Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Brick and Mortar (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=557013)

TStoneMBD 11-29-2007 04:06 AM

Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
I was playing in a 20/40nl game and next pot was going to be a time/collection pot. The UTG player had racked up his chips and was going to play 1 more hand before his blind got to him at which point hed leave.

He folded his hand before the flop and I ended up winning the pot and paid time for the table. UTG then told the dealer he would like to get his time back because he wasnt going to play through the blinds and the dealer actually gave him $12 out of the money that I paid for the time pot.

This means that because he wanted to play 1 more hand before leaving he is actually allowed to muck his hand and make a $12 profit.

I was shocked and pointed out how unfair this rule is but regulars in the game, including Bobby Hoff, explained to me that this is the rule and that its completely fair. Their reason being that if UTG had won the pot he would have had to pay time for the table.

Whats even more shocking is that because Commerce has a lenient rule stating that a player doesnt have to pay time to play up to his blinds, this UTG player actually opted to be involved in the time pot because if he folds he makes a quick $12 profit.

Well thats insane. Does anyone here with a brain and some pull have the power to change this horrific rule?

Photoc 11-29-2007 04:23 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
The rule is assanine. If he plays hands into the new dealer's down, no matter if its 1 or 10, he owes time. HTF does he get a refund/profit just because he plays 1 hand? This is stupid, but it's Commerce, I doubt they even care. They're the largest poker room in the world, one player getting mad and leaving will only be replaced by another unfortunately.

Seb86 11-29-2007 04:59 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
this whole way of raking the first pot of a dealer shift is stupid anyway, why dont they just take regular time charge with each player paying his due?

I cant see any benefit from this way of collecting rake and I am not sure if there is any.

GTL 11-29-2007 05:18 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
this whole way of raking the first pot of a dealer shift is stupid anyway, why dont they just take regular time charge with each player paying his due?

I cant see any benefit from this way of collecting rake and I am not sure if there is any.

[/ QUOTE ]

dealer doesn't have to make change and you get to play a few more hands. it also has minor effects on style of play.

Seb86 11-29-2007 05:39 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
It adds variance for nothing and seriously the change will take 30 seconds MAX.

I only played once with that structure (only like 2 hours so my sample is extremly small and it could be a coicidence I agree) but it seemed to slow the action on the first few hands as people would be (rightfully) less willing to get involved in a pot.

The only pot I saw being chop chop in that 2 hours session was the first one of a dealer shift, again nano sample, just an overall impression.

haakee 11-29-2007 05:45 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
I have been annoyed by the Commerce time pot procedures more than once. Somehow the Bellagio manages to pull it off without any problems whereas I've witnessed several major arguments resulting from Commerce time pot issues (including one I started... but that's another story).

52s 11-29-2007 06:04 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
Huh?

Shouldn't you be getting the $12 discount back?

??? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Sailboats 11-29-2007 06:46 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
I'm somewhat sure that if you don't want to play time pots you could just pay time on your own.

TStoneMBD 11-29-2007 06:52 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
yes 52 that was what i was thinking and i put up a fight to get the $12 myself, not him.

TacitMike 11-29-2007 10:25 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
As a total noob to the whole "time pot" concept, could someone please explain to me how it works? My impression is that the first pot after a dealer change is heavily raked to account for time for the entire table, is that correct?

nineinchal 11-29-2007 11:14 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
Can we change the time pot rules at the Borgata? I would like to fold under the gun and get paid.

Bishop22 11-29-2007 11:29 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
What a scumbag, typical local who uses an asinine rule to freeroll tourists. I am not a violent guy but he's going to have to pry the $12 from my cold dead hands.

SellingtheDrama 11-29-2007 11:36 AM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
Can we change the time pot rules at the Borgata? I would like to fold under the gun and get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

heck I'd settle for getting my UTG hand free of paying time if I'm leaving anyway.

52s 11-29-2007 12:00 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
As a total noob to the whole "time pot" concept, could someone please explain to me how it works? My impression is that the first pot after a dealer change is heavily raked to account for time for the entire table, is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

Oh, and a lol to $12 at Commerce 20/40NL, paying more than Big Game @ Bobby's Room in Bellagio. I love California.

