On the subject of "sitting out" during tournament play.

I thought this might be a good place to find out what others think about "sitting out" during tournaments. Now, I'm not talking about sitting out for 3 minutes to go do whatever, I'm talking about sitting out for long periods of time, or sitting out in a Sit n Go, when it's almost down to the final table, or at the final table for a long time.

I've been playing mostly at Ultimatebet.com, and I rarely if ever saw anyone sit out for a long time, but recently I started to play some big tournaments and Sit n Gos at PokerStars, and sitting out runs rampant over there.

To say that it is bizarre, is an understatement. Yesterday, when we went to the final table of a 30 player Sit n Go, a full 4 guys were sitting out. Now, this whole tourney only took about 30 minutes, so where the hell were these guys and what were they doing.

The support team at PokerStars adamantly supports the right to sit out the whole tournament, but I'm just not buying it. Why join a 30 minute tourney, if you're going to sit out?

According to the support team, it's not an advantageous strategy, and I can see that point on a 5000 to 10000 player tourney, where you have to amass 100s of thousands of chips to place in the money, but I'm not buying it totally.

For instance, if you sit out for the first half hour, 2000 people will have busted out already, and you really won't be at that much of a disadvantage chipwise with the leaders yet.

Or, how about the guy who sits out on "the bubble" while others play?

I will be very interested to hear what others think about this.

Oh yeah, and if it's so natural a thing to do, like they are telling me, why don't we see that at UB.com?

Missing a few hands in a tourney is seldom a problem and arriving a bit late is no issue.

Sitting out at a final table is insane if the blind structure is anything like normal where it's all about blind play.

There is no logical way it can be an advantage unless the standard of play is so bad that you would make the money before blinding out enough of the time to make a +ve ROI.

What buy-in and structure are you playing? A multi-table SnG that takes 30 minutes sounds like a crapshoot anyway, without worrying about sitouts

Ultimate Bet cleans up the sit outs after so far into the tourney. Don't know exactly at which point, but they do.

Ultimatebet I think cleans the field after 2 levels.

As for Pokerstars, I've watched sitters finish in the money in sng's. If the table is full of maniacs, you can be pretty sure the game will be short, and sitting is a valid tactic.

All the rules of any MTT, or SNG are valid tactics.

Yes, I agree, but I'm not talking about a few hands, or arriving a "bit" late. I'm talking about the four "white elephants" at the table who everybody else is dancing around.

Maybe it's me, but it bothers my sensibilities. I'm a fairly formulaic kind of player, so for one thing, with all the "sitouts", I have to constantly figure out how many players are there, what position I'm in, etc., and then what I'm going to do. Maybe I'm not that quick, but I thought I was while playing at UB.

Look at it this way. In a live tournament, the sitouts would physically not be at the table. Imagine if they were sitting there for hours on end, but weren't playing?

"Are you in? Are you? No? Yes? You? How about You? Yes? Me? Of course. How many was that?"

That's what it's like to me.

Ok, thanks. Now that's what I'm talkin' about. Why would they do that and PS doesn't.

I could accept that (not that I have a choice or anything), IF they cleaned up the table while the sitters were sitting out. In other words, while they are sitting down they have to play, and when they are sitting out, they have to get up.

Then, when they come back to the table, they have to play whoever is left, even if it means folding every hand.

Why did Ultimatebet choose to clean them up, if they were using valid rules? Probably, because PH told them, "hey, that's B.S., let's get them the heck out of the way."

i would never ever sit out, but i cant imagine anyone objecting to those who did.

I'm not objecting to someone sitting out. That's too personal. What I'm objecting to is the fact that his Image is still sitting AT the table while he's in the state of "sitting out". I'm objecting to PokerStars method of running their website and tournaments.

I love sitouts. They never crack my aces, they contribute blinds and fold, they keep me from having to pay blinds so often, and they NEVER go all in with Jack-Ten off suit.

I think Ultimatebet "cleaning up the table" is a crock! I paid the entry fee, even if it is just checking a box, and should be able to join the tournament whenever I feel like it. I missed the start-time to one because I remembered wrong by fifteen minutes. When I sat down to play, the first blind was over and I was gone. Pshaw!

Folding every hand is not forbidden. In a physical tournament, someone could sit there and fold every hand with impunity. Could you play against that? What if they always looked at their cards and folded every hand until you got KK and they then called with AA? Would you say, "You haven't played up 'til now, you have to leave."?

I know in the WSOP somebody missed the start time by hours because of forgetting what time the start was. He was allowed to sit and assume his slightly smaller stack (because blind sizes are so tiny compared to SnG) and proceded. Would you force him to do something different than normal play from that point on? I think not.

