Players who lose winning by timing rules?

[Shivaware]

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.

Everyone understands that you were talking about the case where the game times out without anyone being expelled. We all understand that the person with the most remaining time is counted as the winner even if they have actually "lost" the game. We're now discussing possible ways to improve the situation.

It would seem that the most plausible way to improve it would be to allow the game to continue after skipping one of the out-of-time players. Note that if the game runs out of time, that necessarily means at least one player is out of time, and could be skipped if the tournament allows it. Unfortunately, there will be cases where you wait too long to kick out the slowest player, so the game still ends prematurely, but everyone else still has time left on their clocks.

[nik592]

Note that if the game runs out of time, that necessarily means at least one player is out of time, and could be skipped if the tournament allows it.

Not if there is simultaneous play - all clocks tick in that case. I'm not sure what happens in Texas Hold Em, but I was in a Race for the Galaxy tournament once where draft was enabled (drafting your entire deck, so about 30-40 rounds of drafting). Basically all players at the table were out of time before the draft was done, and well ahead of the maximum table time. And except where someone decided to kick, the games I was involved in finished normally, without the table going to maximum time.

[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.

Everyone understands that you were talking about the case where the game times out without anyone being expelled. We all understand that the person with the most remaining time is counted as the winner even if they have actually "lost" the game. We're now discussing possible ways to improve the situation.

It would seem that the most plausible way to improve it would be to allow the game to continue after skipping one of the out-of-time players. Note that if the game runs out of time, that necessarily means at least one player is out of time, and could be skipped if the tournament allows it. Unfortunately, there will be cases where you wait too long to kick out the slowest player, so the game still ends prematurely, but everyone else still has time left on their clocks.

Forcing an immediate loss on anyone out of time would fix the issue and seems like the best solution. (Of course they would have to fold first in an active hand.) Essentially, this would mean the game could not time out, only players could.

In answer to the previous question, above, Texas hold em has no simultaneous clocks running, I'm 80% sure.

[FSKFSK]

As someone else pointed out, it is impossible for people to collectively run out of time without any single player running out of time.

In games where people take simultaneous turns, there's no provision to "add back" the extra time to people's clocks.

A lot of people are reluctant to kick players for running out of time, because that leads to the unfair outcome of everyone else being tied. Some people game the system, by only kicking the slow player if they are losing.

[nik592]

As someone else pointed out, it is impossible for people to collectively run out of time without any single player running out of time.

In games where people take simultaneous turns, there's no provision to "add back" the extra time to people's clocks.

Sorry, yes, you are right. People often argue that if one person is out of time, you may as well kick them, because the game will almost definitely eventually time out anyway, which isn't the case where games have simultaneously play. That wasn't the case with the post I quoted - I misinterpreted it - and neither does it seem to be the case with Texas Hold Em either, so fair enough.