Rumblings and Grumblings in Donkeytown

7th night of poker this season in Donkeytown -- a $35 buy-in event with 9 players:

SEAT 1: Dave T. (1st -- $165)
SEAT 2: Ian B.
SEAT 3: Mike C.
SEAT 4: Bryan O.
SEAT 5: Mike M.
SEAT 6: Tom H.
SEAT 7: Bob T. (3rd -- $50)
SEAT 8: Ken M. (2nd -- $100)
SEAT 9: Todd B.

Congrats to Dave T. for his first Donkeytown win! It was a very fun night as usual for the most part.

Unexpectedly, however, the game lasted over 5 hours, and for nearly an hour the game dragged on with blinds at 3000/6000 and only 135,000 total chips on the table (less than 25 big blinds). Conventional wisdom says the blinds need to keep going up in order for the game to end somwhere near a prescribed time. However, I'm starting to believe that games may end just as soon, if not sooner, if the blinds are capped at a much lower level. And it would be a lot more fun to play, instead of the average stack being less than the value of 6 big blinds. Especially for full-length (4+ hour) tournaments, there will be some changes made.

The most upsetting part of the night for me (even moreso than being completely card dead and finishing 7th), was a ruling that had to be made. We are all friends so it's tough to make a judgment against a player who disagrees with the ruling. The situation was that Player A opened the pot with a raise (may have been all-in, but I don't remember and it's not relevant to the ruling). The action came around to Player B, who appeared to be trying to gain some information by saying, "I think I have the best hand," and took some time deliberating. Then he said, "I'm going all-in....or I'm folding." And the "...." represents what was about a 2 second pause in the middle of the sentence. As soon as Player B spoke the first part of the sentence, the original raiser did react, as did everyone else including me (I was out of the hand though).

There was brief discussion about whether his declaration was binding. By standard poker rules, it definitely would've constituted an all-in. Everyone at the table except Player B thought that he was declaring all-in. If I ran my tournaments like casinos do, there would be no argument. But I haven't run my tournaments that way; I've allowed some minor things to go on (minimal speculation, retrieving folded cards, innocent string raises) in the interest of having fun and not subjecting everyone to Nazi poker. When in doubt, I do what's fairest and what protects the integrity and fun of the game the most.

So for a few seconds I considered letting Player B retract the all-in. However, this would have been more unfair to Player A and the other players still alive in the tournament than it was unfair for Player B that I ultimately ruled that the all-in must stand. Even though it only took a few seconds to make the final ruling, I wish I'd done it immediately to avoid the appearance that I COULD have ruled the other way.

As a contrasting example, I will let a newer player make a string raise if the following are true: 1) if he's not trying to gauge a reaction in the middle of his string raise (which is why string raises are against the rules); 2) if he steadily and continuously keeps going back for more chips without pausing; and 3) if the player's intentions are obvious to everyone else in the pot, and that he isn't trying to gain an advantage or stretch the rules.

To apply those criteria to the ruling last night, I'd say it failed all three. I don't know if Player B was intentionally trying to gauge a reaction or stretch the rules, I really don't. I hope he wasn't. He was obviously upset that he got knocked out of the tournament on that hand, but I hope he's okay with the decision and understands why it had to be made. And I hope he's okay with me.

I really don't want to have to start applying strict rules to my tournaments. Hopefully everyone can understand that I just want it to be a fun atmosphere. If it takes the enforcement of strict rules to make that happen, hopefully my players will give me feedback in this area.

Oh, and congrats to Bryan for eating 6 saltine crackers in one minute without anything to wash it down! This was another controversial ruling though. He completed the task within 60.5 seconds; there's "definitive video evidence" of that. Whether it was really under 60.0 seconds is debatable. But we all lost some money to Bryan on that one. Unfortunately, Player B lost the most money on that ruling too. Sorry, bud. Rough night for us both.