Ok, that's another point of view, I guess. And you're certainly entitled to that opinion. Plus, apparently PokerStars agrees with you.

I disagree. I think Ultimatebet is thinking this through in a logical manner.

It would never even occur to me to care if someone wanted to fold every hand. We're not talking about a person folding every hand, we're talking about software folding the hand for him because he's in this semi-real state of "sitting out", while his ghost is still at the table.

Absolutely.

Of course not. If he folded everyhand and then called my KK with AA, my first thought would be "Uh oh".

Again, no of course not. I'm not objecting to his sitting out, what I'm objecting to is his being at the table in the state of sitting out.

Sites only clear out non attendees in freerolls as far as I'm aware, in a pay tourney it wouldn't happen.

Again, what are you playing that has multi-tables and is over in 30 minutes? and at what buy-in?

Turn off the avatars.

Sit outs are valid in live play, UB is actually the abnormality.

The only thing I hate about sit outs is having to wait the 15 seconds for each of them to be declared as "sitting out" on the first round of action. I actually managed to end up at a table full of sit out people one time in an UB freeroll in the mid rounds. Needless to say I blinded them out and rode that to the money.

I just steal their blinds, and then watch them--very carefully--when they join the action which is usually around the bubble.

Some very tight players will sit there and watch, and wait, for only premium hands.

They allow late arrivals at live tourneys, if they didn't, we probably wouldn't know who Phil Helmuth (sp?) is.

I appreciate all the feedback. I have a good understanding of the sides of the argument, now. All that's left is to see if Ultimatebet gets back to me with an answer as to why they decided to do it the way they do it. It could be freeroll vs. cash buy in on Ultimatebet, but that doesn't explain why PokerStars doesn't do it in their freerolls and UB does (purge the sitout's, that is). Like I said, that will be interesting to know the why of.

That's basically what I don't like about it. Sure their stack size is smaller than if they played and won along the way, but while they don't have a big stack, they're still alive. I think they're making a judgement call as to which is more dangerous, trying to win alot of chips to compete with the maniacs who won chips with their play, and risk busting out, versus surviving to the end where the maniacal play is somewhat more subdued, and maybe they believe they can win it all that way, if they sidestep the Jackals.

I'm just guessing, and I agree with everyone that they are not breaking any rules, it just seems to me like finding a way to win regardless of what you're up against, is a more shall we say "noble" way to approach the game.

I could be wrong, though. Maybe I'll try sitting out as a tactic myself one day.

I prefer the noble path myself. I see sitting out much in the same light as I would see a marathon runner who came in for the last mile of the race (if that were legal) But we are playing poker here, where people have to find the edge that works for them.

Played a S&G this afternoon with someone that I know to be a post and folder, it was really ticking someone else off at the table. After the field had thinned to five, she started playing. She made it to third, and then I had the honor of busting her out. She was happy with third, I was happy with her chips.

Sitouts are a part of online gaming that you as a serious player
should take full advantage of. Especially at a final table , i mean i usually play to win so if those guys are happy with where there at
just makes it easier for me to take there blinds and go for gold
cheers and good luck at the tables.

sitting out is the EXACT SAME THING as someone being there and simply check-folding every hand. What's wrong with that? Why would it be illegal? Just think, they're check-folding AA, KK, AK, etc. Check-folding isn't illegal, why would sitting out be? If you can sit out to the money, and you're busting before the money, you need to relax and play fewer hands.

coming into a marathon on the last leg is illegal, not posting and folding.

If you are present for the whole game and choose not to play. Fine. But, yes there is a big difference between folding every hand, being at the table, as opposed to not being there. (at least in my book anyway)

To each their own...

I am a regular sitter-outer. It is a perfectly valid tactic as far as I'm concerned. I have stack targets that I aim for in tournament play and if I am above those targets I will sit-out and take my own break. This is particularly in tourneys with large field sizes and because my first aim is to make the bubble and the money with a playable stack, while you are sitting out the field narrows through natural selection and also I see it as reducing my chances of getting involved in those hands that seem so attractive but then end up costing you most of your stack and eventually your tourney life. The real action is late in the tourneys and at that stage you can make a mid stack into a top stack in 3 hands because the blinds are so high. I prefer sitting out to folding every hand to remove the temptation to play. If I miss an AA while sitting out? it doesn't matter.

What exactly is the difference that you see? If we were playing at the same table and I was actually there clicking fold on every single hand just like it was on auto-fold, how would you 1) really be able to tell the difference or be sure it was me or not and 2) how does being their or not and folding every hand without fail actually differ?

1. If we were playing on line, no I would not be able to tell if you were sitting there participating in the game, or off in the other room watching a game on TV.

2. Being there, or not.

If you can fold your way into the money, more power to you.

