Players who lose winning by timing rules?

[ixenal]

For instance, say I'm playing Texas Hold Em in a tournament and I lose the game outright by losing my chips on the first hand. The other players stay in but the game times out, eventually, and I have the most time left. Do I win the game per tournament timing rules or lose because I've lost?

[Shivaware]

For instance, say I'm playing Texas Hold Em in a tournament and I lose the game outright by losing my chips on the first hand. The other players stay in but the game times out, eventually, and I have the most time left. Do I win the game per tournament timing rules or lose because I've lost?

If no one is kicked out, you will win for having the most time left.

[ixenal]

For instance, say I'm playing Texas Hold Em in a tournament and I lose the game outright by losing my chips on the first hand. The other players stay in but the game times out, eventually, and I have the most time left. Do I win the game per tournament timing rules or lose because I've lost?

If no one is kicked out, you will win for having the most time left.

This really changes how hold'em should be played in tournaments. As soon as one thinks that the game will time out, they should just go all in, except that might speed the game up to the point where it won't time out. Kind of bizarre twist, actually.

It would really fix things if losing added - year to ones time left or if losing could be enforced before timing. I suppose that isn't an option under bga development rules.

[Shivaware]

For instance, say I'm playing Texas Hold Em in a tournament and I lose the game outright by losing my chips on the first hand. The other players stay in but the game times out, eventually, and I have the most time left. Do I win the game per tournament timing rules or lose because I've lost?

If no one is kicked out, you will win for having the most time left.

This really changes how hold'em should be played in tournaments. As soon as one thinks that the game will time out, they should just go all in, except that might speed the game up to the point where it won't time out. Kind of bizarre twist, actually.

It would really fix things if losing added - year to ones time left or if losing could be enforced before timing. I suppose that isn't an option under bga development rules.

I agree it is a weird situation.

I've read that the game Heat has recently been updated so that the results are not nullified if someone is kicked out and the game can continue normally. I don't really know how this poker game works, but it might make sense for it to get a similar update. Of course, you would have to make sure the tournament was configured to allow players to be skipped when they run out of time.

[ixenal]

For example: this table is due to time out in 8 days and one player (at time of writing) has lost their chips. At current speed of play, it is unlikely, but not impossible to finish.

https://boardgamearena.com/6/texasholde ... =790598950

[FSKFSK]

The way in-person Poker tournaments work is that, if a player is absent (or disqualified), they post blinds like they normally would but are forced to fold at every opportunity. They aren't even dealt a hand. That logic would work for Poker.

There are some games where an absent player completely ruins things, such as a card drafting game. There are lots of games where an absent player can have their turn skipped and it's still a fair outcome for everyone else.

Poker - absent player gets blinded off

Racing game - absent player has their pieces removed

King of Tokyo - absent player is KOed and has their HP set to zero.

Conversely, a game like 7 Wonders is impossible to finish fairly with a missing player. You would need a competent AI to take actions for the missing player to get a fair outcome for everyone else.

However, it would take a deliberate effort to code this for every game. They implemented it for the HEAT game because it's popular and a fair solution.

[ixenal]

The way in-person Poker tournaments work is that, if a player is absent (or disqualified), they post blinds like they normally would but are forced to fold at every opportunity. They aren't even dealt a hand. That logic would work for Poker.

There are some games where an absent player completely ruins things, such as a card drafting game. There are lots of games where an absent player can have their turn skipped and it's still a fair outcome for everyone else.

Poker - absent player gets blinded off

Racing game - absent player has their pieces removed

King of Tokyo - absent player is KOed and has their HP set to zero.

Conversely, a game like 7 Wonders is impossible to finish fairly with a missing player. You would need a competent AI to take actions for the missing player to get a fair outcome for everyone else.

However, it would take a deliberate effort to code this for every game. They implemented it for the HEAT game because it's popular and a fair solution.

I'm not talking about "absent players" at all.

The way poker usually works is that if you lose all of your chips, you've lost. But in BGA you have a set amount of time to play (in tournaments) and if you lose immediately all of that time is left. Then if the game times out, your first player to lose outcome will be a winning play because time left is the win/lose criteria for expired games.

And games where you can lose outright before the game is 10% done are reasonably rare on BGA (King of Tokyo can go this way). So Hold em is a major outlier here.

[FSKFSK]

If you run out of time, you get "kicked" by the other players. The kicked player is now "absent". In HEAT, they have a special rule that allows the remaining players to finish the game. The kicked player's pieces are removed, and the remaining players finish the game. In most other games, if a player is kicked, the game is scored as a tie between the remaining players. This can be unfair, especially if one player had a big lead and was clearly winning. It also leads to an unfair outcome in a multiplayer elimination tournament. If more than 1 player is scheduled to be eliminated, the tournament uses a silly tiebreaker, account age. It also is unfair in a swiss tournament. In a 5 player game, you might have scored 8 points for winning but you only get 5 if the game is a 4-way tie, which means you fall behind players who won their game.

The problem in tournaments is that, if it's a multiplayer game, there's no fair way to rank the remaining players. In HEAT, the players agreed that removing the pieces of the kicked is a fair outcome. In Poker, there is a generally accepted fair solution used in real tournaments: the absent/kicked player is "blinded off". Such a rule would have to be coded for each game.

[tbhp]

When someone is out of time and the game is nearing the end, the common etiquette is to look at the current state of the game and, if there are clear winners or losers, collectively take the decision that aligns with that.

If there is no clear winner or loser, then in this case everyone would understandably vote the way that benefits them.

[ixenal]

If you run out of time, you get "kicked" by the other players. The kicked player is now "absent". In HEAT, they have a special rule that allows the remaining players to finish the game. The kicked player's pieces are removed, and the remaining players finish the game. In most other games, if a player is kicked, the game is scored as a tie between the remaining players. This can be unfair, especially if one player had a big lead and was clearly winning. It also leads to an unfair outcome in a multiplayer elimination tournament. If more than 1 player is scheduled to be eliminated, the tournament uses a silly tiebreaker, account age. It also is unfair in a swiss tournament. In a 5 player game, you might have scored 8 points for winning but you only get 5 if the game is a 4-way tie, which means you fall behind players who won their game.

The problem in tournaments is that, if it's a multiplayer game, there's no fair way to rank the remaining players. In HEAT, the players agreed that removing the pieces of the kicked is a fair outcome. In Poker, there is a generally accepted fair solution used in real tournaments: the absent/kicked player is "blinded off". Such a rule would have to be coded for each game.

My question has NOTHING TO DO with a player running out of time. It has to do with all players collectively running out of time in a game without anyone leaving play.