Before and during this year's TOC, there was some controversy and talk about the expanded pay structure and flattened pay scale. There was a meeting held between poker's "top" players and the powers of the TOC, and a compromise was reached that allowed for paying five tables as well as larger first-place prize money. While both sides accepted this agreement, it became immediately clear that no one was really happy about it. The "top" players complained quite a bit, and were very vocal about their feelings.

I would like to commend the TOC staff for keeping the expanded payout structure that paid five tables. Although the top tournament professionals should be able to voice their opinions, the reason that most tournaments are successful is because of the masses, the little guys who continually enter them. Without these players, tournaments would not happen, and the top players would have nothing to play for. Paying more tables and using a flatter pay structure benefits tournament poker in the long run.

Now, let's get on with a very controversial decision that was made at the Orleans Open.

The scenario: During the break of one of the limit hold'em tournaments, a player was involved in a situation outside of the tournament area that resulted in his being removed from the casino. Apparently, he was 86ed for life, and the tournament director made a decision to remove his chips from play. As it would later turn out, either he was not 86ed or his expulsion was reversed, as he was back playing in a few days.

The problem I have with the decision to remove his chips is twofold:

1. There was obviously the possibility that he'd return, as was the case. What if he had made it back in time to rectify the situation before the tournament was over?

2. I don't think tournament chips should ever be removed from play, unless it is due to extreme circumstances.

Removing tournament chips from play could very well alter the structure and/or outcome of the tournament. In the case above, the player who was removed was the chip leader at the time, with approximately $4,000 in chips. This took place on a pretty early break, and the outcome of removing those chips would probably not be felt until the later stages of the tournament. But what if this had happened on the dinner break of the same tournament, when they were a few players away from the money. Take that $4,000 stack and multiply it to become the chip leader. Would the same decision have been made to remove $40,000 in tournament chips?

My theory is that each chip in a tournament represents a unit that was paid for by one of the entrants. The only reasoning I have heard for removing the chips was that it gave an unfair advantage to the players at the "dead stack's" table. Well, tournaments are full of advantages and disadvantages. What if the incident had happened outside of the casino, and no one knew that he had been taken away? Then, his stack definitely would not have been removed, and these same players would have had that same advantage.

As I have stated in many of my previous columns, I don't like to make a decision one way that could very easily be made a different way in extremely similar circumstances. This is one of those cases, and I don't see any reason not to leave the chips in play and let them be blinded off.

A few years back at the World Series of Poker, one of the final-table participants was stricken by a heart attack and was unable to participate at the final table. All of the remaining players made an honorable decision to award the man fifth-place money and remove his chips. In that case, the decision was made by a consensus of the remaining players in an extremely unusual situation, and I agree with it.