to the prize pool? Where is the reward for stacking the player?

After the re-buy period ends you gain EV from stacking a player by reducing the field. During the re-buy period you get a bigger prize pool due to the player's re-buy being added.

It is easy to say that it is no big deal, not a lot of money, no one minds - but if that is the attitude then why do you need to refund anything to the guy that has to leave? After all it is no big deal, not a lot of money, no one minds. If the money doesn't matter then the guy can just leave and try his luck next time, he doesn't need any refund. If the money does matter than you don't give back his money or auction his chips.

Of course I have made it clear what I would do - the rule is no refund, tough luck. The nice thing if you want to make a one off exception is to let him transfer the lost buy-in to the next game so he can return with a free buy-in and try again. This gives him a good reason to come back and is really quite generous. You remove the stack and everyone else carries on playing. Is there really such a strong need to do anything more? Why do so many here feel such a strong need to do so much for the guy that has to leave.

While I disagree with your decision a bit, I think your motivations behind the decision were good and the players seemed okay with it, so you get credit for making the decision.

However, you have to decide if you're setting a dangerous precedent- are you going to let short stacks bail and get refunds, when things don't go their way? Are you going to be stuck in the spot of deciding/arguing about what is a "legitimate" refund emergency?
And are you going to change your rulings, based on your perceived "player's value to the game" or how much of a rich donk they are?

It's not just the consequences of the current situation, that you have to consider.

This actually concerned me a bit more than your decision for this tourney:
You decide how strictly you want your game to match a B&M, and you certainly want to keep a solid framework and keep the game moving....

But, be careful about making the goal of the rules, the rules themselves. People don't come over to play "Rules"....

I disagree a bit- are you trying to encourage participation, or limit it?

I'm not fond of this idea, as I replied already above. But, interesting idea nonetheless.

however:
Ugh ugh UGH. If you decide to implement this payback, do NOT extend the buy-in period.

My experience is that people have enough of a problem with rebuys (read- maniac tourneys in bars), extending the rebuy period WHILE giving a departing player a refund seems a bad BAD mix.


agree, but it can be controlled and adjusted. Most of what you touched upon in your post, was good imo.

No, that's the OTHER thread.

Why, exactly? What if there was a family medical emergency.... or he was on-call for his job?
I understand your not liking the decision, but you don't seem to want to give the new players ANY slack... and that makes it tough for the host to recruit and retain new players, which is what allows you to actually fiind games to play there.


I'm not sure about the "smart" part, but the cynical part you've got down pat! :P


While I agree with most of what you wrote, what makes you think that your rulings aren't judged in the exact same manner, sometimes?

You get more tournament chips, which should increase your chances of cashing.


You're confusing the difference between one person losing his buy-in, vs. the rest of the poker table having the prize pool reduced by a buy in.

In the first case, the loss is direct and large. In the second case, the loss is uncertain and small.


Btw, I do like the idea of using his buy-in as counting towards the next event.



Stop the Glock bias. Sig > Glock.


It would only be extended while the Absent Player's stack is still there. Most likely it would be blinded off or taken up in rebuys/add-ons quickly.

There probably wouldn't be a significant difference in total number of rebuys/add-ons.



BTW, generally, shouldn't an absent player's chips should stay on the table and get blinded? Or is that too much of an advantage to the guy two spots to his right?

let me rephrase, its not the home games job to culture its rules to benefit anyone specifically.

Maybe you could re-read the post I was responding to and my post - you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

I am in favour of giving this guy a free buy-in for the next tourney. The bit I was vehemently against was the refunding of all 3 buy-ins when he had already busted out from the first two. How is giving the guy a free buy-in for the next tourney not giving new players ANY slack?

You're confusing my objection to giving the player 3 buy-ins back with some strange idea that I might think refunding one buy-in is wrong.

This is what I suggested should happen.

Dammit, Kiwi, will you stop suggesting that he gets back all of his buy-ins? Why are you so unfair to everybody?

I was referring specifically to this:

"If I were one of the regulars at your game and you made that ruling then I would consider finding somewhere else to play.
You seem to be keen bend over backwards to kiss this guys ass, so much so it looks awkward and unnatural"

Yes - and that was in response to Sevenfold's statement that he would refund all 3 buy-ins. I think you read that post but not previous one to understand exactly what Sevenfold was proposing. I am not so much against cutting the guy a break as a one off thing and refunding a buy-in, but I think that pulling 3 buy-ins out of the prize pool and handing them to the new player that has to leave is way over the top and unfair on everyone else.

In my games I always try to make rulings that are fair on everyone - refunding a buy-in is not necessary, but being nice to the new guy is probably worth bending the rules for. Refunding all 3 of his buy-ins despite him having played and lost the first 2 already seems to be way to generous to him and too unfair on all the other players. I don't like that ruling and would object if I were one of the other players there. If I were the noob in question then I would think it was damn decent of the host to give back my last buy-in when I know that he didn't have to, but to get back all 3 buy-ins would make me wonder WTF they were playing at.

If you look back, you'll see that I proposed the same thing, in a manner of speaking

Your first post was #9, mine was #10 if you read them you will see that we were in close agreement on what to do! I would pull one buy-in from the pool and put it aside for the next tourney if the other players were willing to go along with that. You would let him have a free buy-in next time, but not pull a buy-in from this one. I would be willing to play in your home game because you seem to be fair with your rulings, I wouldn't go to Sevenfold's games because any host who would pull 3 buy-ins from the pool and give them to guy that has to leave is too far 'out there' on his rulings.

It is post #8 that I have a real problem with - refunding his buy-ins should not be an option, only his last buy-in could be considered.

If anything but blinding him out happened, I wouldn't come back to your game. Of course, he should be allowed to return. Even if I have to raise his big blind for three hours before the game ends, the chips shouldn't come off of the table. If it's really that important that he has to leave, he shouldn't be so mad that he wouldn't return.

THAT is what I had the problem with- I thought that was too harsh a pronouncement for you to make, given that you're new to said game.

Again, we both agree on what our ruling would generally be, but judge not too harshly, lest ye be judged unworthy and a badeth reputation resulteth in thy poker neighborhood.

Read my post above- you might not be missed.

All this consternation, my goodness.

All I said was:

At my home game, with the players I know, one of whom brought a guest, that is what I'd do.

It may not be a decision that would work in every home game, nor did I imply that it would.

We have all known each other very well for years, and while we play for $ and keep what we win, I can't ever remember there even being an argument over a ruling, or even requiring a major ruling between players that they couldn't agree on between themselves.

All of this 'I'd never come back to your game' is quite bemusing to me, as it isn't likely that a person who feels this way would be welcome at our game in the first place.

We play a highly competitive gentlemens game, and some things are more important than a couple of buy-ins.

7

Wait, my post was #3 and I said it too. What do I win????

What can I say, I'm a stickler for fairness. Taking chips off the table changes the ratio of an individual's chips to total chips. Redistributing chips does the same. If you want to call it a rain delay and play cash until he returns, that would be fine. Even if the delay lasts until next week. I don't really care who misses me. I just want a fair game.

Trying to come to some sort of middle ground I'm assuming? Well definitely giving back 2 buy-ins is way too much. I would Give him the option of leaving his chips on the table to be blinded out if he can come back or give back 1 buyin which is fair to everyone since he is chip leader. Every poker player should know if they have to go your SOL and if your playing a friendly game anything is +EV. Just remember your opening this for everyone to leave and expect something back definitely -EV to make one guy happy and come back.

Well you win the comfort of knowing you mentioned the most popular idea first, that should be enough.