This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to browse the website, you accept such cookies. For more details and to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy. Close

Rewarding Players who Sit Out

    • Ramble
      Ramble
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.11.2008 Posts: 1,460
      I'm steaming right now... therapeutic rant follows...

      There are 4 players left in a 9 player SnG.
      Player 1: 5000
      Hero: 3000
      Player 3: 4500
      Player 4: 1000

      The thing is that Player 4 had checked the "Sit Out" box just a couple of hands into the tourney, and it seemed to me that Player 1 & 3 didn't notice because they kept checking to him whenever it was his BB all the way to the showdown, where Player 4 won more than his fair share, keeping him around much longer than he should have been.

      By this point we're at about the 70th hand and on the money bubble, and I'm thinking to myself, "There's no way I'm going to let somebody who's not even here, finish ITM". So I point out to the other 2 players that all they have to do is make a min. raise whenever it's this guys BB and - voila - easy money.

      Instead they just keep checking it to him, for the next 30-40 hands. If I was involved in the hand though, it was pretty rare that they'd let me have any chance at it. I felt like it killed my game because I didn't want to risk losing and finishing 4th to a guy who never played a single hand.

      The worst part is I'm pretty sure that Player 3 was protecting Player 4 to purposefully keep him in the game. On one hand when Player 4 was BB (putting him all in) , Player 1 folded, I raised (4xBB) with A9, then Player 3 Re-Raises All-in... after reasoning it out, I had to fold. I mean why would he risk the majority of his stack just to steal my 4xBB's instead of calling and trying to eliminate Player 4, unless he had a decent hand and didn't want me catching against him?

      I fold and Player 3 shows 9-2 offsuit, Player 4 ends up winning the hand with something like 4-6 offsuit. WHY WOULD HE DO THIS???

      Eventually because they refused to raise him and attacked me whenever I did, I ended up getting short-stacked. Finally I push with A9 (7xBB) and Player 3 calls with J8off and catches a Jack...so I ended up finishing in 4th anyways...

      Why would other players want to reward a player who just sits out the whole tourney? It drives me nuts!

      Any thoughts???
  • 12 replies
    • p0kerQT
      p0kerQT
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.03.2008 Posts: 1,300
      Yeh I know this sucks, happened to me before too. I think they do it coz the sat out player is an easy win heads up. Also coz they know they can bully you as you don't want to lose to a sitting out player.
    • Alverine
      Alverine
      Silver
      Joined: 31.01.2009 Posts: 1,938
      I think A9 is good enough to go all in when there was 2 players
    • andyb43
      andyb43
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.07.2008 Posts: 903
      Play on Stars, you get automatically folded there when sitting out even if your blind is autoposted. (well this is true for MTT so I assume sng is the same)
    • viewer88
      viewer88
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.04.2008 Posts: 5,545
      It's stupid to point that out to the other players, because YOU want to steal this guy's BB ^^
    • SoyCD
      SoyCD
      Bronze
      Joined: 20.02.2008 Posts: 6,356
      Hey Ramble,

      Having a player such as this guy in the tournament is actually nice for the big-stacks because they know you will play a lot tighter since he is short and sitting out. As such they can take your chips - knowing very well that his chips are dead money anyway.

      They don't really care about whether you get 3rd or he gets 3rd - only that they get first. As such they dwindled down your stack while preserving his existence - since you were the real danger to them, not him.

      Especially in bubble situations it can be very useful to have extreme short-stacks or afk players around - since it tightens up the entire table by no end - since no one wants to bust before them.

      Best regards
      SoyCD
    • rhinoneil
      rhinoneil
      Bronze
      Joined: 16.04.2008 Posts: 1,159
      All of this is true but I think that it is unwise to overlook the possibility of some sort of collusion.
      I have seen it happen too often to ignore it.
    • AquamanBT
      AquamanBT
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.07.2008 Posts: 338
      • 16.02.2009, 15:01
      • This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by AquamanBT: 16.02.2009 15:07.
      Is your comment to the others considered collusion? Explicitly getting in agreement with other players on how to eliminate someone else?

      Anyway, sometimes I don't want to eliminate the short stack when close to the bubble, since a player in your position will keep folding just to make the money. If I'm the chip leader I will keep folding to the short stack and go after the medium stack, especially if the short stack is sitting out.

      *edit* Sorry, didn't read SoyCD's post, that is telling you exactly this, although better explained.
    • SoyCD
      SoyCD
      Bronze
      Joined: 20.02.2008 Posts: 6,356
      Originally posted by rhinoneil
      All of this is true but I think that it is unwise to overlook the possibility of some sort of collusion.
      I have seen it happen too often to ignore it.
      Yes, since this was probably a low limit SNG it is strange that two players would actually think so advanced as to both actually abuse this situation - so there is definitely the chance there was something wrong here.

      You can always report the SNG in question and perhaps bring the colluders to justice.

      Best regards
      SoyCD
    • Ramble
      Ramble
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.11.2008 Posts: 1,460
      I'm not sure there was collusion... Player 1 wasn't actively trying to protect Player 4 as Player 3 was. I think Player 1 may have realized that I was trying to stick it out until Player 4 was eliminated before committing too strongly to any hand and he just played accordingly.

      I think you guys probably nailed it correctly that I was the bigger threat once it was down to 3 players, so best for them to keep Player 4 around keep me in-line and dwindle my stack.

      It's just when Player 3 showed me he risked 3/4 of his stack with with 9-2 just to keep Player 4 around... that drove me over the edge.

      @viewer88: I agree. I thought that they would think like me and steal his chips to eliminate AND not reward him... but I have to remember that most people don't care about that sort of stuff... just what's best for them in the situation - and they did exactly that. Good play on their part.

      Thanks for the feedback, I'll adjust my play in the future and be more aggressive and not worry so much about Player 4... (If I'm the big stack though, I'm just not sure I could reward him by letting him stick around - even if it is the wrong play for me... I just respect the game too much).
    • TheBrood
      TheBrood
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.07.2008 Posts: 4,383
      • 17.02.2009, 01:04
      • This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by TheBrood: 17.02.2009 01:04.
      Seems like someone playing 2 accounts in same SnG to me.
    • Ramble
      Ramble
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.11.2008 Posts: 1,460
      TheBrood

      Seems like someone playing 2 accounts in same SnG to me.


      That could be possible... I'll keep an eye out and see if I see these 2 players at the same table over the next few days...
    • TheBrood
      TheBrood
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.07.2008 Posts: 4,383
      • 17.02.2009, 16:09
      • This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by TheBrood: 17.02.2009 16:10.
      Originally posted by Ramble
      TheBrood

      Seems like someone playing 2 accounts in same SnG to me.


      That could be possible... I'll keep an eye out and see if I see these 2 players at the same table over the next few days...
      I would think that their software would do that on its own, but on the other hand they prob dont watch low limits that much. (Im guessing this is low limit)