[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be bad for the game that night, but its good for the game in the long run if you allow weak players to do a few things to protect themselves.

In other words, policies that allow the weak player to escape the sharks (by chipping down on table changes) are good for the game in the long run because they protect the weak player (or the type of weak player that realizes he is weak) and keep him in action. If he can't chip down he can always leave the casino. In any event, plenty of weak players won't bother, meanwhile if you are in the game with the weak player playing a big stack (while yours is only medium), a top player in an adjoining game with a big stack can't table change and get the guys money in one hand before you have a chance to nibble away at it.

As mentioned elsewhere, this topic is probably worth a thread of its own.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

While I understand the fear that card room manages have for the fish going broke, I still think that in the sprit of the game the money should stay in play.

If I were sitting at a 5/10 game and trippled up my buy-in, and continued to sit at that table I would not be allowed to take money off the table so that I only have what I started with or less. I would get the boot if I tried and would greatly piss off the vast majority of players.

Likewise I do not think a player should be allowed to take money out of the game just because they are changing tables or being combined to a new table after their first game broke up.

As a poker player sitting down at a NL table and putting money into play there is a very basic understanding that you are placing all of that money at risk, i.e. its NL poker. We accept that risk in consideration to win more money. I dont think a player should be able limit their risk just because they want to change tables, or their first game was broken up.