[Coop]

In our monthly tournaments at work, one of the guys asked if his wife could take over for him when she shows up. She can't be there when we start, so he would play for the first hour or so until she arrived. It would still be one player per hand as he would stop playing when she started.

Has anyone come across this type of request before?

[spicychili]

Never had that happen before. I have had people show up late before. I usually just blind them off until they get there. If they are not there by a certain level they are taken out of the tournament and their money is removed from the prize pool.

[Coop]

We do that for people who say they will be there and show up a little late, but we pull their chips after the first round. In this case we know they won't show up until after the first round.

On one hand I'm thinking, if you can't get there in the first round, then too bad.

On the other hand, maybe we can keep it friendly and accept an odd rule like this.

[Double Eagle]

It is not fair to the other players if you allow subs as playing styles may differ considerably. If the sub does well, then everyone else is mad. If the sub busts out, then the late player is mad. If you didn't collect the buy-in in advance, you might get stiffed. Just too many potential problems.

If someone is going to be late, just blind them off until they arrive. If they don't show up by some pre-determined time, then pick up the remaining chips.

[austin5string]

If it's just a friendly game, I don't see why it would be a problem. Why doesn't the guy want to play, though? That seems a bit odd to me that he'd want to play for an hour and then just quit playing.

[jmda]

THe $300 buy-in NLHE WSOP Circuit event at Caesars last week had a huge turnout (no surprise) - THey only had 50 ish tables and like 900 players. As players got knocked out the reserve players would be put in the seats. I asked about this and they said The average chip stack would be higher at the table so it really is a disadvantage to be the player coming in during the first few levels. I see their point, but the person not catching any cards getting blinded out may have something to say about it

I frequently allow people to get in late to a tournament and blind them out while waiting, but there does have to be a cut off, at some point. Though if the starting chips are 2000 and they don't arrive until the blinds are 2 and 400 they don't have many chips left and still owe their money works for me.

As for taking over a stack? I don't like it. You get a feel for how the person is playing and all of a sudden he backs out and brings in the big guns to finish it for him. It is not fair to the other players. I would put a stack at the table and blind it out till she arrives (more money in the pool too).

[MeridianFC]

Originally Posted by Double Eagle

If someone is going to be late, just blind them off until they arrive. If they don't show up by some pre-determined time, then pick up the remaining chips.

This is the way to do it.

I also don't understand why the husband wants to play for an hour than leave.

[Coop]

The more I think about it, the more I think it's a bad idea. If we allow this, next people would have someone sit-in for them if they want to leave the table for a few minutes, and it would get to be a problem.


We will just stick with the option to blind her in until she gets there if she wants to do that.

[dad604]

I think that is the best solution, stick to the rule. In a friendly game it might be OK but you open a can worm if you allow it when the next and the next persons wants to do it too.

[clbg571]

in our smaller friendly games, it's no big deal. we've allowed partners to switch off in the middle.


in our larger tournies with friends of friends, we allow corporations only for the buy-in. but, they're not allowed to give each other advice or switch off playing. also, if they're a latecomer, we just blind them in.