I'm a member of a couple of private organizations that have social club aspects to them. Every Friday, one of them has a Texas Hold 'Em tournament. I have never attended one of these tournaments before but am a fairly seasoned Hold 'Em player and very familiar with tournament play.
Buy-in was $20 with a optional re-buy of $20. So here's the issue...
We're playing, and the table is very loose (making a lot of huge bets with marginal hands). So I'm biding my time, trying to be very patient, where I can trap a player. As the night goes on, and as other players overplay their hands, people start going out. A few people go out and I ask the player next to me how many players does it pay out to? And he tells me 1st and 2nd. We started with about 9 players.
I went out and re-bought, as I felt like I was playing good poker but had a bit of bad luck. At this point I am trying to survive as the table is whittling down, but I was not in a good position and the leaders had enormous chip stacks comparatively. At about 9:30, someone says that another player needs to increase pace of play because there is only a half-hour left. We started a bit after 7:00, with blinds raising every half-hour. I was curious about this remark so I said to the same guy next to me, "what is he talking about?" Guy says the game always ends at 10:00pm, and whoever is first and second in chips are the winners.
This revelation has me super-pissed. I'm a small-stack, playing very patiently trying to pick spots all night long. I survived until there was just 4 players left... and towards the end I doubled my stack about 3 times in a row, to the point I was now a threat with my chip count. But 10:00pm hit, and that supposedly means I just forfeited my $40 because at that moment in time, I was not first or second in chip count.
I made it known that I don't have anywhere to be, and I don't feel that it's fair at all that I automatically forfeit my buy-in when I'm still in the game with chips in front of me, and am more than happy to continue playing down to 2 or to a winner, as was my understanding based on EVERY OTHER FUCKING POKER TOURNAMENT I HAVE EVER PLAYED.
My point was that big stacks can simply slow play to run the clock out, and this would be a natural strategy, and not in the interest of fair play. My point also was that without any disclosure, that if the game is to stop at a certain time, then the pot should be divided among the remaining players proportionately to their chip counts.
I still feel that it is theivery to take people's money as winnings in a Hold 'Em tournament that you did not win, when they still have chips in front of them.
I was fine with ending the game, but that in doing so, the chips in front of me represent some share of the money posted, and certainly represented more than my share of the money I posted.
I was told I could get my money back, which I accepted as a compromise, even though I was certain that my play and chips in front of me was worth more than the $40 posted. The players conceded that I should have been told that this is how they play and how they do things prior to the game... which I agreed with... such a disclosure absolutely would've affected my strategy as well as my decision to even participate in or re-buy back into the tournament.
But the big stack actually said, "you can have your money back, but don't come back." He later apologized. Another player questioned my integrity, and the way I played at the end, insinuating that I was somehow "taking advantage." Taking advantage of what? Taking advantage of being railroaded with some arbitrary cut-off time and forfeiting my buy-in when I'm still very much in the game? At this point, I stood up ready to fight that guy, and said, "what do you have to say about it?" Which a couple of guys jumped in and said that isn't going to happen... and everybody calmed down. So at the end, I received no apology. Nor did I offer any, even though I felt I shouldn't have provoked a fight (despite my integrity being questioned).
One of the guys came over to me after to tell me again they should've told me how the game was, and that they won't ever make that mistake again. I said I felt like I was caught in between being a douchebag about it or rolling over and conceding something that I didn't feel was ethically right.
Question... what is your opinions on my complaint? If you were in that position, would you have rolled over and took it, or said something like I did?
Am I justified in taking my money back? I'm sure the chip leaders felt I cheated them out of some of their winnings. Thoughts?
I get the time limit, but it should really be up to the players left in the game. In my home games, if it got late, the final group would just chop the pot, regardless of chip count. But we never kicked anyone out at a certain time... the blinds would eventually force the action.
I told the guy that came up to me and talked with me at the end that the way to solve it is to pay out remaining players in proportion, or even better is to raise blinds more often. 16000 in chips and we're starting off with 50 and 100 blinds, which raise only every half-hour... I mean, more than half way through we're still playing 200-400 blinds. I couldn't believe the way guys were betting, too. Betting enormous pots with two-pair, and flush and straight draws on the board. Sometimes making huge bets with multiple players, and all they had was small pair. I thought, "what kind of game did I go into?"