What about live play? If you were in the Main Event and seated with Phil Hellmuth (who paid for his buy-in), would you insist that his seat be forfeited when he didn't show up for the first two levels on day one? His chips are there and being blinded away, but he's essentially sitting out. Thoughts?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, I never said to kick out post and folders. I like to take their blinds. (see my post @5:03 p.m.) It is just not a stratagy that I care to use for myself, but give me another year and I might get there .

If it's in the rules it is a valid strategy to use.

True, you didn't say that. Though I still don't truly seem to understand how autofolding from a sitout is totally different than manually folding everyhand.

Okay. That's all I've got, my defense rests.

Cheers

Jack, let me try since I started this mess. (Although it has been a lively debate).

I tend to agree with Insomniac_1006 and can say that he basically caught my main point.

The "sitouts" aren't doing anything illegal. No one is saying they are. You should have heard the support team at PokerStars. They were adamantly supporting any player's right to sitout, and basically saying the same thing you are.

But to me, and maybe to Insomniac and others, the difference is that they are not actually playing poker in the strictest sense of the word. True, it amounts to the same thing as physically sitting there looking at your cards, and coming to the decision that they are going to fold, based on some poker theory that they're operating under. And doing that every single hand you play in, until you get to the point you want to get to.

But their only theory in this case, is if I don't do anything to screw it up, I might make it into the money. Not that that's much different than what I do when my stack size is big enough according to certain rules I use, it's just that in one case you're evalutating each hand in real time to according to some method, whereas in the other case, you're saying, I'm just not going to play the hands, because doing nothing (including presumably looking at your cards) is only going to help me, seems a little absurd on the face of it.

Add to that the fact that the sitters-out are kind of cluttering up the tables, and that's basically the objection. It stikes me more as "gaming the system" than finding a viable "poker strategy".

As long as it's in the rules, people are going to do it, but I can't help wondering if it's good or bad for poker.

Although I like to play against sitouts, I never do it myself. Perhaps, as DaFrench points out, I should do it some. There is one tournament I played a day or so ago that I would have possibly placed in the "top 5 get tickets" instead of sixth had I sat out when I was ahead. As to "gaming the system" more than finding a viable "poker strategy", there is no difference. It is like par on a golf course. If there are 50% sitters in a tournament, and at any point you have significantly fewer chips than them, you need to take a hard look at your game. In huge freerolls, the cloud of sitters does not make it to the money. However, LOTS of people bust out before the cloud is blinded away.

I understand your (and others) frustration at having to play and not know how many active players are at a table. It especially ticks me off to have the sitters NOT on my left. Then someone else is picking off the easy blinds and building their stack. If I have two immediately to my left, YAAAAA! MY FREE BLINDS!

i only sit out in these situations...

2000 players... top 100 players....

or say the average stack is say 10000, and ur holding 25k+, take a break. refresh your mind and come back strong when average catches up...

orrrrr, keep an eye, tighten up significantly, dont play anything but AA, KK, AK, and something you realy love (: ...

You bring up a good point. All the proponents of sitting out as a tactic keep saying it's the same thing as sitting there, looking at your cards, and choosing to fold. But is it?

I tried it for awhile last night in the 10,000 players Hubble Freeroll on PokerStars (finished 190th). I was curious about whether or not I could see the cards I was being dealt, and jump in (sit-in) in time if i liked the cards, and found that you can.

Ok, so what does that mean? Suppose there are four players sitting out. Does that mean I'm playing with 5 total, counting myself or 9? My methods require me to know the answer to that question. So, which is it?

Well, if they aren't looking at their cards, and they are automatically being folded, for all intents and purposes, I can consider those cards "unseen" as if they were still in the deck, and say that I'm playing with 5 total. Fair enough.

But if they're really looking at the cards, and silently deciding to let the software fold for them, {added: or jump in if they like the cards} then I could really be playing with 9 players. There's no way to really know. How important is it?

Suppose I'm in the cutoff, and with 9 players and my stack size I would take a certain action with 99 or better, AK suited or unsuited. But with 5 players, in the same position and stack size I would take that same action with 66 or better, AQ suited or unsuited, and ATs or better.

Say I get 66s and take that action, and lose to 77s. Then not nowing the actual number of players who are looking at cards and making decisions affected the outcome of a hand I played in a real way.

Farfetched? Maybe.

But wait a minute...........if 9 players are being dealt cards, it's a 9-handed table whether they all look at their cards or not. Oh, I think I see. If you were certain the sit-outs were actually sitting out and would auto-fold, you'd play a wider range and consider it short-handed?

But it's still full-ring being dealt so I'm not sure how the scenario described above would work.

I just bet into sit-outs when the opportunity presents itself and keep doing it until they either blind out or play back.