Ruling????
Hey All, it's been a while since I've posted in here. Mostly due to just not playing a great deal of poker. I live in Vancouver, and if you've lived here or visited, you know your money doesn't go quite as far.
So I was playing a small buy in tourney here last night, 30+5, 1500 chips to start, ultra fast escalating blinds. We are at the final table and just about to go to a break. We will be returning from the break at 1000 - 2000. A young woman at the table, having lost a huge pot on the last hand is left with only 900 chips. 1 purple 500 chip, and 4 grey 100 chips. The floor announces that they are going to colour up the grey 100's, and race off the remainder. This is where it got weird to me.
They forced her to race off her 4 grey's, and she did not manage to chip up. There had only been 3 other grey chips among 2 other players. So there were only 2 500 chips to be won. She essentially lost half her stack in a flash. I argued that there was no reason to race off those 100's since she could still bet with them. They started that race's are just part of the game, to which I countered that when they race off the 25's no one stands to lose half their stack.
In other news, I went from chip leader with 4 left to 4th place finisher when I lost three races with the best hand in a 4 hand span.
Let me know about this ruling, it just seemed insane to me that someone would be forced to lose half their chips when colouring them up is unneccessary.
Thanks
So I was playing a small buy in tourney here last night, 30+5, 1500 chips to start, ultra fast escalating blinds. We are at the final table and just about to go to a break. We will be returning from the break at 1000 - 2000. A young woman at the table, having lost a huge pot on the last hand is left with only 900 chips. 1 purple 500 chip, and 4 grey 100 chips. The floor announces that they are going to colour up the grey 100's, and race off the remainder. This is where it got weird to me.
They forced her to race off her 4 grey's, and she did not manage to chip up. There had only been 3 other grey chips among 2 other players. So there were only 2 500 chips to be won. She essentially lost half her stack in a flash. I argued that there was no reason to race off those 100's since she could still bet with them. They started that race's are just part of the game, to which I countered that when they race off the 25's no one stands to lose half their stack.
In other news, I went from chip leader with 4 left to 4th place finisher when I lost three races with the best hand in a 4 hand span.
Let me know about this ruling, it just seemed insane to me that someone would be forced to lose half their chips when colouring them up is unneccessary.
Thanks
Comments
It would have been different if she only had those 4 100s. I.e. you can't go broke by losing a chip race, but since she had a 500 chip that doesn't apply.
As far as the chip race being unnecessary, if it's in the blind schedule, then you can't argue it, you can only complain about the crappiness (sp?) of it.
/g2
What was the blind level before? It seems to me they should have raced off the 100's before now. If the previous level was 800-1600 then this would make sense and would be an appropriate time to race off. Although at a practical level...900 isn't much more than 500 at a 1000-2000 blind level.
So long as the race was part of the tourney schedule (ie it wasn't decided on the fly), then there is really no argument and face it, she didn't even have a small blind left. Such is poker.
She got really really unlucky..
Fully realizing that the differnence between 500 chips and 900 chips at that level is pretty irrelevent.
It just seemed a drag that she had to lose half her stack in that situation when she could still have put those chips in play as far as I was concerned.
Thanks for the feedback.