Woman goes into labor at Aussie Millions. Husband takes over.

BigJamo said:

They could just have a clause highlighting these issues.
It would be a very rare occasion that they would use it.

Click to expand...

Kenzie 96 said:

Good for the kid though, at least he won't grow up thinking the parents consider him all that important.

Click to expand...

S3mper said:

I disagree with 'forfeited' at least in terms where she would need half her buy in back.
She would just become a sit out and would finish where her stack disappeared.

Click to expand...

Vfranks said:

Yeah what if a chick wore a fake tummy, to act like they were pregnant, then after a while pretended to have her water break.. again with the fake tummy and some water and tube contraption(whizzinator anyone?). Then tagged in her partner to finish the tournament.. would be a lot of work and shadiness, but a definite way to fight fatigue.

Click to expand...

S3mper said:

I disagree with 'forfeited' at least in terms where she would need half her buy in back.
She would just become a sit out and would finish where her stack disappeared.

Click to expand...

Zorba said:

It was within the rules, it's not like this situation will occur on a regular basis. It would have to be an extreme situation for the TD to allow it.

Click to expand...

Zorba said:

It wouldn't work, not for 1 second, have you seen a real woman at full term.

Now as for the 2nd bolded part, why would anyone do that, if the tagged in player is so good then why isn't he/she in the tourney already with the buy in used buy the woman with the fake tummy, it doesn't make sense to do that.

:top:

Click to expand...

Vfranks said:

They got fooled lol

Click to expand...

Zorba said:

I've seen the realistic bellies they have online, theres more than just realistic bellies, but if you look at how the "pregnant" women were walking with ease and if you have gone through it with someone you never forget that walk ladies do when close to term, I can still picture the arched back and the hands on the hips waddle my better half had.

Click to expand...

MrPink514 said:

The Aussie Millions are once again taking place at the Crown Casino in Melbourne, and while we wait for the big ticket events, one of the side events has made for a fascinating story.
In the opening $1,150 event, pregnant Katrina Sheary went deep into the money when suddenly she went into labour.
Obviously this meant she was unable to continue playing poker, however in a surprise twist, the tournament organisers allowed her husband Peter Sheary to continue playing her chip stack. He ended up cashing for $6,495.
This is one of the first times we have ever heard of a player being allowed to take over a live stack in a major poker tournament. However, this situation is mentioned in the official Aussie Millions tournament rules:

At the discretion of the Tournament Director, a Tournament entrant may transfer his/her entry to another person, provided that person is entitled to enter the Tournament in accordance with clause 2.2 and he/she has not already entered the Tournament.​

While the rule itself is likely to be a hotly contested topic, the most important news is that the Shearys are now the proud parents of a beautiful baby boy. Congratulations to them.





Personally, I don't agree with the ruling. May sound harsh, but I think she forfeits.

Click to expand...

CSINSC said:

If someone had a heart attack & their significant other was there would you be OK with them playing?

It is hard learning what all the rules are in poker since a plethora of poker rooms have different rules.

I agree with the ruling & I'm glad the tourney directors have the foresight to plan for this kind of thing happening even if is very remote.


Once again I congratulate the TD for thinking ahead & planning for every incident whether it will ever occur or not.

Click to expand...

CSINSC said:

If someone had a heart attack & their significant other was there would you be OK with them playing?

It is hard learning what all the rules are in poker since a plethora of poker rooms have different rules.

I agree with the ruling & I'm glad the tourney directors have the foresight to plan for this kind of thing happening even if is very remote.


Once again I congratulate the TD for thinking ahead & planning for every incident whether it will ever occur or not.

Click to expand...

MrPink514 said:

Here's a follow up article.

A truly fascinating story emerged this week, as a pregnant poker player went deep in the first event of the Aussie Millions, only to go into labour. Remarkably her husband was allowed to continue her playing stack, eventually cashing for nearly $7,000, while she gave birth to their baby son.
It is almost unheard of to see a player have someone take over for them once a tournament has started. It is sometimes possible to give another player your stack when you haven't started playing and are unable to attend, but this was deep in the money. However there is a ruling for situations just like this:

At the discretion of the Tournament Director, a Tournament entrant may transfer his/her entry to another person, provided that person is entitled to enter the Tournament in accordance with clause 2.2 and he/she has not already entered the Tournament.​

An exploitable ruling?

While it is in the rule book, this decision has still left a lot of players flabbergasted. There have been plenty of cases where due to unforeseen circumstances, like a bereavement, a player has been awarded an ICM based prize before. However there were a lot of players still in the event at the time and it would have been unfair on them to take the money out of the prizepool in this way before it was won, and likewise the couple obviously didn't want to take a min-cash either. Many players brought up how exploitable such a rule could be. Would the Tournament Directors, for example, allow a friend rather than a husband play on? What if that friend was Phil Ivey? These are the questions being asked on forums and social media.
While certainly worth discussing as a thought experiment, to think that anyone would orchestrate a situation like this really does start to sound like tin foil hat conspiracy theory. This really is just a fluke event. Women still make up a small minority of live poker players, so the percentage of women playing poker while pregnant is miniscule.
Health implications?

A lot of commenters were quick to condemn the couple for playing when the mother was heavily pregnant, however this was an unexpected and premature labour. If it had been late in the pregnancy it wouldn't be unfair to suggest that there might be health implications to playing an event like the Aussie Millions (It would also have been logistically very stupid to buy-in for the event in the first place given the odds you would have to leave early). Poker tournaments are long grueling affairs, they are stressful and the chairs are not exactly comfortable.
It's a slippery slope for Tournament Directors to dictate 'how' pregnant is 'too' pregnant for a poker tournament. It's not a huge leap of the imagination that we may one day see a situation where someone plays the Main Event unaware they are pregnant and then return to the November Nine about almost ready to give birth. If I was the Father I am not sure whether I would have been able to play on knowing my wife was going into labour, however the money might have meant a lot for their family. It's not for us to judge, better to just let the TD use their discretion in these situations and let the parents decide what is best for their child.
Ultimately you would have to have a heart of stone to deny this couple the chance to play on. It's such a fluke event, the birth of a child is supposed to be a celebration and surely we all want them to start their new life as a family with a financial boost? This is a reasonable exception to the rules and no doubt one day a fantastic trivia question.

Click to expand...