Blind Raises and Reraises in tournament play

[K-Lo]

So if you haven't heard yet, here's the current "hot" topic that is receiving a lot of buzz:

Early in a rebuy tournament, a player arrives at the table in the UTG position, and proceeds to blind raise 2xBB (as we know, live "straddles" are not available in tournament play). After one orbit, the same player, when UTG repeats this action, blind-raising 2xBB. This continues generally for several orbits, after which UTG+1 begins to blind re-raise to 4xBB.  Soon thereafter, this trend of blind raising and re-raising catches on to the rest of the table, with most of the players engaging in the blind raise/re-raise practice.  Many (but not all) hands are played out this way.

A complaint was raised by a player at another table.  It is argued that even though there may not have been an explicit agreement amongst the players at the table to engage in this practice, at least an implicit understanding evolved at the table as almost everyone at the table continued to play in this manner.  It was pointed out that this had the effect of allowing a number of big stacks to be developed at this particular table early on in the tournament, which disadvantages others in the tournament, and that the "understanding" was essentially collusion.  Further, that table was permitted to play at an effective blind level higher than all other tables at the tournament, which ought not to be permissible.

On the other hand, some players have argued that there is no basis in the rules to stop this behavior:  blind raises are permissible.  They also point out that blind raising only puts that individual at a disadvantage, so it is not like the practice disadvantages others at the table -- if anything, it is an advantage to those playing against the blind wagers.  Furthermore, in respect of players at other tables, if a player comes out with a big stack at the expense of some other players at that original table being eliminated, then everyone is that much closer to the money so there is no disadvantage.  And in any event, there was no "agreement" amongst the players at the table.

What do you think?  Matt has since spoken out on the subject -- this practice should not be permitted, and I agree.  

My thoughts: even if there was no explicit agreement, the pattern that evolved at the table strongly suggests at least an "implicit" level of collusion, which should be impermissible under the Rules.  I wouldn't have so much of an issue with it if this was happening at the final table, as there is only one table left in the tournament.  However, there certainly wouldn't be an agreement to this practice by all players at all other tables, and those other players must be protected.  I also don't buy the argument that players at the other tables are not disadvantaged -- for example, if I am a player at another table and have an empty seat to my left which is going to be filled by a player from the table at issue, it makes a huge difference what the size of that player's stack is.  And if there's a potential that the stack is very large, particularly because it has been artificially inflated due to the blind raise/re-raise practice at his original table, that is a clear disadvantage.

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
 I agree that it is a practice that should be discouraged but, how do you stop it? I can't wait to see this rule in writing.
 Okay, there will be no successive minimum raises allowed pre-flop Talk about a situation not worth the effort to correct it, here it is. I think if you leave it alone, it will go away.

[chet]

Nick:

Why make it so difficult?  You say that successive minimum raises preflop should be outlawed, but that does not solve the problem raised in this question.  These raises are not only preflop, but also pre-deal, just like a straddle in a cash game.  Granted the blind raise and blind re-raise do not give these players the same advantage as a straddle and re-straddle would have, so I don't see a positional advantage, but there is the matter of protecting the players at the other tables.  Since Matt is so inventive, maybe he would like to run an event in which all players have to put up a blind raise at every seat at every table    That would sure hurry the event along  LOL!!

I think it much easier and clearer to promulgate a rule that forbids blind raises period.

But as I have said before and I think you agree with me in this instance, is this practice so common that we need a TDA rule?  If it is in K-Lo's house, there is nothing that prevents them from developing a house rule to get rid of the problem.

chet

[Nick C]

Chet,

 Well said. I like it when we can mix a little humor into our replies . You're right about the pre-deal. I think that would be real easy to fix. However, I believe that K-Lo mentioned that many of the hands were "played out" that way. So, I assumed that this strange play took place on all betting streets.

 A simple rule for tournaments (as you mentioned) could be easy to introduce, for pre-deal.

 This reminds me of the 10 handed $50 buy-in tournaments that they used to run at the Seneca Irving Casino a few years ago. The players all agreed to push all-in on the first hand and the single winner would have his seat in the $500 buy-in deep stack tourney. Management thought it over (for about 1 minute) and decided to let them play as many satellite tournaments as they wanted as long as everyone agreed. The results were pretty amazing, there were those that wound up spending far more than the $500 and then there were those that won a seat and continued to play in a few more. That's right, they would sell their seat or seats for $400!

 

[K-Lo]

Hi Chet and Nick:

I think we all are generally on the same page, at least in the sense that the practice is probably something that should not be permitted.  Arguably, we don't even need a rule change to cover this - if you believe that there essentially became an understanding at the table to bet and raise this way and that what came to be an implicit 'agreement' effectively constituted collusion.  This could probably be covered by the current rule regarding collusion.

There was some discussion about the blind all-ins being similar, but I have no problem with Nick's situation because there are no other tables to worry about, and therefore no other tables in the tournament to protect.

The issue that remains contentious is whether it is still 'collusion' that should be penalized when the players participating are likely not, at least individually, acting in a profitable way?  If they are sacrificing more chips on a random hand, presumably they are making a losing play, which in turn, confers an advantage to everyone else in the tournament.  Should this fact be taken into account when deciding whether the practice should be allowed?

[Nick C]

K-Lo:

 That is a tough one to answer. In my opinion, if the players don't complain and it doesn't affect the turnout for your tournaments, I guess it would make for some wild and crazy games. Somehow, I don't think that would happen and, at some point, you would have to put a stop to it.

[Tristan]

If/when someone complains, why not try a semi-bluff?  Walk up to the table, warn them that what they are doing is borderline collusion/soft play, and if it continues you will be forced to give them a penalty which could anything up to forfeiture of their chips and buy-in. 

I'm guessing they won't want to risk seeing what you will do...

[Nick C]

Tristan:

 That sounds like it might end the madness. I can't believe that you can get that many reckless players together at the same table.

[Brian Vickers]

Rebuys create action.  People putting large amounts of chips in blind is good for the guys who aren't doing that.  People who complain about too much action have no business in a rebuy tournament.  I've played in a couple real cheap rebuys where I would just go all-in every hand trying to double up (Yeah, I know it's not a good strategy, leave me alone I was having fun  )

The only argument is if one player was telling another player to raise in the dark, that wouldn't be allowed because the players should not be influencing other players action.  Other than that, you would just have to explain to the players that there is no violation if nothing is explicitly stated.

[K-Lo]

Rebuys create action.  People putting large amounts of chips in blind is good for the guys who aren't doing that.

The only argument is if one player was telling another player to raise in the dark, that wouldn't be allowed because the players should not be influencing other players action.  

That is the counter-argument essentially, and I do think that in general, we should not be discouraging activities that generate action.  I certainly do not have a problem with someone just having fun and wanting to give away their chips to me. 

However, is there a difference between one or two "reckless" guys at a table going all-in blind during a rebuy stage, compared to a situation when every player at the table starts doing it on every hand, that results in an increase in the number of rebuys and thus an increase to the sizes of the chips stacks from that table at an exponential rate?  As you noted, blind wagers are good for the guys who aren't doing that, but what if at the table there are no "guys who aren't doing that" because everyone started doing it once they realize what is going on?  

When the entire table works together to try to build up their stacks as fast as possible knowing that they sre fscing a time-limited rebuy period, so that they can potentially bring much larger stacks with them when the table breaks, and where this has the effect of practically guaranteeing that one or two of the 9 players at the table will leave the table as the tournament's chip leader, is that not basically a sophisticated form of multi-party chip dumping?