Poker Darwinism at the LAPC

by , Feb 14, 2010 | 2:39 pm

The LAPC recently featured 2 $230 mega satellites into their $1 million guaranteed $1000 re-buy tournament to give some lower stakes players a shot at a big payday in event that can get real expensive real fast. If you won a seat you also received a voucher that could be used for a re-buy or or an add-on.

The first of these mega satellites ended in a unique way with a player exhibiting some less than critical thinking. When they got down to the bubble of 18 players (17 seats were to be given away) play was on two tables of 9 players each and they were playing hand for hand to prevent either table from stalling. The first table finished their hand with one player being eliminated. While this was going on, a player at the other table was faced with an all in raise and was pondering his decision and called the floor-person over to ask the following question: “If I call and lose will I split 17th with the player at the other table who was just eliminated on this hand?” to which the floor-person accurately responded “yes.” He called the all in raise, lost the pot and split 17th place getting half a seat.

To some poker is all about winning pots…


8 Comments to “Poker Darwinism at the LAPC”


  1. Tom Schneider
    says:

    Nice call sir.


  2. monro
    says:

    guess he was more interested in the 1k or so in cash than the seat, kinda silly though — if they gave away just a single entry w/no transfer to cash value then he should be committed


  3. DanM
    says:

    i’m no expert in poker … but i’m pretty sure in that situation a fold is called for.

    (do you know what the hands were?)


  4. Tom Schneider
    says:

    Dan, you should have stopped after your first 5 words.


  5. DanM
    says:

    they’ve been saying that to me since age 2.


  6. Robert Goldfarb
    says:

    He didn’t get cash, they each got a buy-in and no re-buy.


  7. JamesDaBear
    says:

    is there a chance that he could have eliminated the other player on that hand? Maybe he had a grudge… in that case, it would be defensible, but still stupid from a +/-ev standpoint.


  8. JamesDaBear
    says:

    Tom… i don’t know about his first five words… but he definitely should have left off the last seven. lol Like it mattered what the hands were. I fully suspect something odd was going on there… maybe sexual orientation accusation or maybe something involving a “good-looking older woman.”