NL max buyin games? Casino/Floor people please read

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I am amazed at how many people believe that having a short stack in a NL is a terrible disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot depends on collection. I wouldn't want to have a $30 stack when they are dropping $5 on any flop in a $2-$3 blind game. I'd love to be a $30,000 stack in a game with 300/600 blinds and Sammy Faher, Daniel Negranau, Gus Hanson, Mike Matasow, and the miscellaneous rich guy all with deep stacks are gambling it up on HSP.

~ Rick

[AKQJ10]

I don't think the collection makes that much difference if it's raked, because you should be playing excruiciatingly tight with a short stack, so when you are paying the collection (directly or indirectly) it's because you're playing with a premium hand. Yes, it's equity you have to make up, but if the players on the West Coast are as bad as small stakes players on the East Coast (or higher-stakes players on Live at the Bike) then you should be fine.

The real killer, in my thoroughly biased view, is the Foxwoods $5/hh with a max stack of $100. You can sit there for three hours with no hands, pay $30 in time and another $10 in blinds, and not be allowed to replenish your stack unless you transfer tables! But that game is still a mint, so I can't imagine that any raked small-stakes game (even one with 33 BBL stacks) wouldn't be.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the collection makes that much difference if it's raked, because you should be playing excruiciatingly tight with a short stack, so when you are paying the collection (directly or indirectly) it's because you're playing with a premium hand. Yes, it's equity you have to make up, but if the players on the West Coast are as bad as small stakes players on the East Coast (or higher-stakes players on Live at the Bike) then you should be fine.[/url]

Unfortunately, in LA it is "drop" not rake. This means the full toll is paid on any flop, e.g., a $12 pot can have a $4 drop plus $1 jackpot drop.

[ QUOTE ]
The real killer, in my thoroughly biased view, is the Foxwoods $5/hh with a max stack of $100. You can sit there for three hours with no hands, pay $30 in time and another $10 in blinds, and not be allowed to replenish your stack unless you transfer tables! But that game is still a mint, so I can't imagine that any raked small-stakes game (even one with 33 BBL stacks) wouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Foxwoods is a bit weird I guess. In LA you can either replenish your stack any time you drop half a buy (usually to 1.5 times the buy-in) or bring up your stack to the buy-in (depends on the casino).

~ Rick

PS I'm out fot the night. Going B&Ming [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
Although the sample size was small (one play), the Wynn was the only small NL game where I was in a game where the pot was chopped (i.e., no action, the blinds took their money back) on six straight hands.

This has never happened in any fixed buy game I've played in. At the lower blind levels these games typically generate far more action by reducing intimidation among other factors.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your sample is generally accurate on just about given day for the 1/3 game. However the 2/5 and up games it is very rare to see chopped pots, or non raised pots for that matter, unless you get a really bad table, then there will be lots of limped pots.

I typically gravitate to no cap games, and have played in most of the ones spread in LV at least once. I can assure you that it is not typical to have a weak/tight/passive table in these games.

Personally I love the no cap format, but I can definately see the fear that card room management has for busting the fish too quickly. These games are not for a weak, fearful or short rolled. I just hope that the boom keeps going for several years more, becuase surely no cap games will some of the first to die off.

[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.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No disagreement regarding the above paragraph. But I'm not talking about taking money off the table in an existing game. To the best of my knowledge that isn't allowed anywhere (except in Party's no limit games by leaving the table for one hand!).




[ QUOTE ]
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 don't think a player should be able limit their risk just because they want to change tables, or their first game was broken up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that fairness and "a very basic understanding" dictates that money must stay in play. But each situation has other considerations, some that are more important and in fact fair.

Fairness is a primary factor regarding must moves, it would seem quite unfair if some players bring all their chips and some don't. Certainly it is fair to allow all the chips to move on a broken game, but it may be better policy and only slightly unfair (if at all) not to require it.

But fairness works both ways on table changes. For example, let's say you start the second or third 5-10 blind, $400 or $500 fixed buy game in a busy club, and after an hour (must move is now off since other games have started) several weak players at your table double or triple up while your stack is more or less static. You figure to get the weak player's money by chipping away at it as long as the players stay long enough, and in most cases they do. My observation is that there are far more players who enjoy playing with a big stack "they won so it really isn't their money" than there are players that can't wait to table change so they can continue to play while pocketing the chips they won. So you really won't see much money being ratholed this way. In fact my experience is it is the short stack "who got unlucky" that sometimes wants to change, and when they change they must start with the fixed buy (assuming the more common policy). As a player I rarely see a big stack who wants a table change, especially if the big stack is a weak player who feels he is in a lucky seat. If he is a strong player with a big stack he avoids a table change (assuming he has to chip down) unless his game is just terrible, because he figures to do well with the big stack as the game gets better (as they often do).

But let's say the club allowed a strong player with a big stack at a nearby table to bring all his chips in the example at the beginning of the paragraph above. He will be far more likely than you with a small stack to get all the weak players chips. In this case you (who started the game) would be the one who won't consider it fair.

~ Rick

[RegBarclay]

Thanks Rick and all others who posted.

I got our manager to side with me and we decided that in the future players from a broken game must carry their entire stack to their new seat while players who ask for a table change are restricted to the max buyin.

I think this is the fairest solution as we have 2-3 games at this limit at most. This means that often two to four players from the broken game end up playing at the same table again and they should have the chance to win back their money from the players they lost it to.

As for the ratholing argument I always thought (and still do) that the rule not to take money of the table is for this reason: All players at the table should have the chance to win back the money they lost from the persons they lost it to unless the winner(s) decide to leave the game. This is why I don't consider changing tables and putting the winnings in the pocket by doing so ratholing or bad etiquette as you will be playing at a new table where none of the players lost money to you yet.

Thanks again for all the input.

Regards,
RegBarclay