But then we would have to listen to people saying "If it was Ivey giving birth they wouldn't have said anything"

If men could go into labor, they would never be given the same courtesy

yeah this seems to be super exploitable....

If Antonio can pee under the table, she can give birth under the table,
and continue on, as if nothing had happened.

She would be DQ for exposing herself at the table.

Many people see this as reasonable. I agree it seems reasonable and not that big of a deal. I think I would still prefer either a refund or an ICM refund (even like ICM minus 10% or however you want to calculate it where you get more than an entry fee refund but not open to exploitation) though. A one off like women giving birth is one thing. But it'd be nice to offer both those options for less crazy circumstances like needing to go to the hospital, funeral, etc. Something just seems a little off about allowing someone to take over.

Stack removed from play, refund offered is a much better solution!

That certainly works but what about when they're in the money? Start blinding them off at that point? What if someone is ~25 away from the money with 15BB's...blind them off or refund?

I think most people are in agreement that blinding off and just proceeding with the tournament is the fairest thing to do and maintains the integrity of the event, but as human beings it does seem harsh in this case and I can think of other examples. It just opens up a huge can of worms and raises a lot of questions for future situations.

If your answer to all of those questions is "It's at the tournament director's discretion and that person can make the decision" that is reasonable and my personal stance at this point as well. If your answer is something else please explain why and how your solution maintains fairness for everyone.

I'll speak up against the people in this thread and say that what Crown is doing can allow cheating to occur and say that the only fair thing that can happen is that this lady gets blinded off. It's not the casino's responsibility to take care of this lady because she is giving birth. It's the casino's responsibility to maintain a fair tournament and the integrity of a tournament. I don't think she should be entitled to a refund either if she had already taken her seat and played some hands. Obviously, had she not played a hand, she could "unregister" and get a refund. It's in the rules as Kevmath stated earlier, but in my opinion it's a pretty terrible rule and it definitely can open up to cheating in the future. Happy I chose not to go to Australia and this will certainly make me not want to go in the next couple of years.

Crown should revisit this rule before some sort of scandal breaks open and all sorts of horses are being replaced by their world class poker player backers deep in tournaments.

Lotta people went full ****** itt, seems men get stupid as soon as a woman is involved. She should be blinded off obviously. It's the player's responsibility to ensure they are fit to play the entire mtt before starting.

is it confirmed his child?

There's no way this one decision should be the deal breaker on whether or not to ever play at crown.

It unreal that people have no clue what happening with poker. Look at a daily big 22 FT on stars i would not be surprised if 50% has somebody else played or helped.
It totally fine to let husband (who even probably worse) play in this case.

Where to put the line?

I think if you just really can not play anymore (and it not a choice) it ok to refund or let somebody take over.
So if you really sick then no. need to go to funeral also no. being hit by a bus and in coma yes.
But there is always a good solution when it come closer to exploiting this and that is look what the stack is worth and refund 50-80% from that.

Scenario: you are playing with a pregnant woman whois obviously a rec and pretty bad. She luckboxes her way all the way to HU against you. Once HU, she goes into labour. Once shes been rushed to the hospital, Scott Seiver sits down at the table. It was his wife, and therefore, hes allowed to take over.

Yes, its a contrived scenario, but would anyone seriously be OK with this?

I am sympathetic and in this situation don't think it looks unreasonable but still don't think anybody should be allowed to take over. As others have stated where do you draw the line. Somebody's child being unexpectedly rushed into hospital in a life threatening condition after a car accident seems an equally valid reason to leave a game and a lot harder to avoid compared to just not playing a MTT when between 8 and 9 months pregnant.

In the above example people would complain and does that put Scott Seivers wife at a disadvantage compared to a randoms?

I think you would have enough leverage to make a deal where your ev is higher then playing in this case. otherwise toernement director could decide to pay her out 80% of her stack worth and give you the rest.

all the ppl going "but what if they are sick"

"but what if"

firstly, NO ONE has EVER been allowed to give up a stack due to illness. So stfu.

secondly, Its a ****ing baby popping out of her, its not a chance thing, its going to happen.

tons of negative events happening to you will never allow you to get another player to play ur stack. But having to birth a baby is one of those exceptions.

don't worry basement degens, there arn't very many girls in poker to exploit this rule.

Sure. It's just money. Get a grip, people.

warped neckbeard makes boring troll effort (or is actually warped beyond belief) . Ladies and gentlemen the current world poker champion

Joey ice cube

Lmao this is absurd. U cant remove a stack from a tourney. Its her fault for entering with a possibility of giving birth. Blind her off...

What would happen if someone died/became seriously ill between the last day of the regular WSOP main event & the November Nine?

It pretty much has happened. Answer: blinded off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stu_Un...gs_and_divorce

+1

Yes, I'd be fine with it. It's not like they'd have been planning some kind of angleshoot, jfc.