PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Absent player wins pot....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Absent player wins pot....

    Player "x" was absent throughout a PLO satellite.
    Down to 4 players, "x" was all-in on their BB, folded to me in the SB and I raised expecting to "get it over with" and win the blinds.
    But no, "x"'s hand played and won.

    This isn't how it used to be here.

    When did it change? Was there an announcement I missed?

    After a certain degree of absence, why should an absent player have any rights to win a hand?
    Thoughts?

    (p.s. no sour grapes here - it made no difference to the final result)

    cheers

    Glenn

  • #2
    A consequence, intentional or otherwise, of the all-in showdown dealing I presume. At least that is my suspicion since I first encountered it shortly after.

    Comment


    • #3
      An all-in player has always seen the showdown, absent or not.

      Comment


      • #4
        Not according to Gavin. In an e-mail discussion he informed me that when a player is not present for the play of a hand they will be folded at the end no matter what they hold. Only if they were actually seated at some time during the hand would they be allowed to compete.

        Comment


        • #5
          Pretty sure Noodles is right here...it's a bug for sure, but not new.

          Comment


          • #6
            I know that numerous times before the change to the all-in showdown, when I was up against an absent player blinded all-in their hand was ALWAYS folded. Twice since I have seen the absent player's hand shown and once they were awarded a pot.

            Comment


            • #7
              In any tournament I've ever played in any player who has chips in front of them will have to post the blinds whether they are at the table or not.

              If one of those blinds puts that player all in, then that player is entitled to have their hand turned over at the showdown.

              If that player has a winner then the proper amount of chips will be pushed to him/her.

              I don't see why it should be any different here at PSO.

              At least, that's the way I see it.

              sarge

              Comment


              • #8
                I had Gavin change it. The reason was this:

                Now if you are all in and you time out your hand will be shown down. I think that it is unfair that someone can have chips, time out, get blinded automatically and because they are currently timed out (probably through no fault of their own) they now cannot win the pot.

                Before making this decision I tried hard to think of an advantage that someone could gain by being able to win a showdown even if they were absent. I could not find one.

                Mark

                Comment


                • #9
                  if u are in a live tourney and are not in the seat, you cannot win the hand even if you blinds are in

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TrumpinJoe
                    Not according to Gavin. In an e-mail discussion he informed me that when a player is not present for the play of a hand they will be folded at the end no matter what they hold. Only if they were actually seated at some time during the hand would they be allowed to compete.
                    oooh, never realised that. I must have got it mixed up with other sites. Come to think of it, I have never seen an absent all-in hand at PSO win. When the hand was folded at the end without showing, I just assumed they had lost. Happy to see that this has changed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Noodles
                      I have never seen an absent all-in hand at PSO win. When the hand was folded at the end without showing, I just assumed they had lost. Happy to see that this has changed.
                      What happens in a b+m game where a player is totally absent from the beginning?

                      At PSO it's not uncommon for a player to maybe forget they entered a slow-filling sat. They are slowly blinded down. In a pot-limit game it might get to 3-handed (plus the absentee) and stealing the absentee's blinds is a big issue. For them to win their all-in hand (not difficult in O8 :wink: ) just protracts the irritation.

                      In fact, with 3 'live' players + an absentee, an astute short-stacked button could damage a short-stacked SB by folding, creating the chance that the all-in absentee BB will win the SB's blind. And know that the very same situation could crop up in a few hands time.

                      It's all a bit silly now.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rosita
                        In fact, with 3 'live' players + an absentee, an astute short-stacked button could damage a short-stacked SB by folding, creating the chance that the all-in absentee BB will win the SB's blind. And know that the very same situation could crop up in a few hands time.
                        How is this any different than if the absent player were actually at the table? Couldn't you use that same strategy? What does it matter that the player is absent?

                        There is no advantage or disadvantage in the new scenario on a player's all-in hand. The old method gave advantage to the players who realized that the all-in was absent and therefore knew that they couldn't lose heads up against them.

                        Ricky Hard

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ricky Hard
                          How is this any different than if the absent player were actually at the table? Couldn't you use that same strategy? What does it matter that the player is absent?
                          Ricky Hard
                          You're probably right, Ricky.
                          But it's very different from how it was previously, with precious little notice of the change as far as I can see.
                          And now the software is giving 'rights' to a player who has never been at the table, and the hassle of dealing with a totally missing player is accentuated. If someone doesn't show up in the entire duration of an event, it's hard for me to see why they should be allowed to win a pot.
                          But I'm probably miffed at the hassle it caused at the time :wink:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rosita
                            But it's very different from how it was previously, with precious little notice of the change as far as I can see.
                            And now the software is giving 'rights' to a player who has never been at the table, and the hassle of dealing with a totally missing player is accentuated. If someone doesn't show up in the entire duration of an event, it's hard for me to see why they should be allowed to win a pot.
                            Replace "precious little" with "absolutely no" and you are closer to what happened.

                            Under the "old" rules if you called the absent BB and checked it down you were awarded the pot. Although I haven't seen it, now what I expect will happen is that unless you raise them out you have to show down the best hand to take an absent players chips.

                            Although the change is not major, I am surprised that it was made with out at least some type of announcement.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mark
                              I had Gavin change it. The reason was this:

                              Now if you are all in and you time out your hand will be shown down. I think that it is unfair that someone can have chips, time out, get blinded automatically and because they are currently timed out (probably through no fault of their own) they now cannot win the pot.

                              Before making this decision I tried hard to think of an advantage that someone could gain by being able to win a showdown even if they were absent. I could not find one.

                              Mark

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X