The rules for this game sound dumb to me but maybe not to them becuase they got stuff to do on Saturdays. Always know the rules of any game you play. Be thankful you learned this lesson on the cheap.
There isn't anything unfair, except that someone should have told you what the house rules were. Or you should have asked.
I have heard before of games that were played to a time limit, like that one was.
Unfortunate you didn't know the rules going in, but as much as I'd like to say it's in the host, and it is, it's also in you for entering a tourney without knowing the parameters. Sorry for your misfortune.
I think it's the responsibility of the person hosting the tournament to inform anyone new to the game of any arbitrary rules that are their custom. That being said, allstarjam didn't even ask how many players finished in the money before the game began so that shows a certain degree of nonchalance/negligence on his part. If he had asked the group before the start of the game how the money would be distributed, he might've be told about the cut-off time as well.
I think it's the responsibility of the person hosting the tournament to inform anyone new to the game of any arbitrary rules that are their custom. That being said, allstarjam didn't even ask how many players finished in the money before the game began so that shows a certain degree of nonchalance/negligence on his part. If he had asked the group before the start of the game how the money would be distributed, he might've be told about the cut-off time as well.
And on topic: that's just a shitty situation. Don't let it color the idea of going back. Just let it be a teachable moment.
But by being agreeable about it, you now know you can go back on future fridays and likely win back your $40 and plenty more from a table of less experienced players
If it were me -- now that I know the rules of the game, it doesn't sound like a game I want to play in again, but I also wouldn't want to damage my relationship with the guys. I'd have probably bit my tongue for the $20 (or $40 since you re-bought) and let myself cool off at home, especially before escalating anything like a physical altercation (though it doesn't sound like you came all that close to that).
If they didn't do that or say there was a time limit, I'd be peeved. I'd have try to handle it with humor with the home of getting my money back. Sounds like you did.
I got my lunch eaten in a non hold-em game because of a time limit and screwy rebuy rules. Came to learn afterwards that they invite one good player as a guest each month and fuck them with the screwy re-buy. I said with a smile after we were done "when you described the re-buy rule I looked around the table and then it hit me - the sucker was me - very crafty!". They laughed knowingly. We all knew I was there to contribute $100 and if I came back some other guy would be.
It's a game.
As a side if blinds don't raise high enough or fast enough to be in line with the chip volume in an X hour time limit, there's no point in limiting the time at all.
You'd think someone may have mentioned the 10pm hard stop and top 2 payout when you bought back in. that had to be after 8 or so right? if you were playing well but had back luck what time was it when you bought back in?
no one thought to say "you know the game ends in an hour or an hour and a half?"
As a side if blinds don't raise high enough or fast enough to be in line with the chip volume in an X hour time limit, there's no point in limiting the time at all.
I'm a decent person, I stand up for what I think is right. I don't think not paying out to remaining players at an undisclosed time limit is ethical. Appreciate your viewpoint. As a decent person, I would let players know the rules going in if they were so radically different than typical tournament play. That's not a tourney I will play in with rules like that again. As previous poster stated, it encourages poor play and ceases to become poker.
Ben in Tampa : 1:36 am : link : reply
But that seems like a lot of drama for $40
Also it's 40 bucks dude, now you are known as that guy
I hate the many different rules bars have for playing pool - "money breaks"...no "winner breaks"..."no dirty pool" or "anything goes"..."must hit the 8 ball or lose"..."ball cannot leave the table or automatic loss - including jump shot", etc.
I tell every owner of a bar to "POST THE RULES ON THE WALL". Oh well, got that off my chest.
On you for not knowing albeit terrible rules.
It should just be a cash game.
No, the dude questioned my integrity like I was being sneaky or something. That had nothing to do with the money. I wouldn't fight over money, but question my integrity... that's where I have a problem.
On you for not knowing albeit terrible rules.
It should just be a cash game.
I was at the bar for 3 hours, and yes, I did have drinks with the game, and no, I only spent about half that. Beauty of a private club... cheap drinks.
If they want to cut the game at a specific time, and it's a tournament, the fair solution is an equity chop between the remaining players. That's really the only solution in my opinion.
This group should just play cash games if they're trying to shut it down at a specific time.