Removing a player...and his chips?

mrticsay · #1 (**permalink**) 09-18-2006, 11:00 PM

In a tournament format, if you remove a player from a tournament, for whatever reason, and at whatever time, what would you do with their chips? I believe you would remove the chips from play.

I know that the rules state, after a period of time, non-appearing players can be removed along with their chips.

I think this would be true of a penalized player who is kicked-out of the tournament. I would award the player the finish as if he had been knocked out and remove his chips. While the removal will have an impact on the game, it does not put any of the remaining players at more or less of an advantage.

Thoughts?

-Michael

Slagar · #2 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 12:14 AM

Either remove the chips from play, or if it's not difficult to do (as in one or two tables) evenly distribute the chips to the rest of the field and removing any remainder.

punk1o1 · #3 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 12:17 AM

I think in a tourny the right thing to do would be to just remove all his chips.

deverett86 · #4 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 12:28 AM

I think the last thing you would do would be to distribute his chips out to other players. Im not sure of the actual rule but I think you would either remove the chips from the table or leave them there and just keep blinding him in.

Dave

Slagar · #5 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deverett86

I think the last thing you would do would be to distribute his chips out to other players. Im not sure of the actual rule but I think you would either remove the chips from the table or leave them there and just keep blinding him in.

Dave

I said evenly distribute them. Some people like to keep a certain number of chips in play. If it is evenly distributed then nothing changes in chip position.
My personal preference is to remove them but some people like to keep them in so they should be evenly distributed over the entire field.

Quads · #6 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 12:58 AM

IMO there is no reason to keep the chips in play. The player is not there, pick up his chips and move on. A player leaves, ejected, etc., pick up his chips and keep playing.

Leaving them in play does nothing for the end result, other than inflate chip stacks, which is pointless. Distributing them across all other players does nothing for the end result either, takes time to coordinate, and draws away from the action, and so on.

I've had it happen once or twice, and I simply picked up the chips. One time I do remember was someone who said they were showing up (pre-paid) and was blinded off until the 3rd round (as my rules say) and then picked up.

Some others want to have "X" number of chips in play, so do other things, such as leave them in play. But at the end of the day IMO, it makes no sense to keep them in play.

SpaceMonkey · #7 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 01:01 AM

I agree with the OP. Pick 'em up. No way you want to distribute them to the other players.

on tilt · #8 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 01:03 AM

This actually came up in a recent 2 table tournament of ours. A player had to be at his daughter's softball game or something at 4pm. He was a 2 hour drive away and it was 3pm. He got a call from his wife, he answered his cell and after hearing what she said, replied "I'm on my way". He had a fair whack of chips and had to go.

There was a great debate as to what to do. I was in favour of removing his chips, others were in favour of even distribution. As we couldn't settle it he ended up just going all in until he busted out. I wasn't at his table so didn't get to share any of his chips which I felt a bit unfair. But what happened was quite funny, the chip leader at his table called his all in with K,K. The player who had to leave turned up 3,9o and after all was said and done won the pot with a full house. I ended up runner up over all against someone who shared in most of the go home player's chips - I wonder what would have happened if all of his chips were simply removed.

I'd like to know the ruling on this for future games, if there is an official one that is.

Slagar · #9 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 01:31 AM

That is the worst possible choice. That is unfair to the players at the other table. Either remove them (best choice) or evenly distribute them (second best).

SpaceMonkey · #10 (**permalink**) 09-19-2006, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slagar

That is the worst possible choice. That is unfair to the players at the other table. Either remove them (best choice) or evenly distribute them (second best).

I would either remove them or leave them on the table to get blinded off as a second choice.

(this was prime for a FYP post - but that type of post is only all the rage over on 2+2. It (probably thankfully) never transitioned well over here)