Re: [ba-poker] tournament alternates

[Nick Christenson <npc(deleted the rest)>]

> I've started seeing this practice used more often in tournament poker, as
> folks bust out in the the preliminary rounds they are replaced by folks on
> an alternates list.  In the WSOP $10k event, apparently the 200 alternates
> to the 2400 in the main field have their chips "blinded" off at 50 chips
> every 40 minutes, a relatively insignificant amount against the starting
> level of blinds.
> 
> Is it generally an advantage (reduced exposure to being snapped) or
> disadvantage (missing playable hands) to being an alternate?

I think this is complex.  In theory, I have no complaint against the 
alternate concept.  In execution, it depends.

Let's look at two limiting cases:
        Case 1: Anyone can come in at any time with all the starting chips.
Clearly, this is unfair, otherwise we'd have a rash of folks entering with
their starting chips when the tournament went heads-up.  
        Case 2: Anyone can come in at any time, but their starting stacks
must be reduced by the total amount of the blinds and antes they would have
lost had they played no hands.  For stud events, one might also argue for
a loss of their share of expected bring-in bets.  
This is at least somewhat unfair for the player, as it assumes they would 
have folded everything under all circumstances and never won any hands, much 
less their fair share.

The way the WSOP is doing it seems like an attempt at a Solomon-like split
of these two cases, leaning toward the "case 2" side.  My feeling is that 
a fair solution *has* to lean toward the "case 2" side, because a player 
always has the option of saying, "You're taking too much from me, I don't
want to buy in late."  Players in the tournament generally don't have the
option of saying, "He's getting too good a deal, I won't let him join my
table."

If it were up to me, I'd go with a pretty straight "case 2" situation:  A
player who wants to join late has to give up all their missed blinds and/or
antes (but not bring-ins).  If you don't like it, and don't want to play 
under those conditions, then everyone is no worse off than we would be if
a late entry wasn't allowed.  These decisions *must* err on the side of 
favoring players who arrived and bought in on time.  I'd argue they should 
err substantially on the side of the "regular" players.  

Honestly, I don't think the WSOP method favors the "regular" players 
enough to make me comfortable.  If I were asked, "Do you want to let
another player join your table under these conditions (used at the WSOP
this year) or not?" I would vote for no.  Unfortunately, the players 
don't get a vote.

During the HORSE event at the WSOP this year, an extra player was added to 
my table late (not a replacement, we went to 9-handed).  He was forced to 
reduce his stack a bit as a penalty.  A number of players (including 
myself) felt that his initial starting chips were still too high.  Some 
more chips were taken.  I got the feeling that this was all very arbitrary 
and capricious, and while I have nothing against the player in question
(who was quite gracious about the whole situation), I think that this was 
handled poorly by the WSOP staff.  Certainly, I expect just about everyone
to agree that this shouldn't be done unless you have a clear idea about
what should be done that you can and have articulated to everyone involved.

In my mind, a tougher question is what to do with those "lost" chips?
Two possibilities:
        1) They're just "lost".  The problem with this is that it will
        throw off chip counts somewhat.
        2) They're slowly introduced into the pot at that table as dead
        money.  This keeps the chip counts the same, but affects play.

Again, in my HORSE event, the chips were trickled in as dead money to 
each pot.  It's not at all clear to me that this is the right solution.
IMHO, this ambiguity is another reason not to like the whole idea of 
adding players late, but I think possibility 1 appeals to me more than 2, 
and then it becomes the responsibility of the tournament officials to 
provide an accurate chip count (and accounting on request) to the 
tournament field.  Once this is done, it has minimal impact on actual play.

In other tournaments, especially those whose first round has large stacks
relative to the blinds, many players register, make sure they have their
seat, and then leave for a round.  Hellmuth has been known to do this,
and I've seen other folks do it.  In some sense, it's a little slimy, as
it puts the player to the absent player's immediate right in a bind, but
if it's legal, then it's legal.  

Do I think you have an advantage doing this?  If you stack disappears at
a rate more slowly than the loss of blinds, then you could have an advantage.
If your stack disappears at a rate equal to the loss due to blinds, then 
trivially, the answer is no, as you could just play no hands except aces
and either end up with a significant pre-flop advantage on at least one 
hand or you've lost the same amount of money as if you weren't there.  
This assumes that the equity from "extra sleep" or a Bobby Fisher-like
psychological play has no value, but if this value isn't small then some 
other large mistake has almost certainly been made.

> Rodney
> 
> PS Also, if given a choice, would you start on Day 1 or Day 2?

For ego reasons, Day 2, that way I can't be in the first 25% of the field
to bust out.  For serious poker reasons, Day 1, that way I'm not playing 6 
days straight.

-- 
Nick Christenson
npc(deleted the rest)