Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins

[rchandra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The table stakes arguement that "players can't get a shot at getting their money back" is bullpucky because a winner can just quit and accomplish the same thing. There are games everywhere, if one room doesn't suit your purposes, there's another nearby.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find this argument persuasive, largely because I don't even believe you believe it. After all, if thats your reason for allowing a player to rathole when he changes games, why isn't it equally valid for allowing a player to rathole while remaining in the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I find it persuasive for allowing ratholing too, as long as a min stack-size is enforced (no all-in advantage please) and there's a mechanism for making it obvious (so a player can't manipulate his stacksize midhand). But I think the reason why Al's argument works for table change and not ratholing is that when table changing the players at the old table are no longer involved and probably won't even notice the guy's stack size. The new table will care so enforcing the cap makes a little sense (and many players hate ratholing so enforcing that makes a little sense also).