I'm gonna disagree. The new player is as much a part of the game as the guy with the missed blind button.

I once let both players buy the button at the same time.
About half way through the hand I realized what I had done.

My position is not based on the new player not being a part of the game. I take the same position if the situation if the two players both missed the blinds.

I remember when you couldn't buy the button. Then rooms started allowing it generally premised as a way to get players back into the action faster.

doing it my way gets players back into the action faster.

If we do it the other way you have all teh players with missed blinds between the player buying the button and having to sit out.

To make it extreme imagine a 10 handed game players in seats 2,3,4,5, and 6 all missed blinds. The button is now in seat 1. The remaining players are all crying about being short-handed andall five players return.

Doing it your way seat 2 buys the button and 3,4,5,6 all sit out. Then seat 3 buys and 4,5,6, sit out ... and etc...

Doing it my way. Seat 6 buys the button and 2,3,4,5 have the option to post in between or wait. The next hand the button is in 6 and anyone who posted in between can play, anyone else has the option to post or wait.

My way can get more players back in faster .... rather than forcing the game to play short for multiple hands.

But as I said ... I usually see it done your way.

Simple rule .. when a player wants to buy the Button the player to his left must have been the BB in the last hand.

In this spot Seat 1 was supposed to be BB with a dead SB in Seat 9. This player was technically moving between the BB and SB (dead). In order to buy the Button you must be moving between the SB and Button. It just looks strange because it was an open seat. See Simple Rule above.

And I +1 post #16 .. GL

Yeah I know that.
No. There is no SB this hand. Just a single BB that seat 1 or 2 would post.
Player can sit down in seat 9 and take the BB. Next hand he will have the SB and BB in 1 or 2.

ok, so seat 9 buys the btn. Next hand seat 1 buys the btn. When has seat 2 ever posted a BB?

Now you see why seat 9 has to wait 1 hand to buy the btn?

Edit: Psandman's reply got in while I was typing. My response is only to the buy the button question and kinda specifically to Answer20's post.

Seat 9 doesn't buy the button. He posts his BB.
Next hand he posts his SB. Button stays in 8 seat.
Seat 1 and 2 have not missed their blinds.

The question was about buying the button. Which is what I'm answering to. Notice how it confused so many?

If anyone is confused/confusing here, it seems to be you.

Right here, in the question you posed:

We all agree that, in the OP, the player shouldn't have been able to BTB immediately. Several of us think that he should be able to just simply post a BB immediately. It's not clear what you think about that, since you just keep referring back to how the OP was talking about BTB.

orly.

Try looking above oh confused one

I think the problem here is that we are not all addressing the same question at the same time.

You guys are talking in circles. Steamraise got it exactly right: The Btn stays at S8 for 2 hands.

Hand 2: S8 Btn; S9 BB. No SB (because it's posted dead). S1 takes his call.
Hand 3: S8 Btn; S9 SB; S1 BB

It's not so hard a concept to grasp. As someone said, Even if S9 didn't buy the button, the button would go to S9 dead, making S8 de facto BTN twice anyway

Ok now assume S9 again goes bust and another new player takes his seat. Do we leave the BTN on S8 again? So in theory S8 could have the BTN or implied BTN forever?

Sure its theoretically possible under the follwoing conditions:

Unlimited number of new players.
Every New Player is standing right at the table and jumps in immediately.
Every new player elects to buy the button.

I'm not worried its going to happen.

Neither am I. But I also don't like rules dependent on 'it is not likely to happen so don't worry' either. It is not likely to happen more than three times in a row but twice to even three times is relatively possible. And allowing S8 to be BTN three or four times in a row.

Btw don't forget the new player isn't buying the BTN he is taking the BB so he can come in without missing any hands.

If you don't want to take this minimal risk, use a forward moving button.

Ok next time this situation comes up I will just insist that the casino changed their rules. But some how I don't really think that will be an accepted solution.

The issue was hand #2. The new player in seat 9 should never have posted his small with his big.

The situation was a dead button with 1 big blind, that big blind being player #1. Player 9 came in, so he would be the one blind. Hand #3 he would be the small with Player 1 being the big.

When your big blind gets knocked out, recognize the situation as being One Big and then remember that in case the players do a Chinese Fire Drill on you or something.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Not only is it not likely to happen (and probably can;t because of simple logistics) .... more importantly I don't care if a player gets the button 1000 times in a row due to this. Think about what would literally be happening. Every other player would get to play 1000 hands in a row without posting blinds. While certainly the guy with the button is getting the best of it ... everybody is benefiting .... and this could have occurred in any position the player with the button has no control over it so its just a matter of luck..... IF I was the UTG player I would be fine with this happening.


I know that. But I'm not sure why you think that matters. I don't think this situation is any different if the players are buying the button or just posting a BB.

And if I were the btn I'd have 15 racks of chips or more at the end of those 1000 hands, while UTG would be stuck like a pig!

That's hardly likely. While S8 does enjoy a slight edge over the rest of the table due to position, if he's going to go on a spree continually busting S9, he's going to need playable cards, then he'll need the board to match those cards. If two S9's bust in a row, it's far more likely that different players are doing the busting. And if you've got a string of players ready to pop in, play 1 hand and bust, leaving a buyin on the table (again, likey to different players), I doubt you're busy worrying about the freaking button.

Op, I don't get what your beef is. S9 paid a premium (BB + dead SB) to get a hand (oop to everyone else btw). It's good for the game that players opt to play sub-optimally like this. This also delays the rest of the table paying blinds for another hand.

The fact that S8 gets Btn twice is really a non-starter, because, as mentioned, even if S9 opted to wait, the Btn would come to his spot dead, giving S8 ultimate position yet again. Psandman already illustrated the logistical improbability of this situation perpetuating, leaving the Btn parked on S8. It's so improbable it's not worth discussing.

Why would UTG be stuck like Pig. UTG could literally sit and wait for AA KK and not invest a penny with anything less because he doesn't even have to post blinds.

OP's beef was with the fact that because the player was allowed to buy the button in a hand he shouldn't have it created a problem for the next hand.

The other stuff we have been debating hasn't been OP's beef its been talking about the what-ifs of the sitruation and various approaches.

My biggest issue with what actually happened was that by allowing the new S9 buy the button precluded any proper way for S1 to play hand 3.

If button advances to S9, which is correct for S9 buying the button, then S1 is in the SB but never paid his BB. If the button does not advance to S9, I.e. Stays between 8&9, then S1 comes in fine on BB but then S9 is SB. So now why did S9 buy the button.

I'd dealer had allowed S9 to just come in on the BB with a dead BTN and no SB, all might be fine. But that is not what transpired.

Even after 9 buys the button, seat 1 can come in on the BB.
Then dead button in 9 with SB in 1.
Instead of 8 getting the button twice, 9 gets the button twice.

He just wanted a hand. Many players don't understand buying the button.
Anytime they post their blinds the say they are buying the button.

So now S9 gets BTN twice. Nope, not right.

Except it was BB and SB and then he is SB again. Not right either

The dealer created a no win situation where one did not need exist.

Same dealer screwed up the blinds again last night. A player plays his BB then next hand decides to move seats. Dealer makes him post BB and SB. Also advances button to the seat he vacated, has next seat post only the SB though he was never BB. And makes player to his left the BB though he should be UTG.

Literally if you looked at they table, BTN and blinds you could see there was no possible way it is correct. Even when pointed out dealer insisted it was correct.

This time the tabled objected because the BBJ is over $250K and this error would void it. The other good thing was this time the floor immediately saw things were wrong. Was he was told what was going on he easily rectified the problems.