Bishop22 11-29-2007 12:15 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a total noob to the whole "time pot" concept, could someone please explain to me how it works? My impression is that the first pot after a dealer change is heavily raked to account for time for the entire table, is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

Oh, and a lol to $12 at Commerce 20/40NL, paying more than Big Game @ Bobby's Room in Bellagio. I love California.

[/ QUOTE ]

That time is pretty standard actually, $11 at $10-$25NL here, if the big game is still getting $10 time (I doubt it) they are getting it as a promotion.

andyfox 11-29-2007 12:38 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
The actual rule is not that you can play up to your blinds without paying time. You are supposed to pay at the time the collection pot is taken, and then, if you leave while the light is still on, you get a blowback: they give you a slip of paper that you take up to the window and you get cash back. But most of the floormen will allow you to play up to your blinds because then they don't have to go to the trouble of writing out the blowback slip.

But the rule as Bobby explained it to you is correct, stupid as it is. Most people who are leaving on their blind will declare themselves out of collection so that in case they win the hand they aren't liable for the full table collection. I have had two occasions where I thought I was going to stay but then had to leave; I asked for the blowback and gave the money to the guy who had paid the collection. This is surely the fair thing to do. The current rule is silly. Player B shouldnt get his collection "back" if player A actually paid it.

I don't think I have enough pull there to see about changing the rule, but I'll find out.

andyfox 11-29-2007 12:43 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
The pot is not raked on the dealer's first pot of the shift. It's done on the half hour which does not correspond to the pushes.

I'm in favor of doing away with collection pots as well. If it's a time collection game, I would have a player get a button when he first locks up the seat. He has to pay 1/2 the collection if the light is on or goes on while he has the seat locked up (or if he's already in the game) and with his half collection he gives up the button. Every player then pays when the light goes on and gets no hands unless he pays right then. Easy, no arguments; your first collection is 1/2, therafter everybody pays full amount at the same time, no exceptions.

andyfox 11-29-2007 12:45 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
The problem is you don't get the $12. Under the rule, the guy who pays the collection is not entitled to it, the person who is leaving is.

andyfox 11-29-2007 12:48 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
On the half hour, there is a collection pot. Don't know how it works in the no limit games, but in the limit games if the pot is at least 10 small bets, it's a collection pot and the winner of the pot pays collection ($12/player in the 60-120, $13/player in the 100-200) for everyone who was dealt in. If you weren't dealt in, or declared yourself "out" of collection, you pay only for yourself.

RR 11-29-2007 12:49 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is you don't get the $12. Under the rule, the guy who pays the collection is not entitled to it, the person who is leaving is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to point out the reason for this isn't some weird Commerce rule, it is because the time pot is actually an agreement between the players for one player to pay for everyone. Since they "collected $12 from each player" they would return that to the player that is leaving. Of course I agree that the player that actually paid it should get it back. It seems if they are able to make a deal among themselves to play a time pot they should manage to make another one to give the money to the player that paid it.

andyfox 11-29-2007 12:49 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
Correct. You declare yourself out of collection and the dealer announces "Seat 2 is out of collection." Always struck me as odd that different players could be allowed different ways of paying collection.

andyfox 11-29-2007 12:53 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
I think that's the theory behind it, that it's quicker in that the dealer doesn't have to go around the entire table making change. But in practice it doesn't save time. Many of the dealers are not sure if the pot is big enough to have been a collection pot and they are unsure about how many people were actually dealt in or who declared themselves out of collection. So if two people were walking, and one person declared himself out of collection, the winner of the collection pot, has to pay for six players, which requires making change, and then the dealer has to take collection from the three non-participating players, so she has to make change for them too. In practice it probably is slower than individual collection taking.

dizzle98 11-29-2007 12:54 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
For everyone who thinks this is unfair, would you feel it's unfair if UTG had won the pot and paid everyone's time for the next half hour then left? I don't think everyone is going to toss him $12 just because he's leaving. This is just the price you pay for using time pots.

If you want the money back when he leaves instead of giving it to him, then he should have the right to win the pot, leave, and demand everyone pay him $12 for the time he just paid for them. Either he's involved in the time pot...and any time paid "on his behalf" belongs to him, or he's not.

psandman 11-29-2007 01:01 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
For everyone who thinks this is unfair, would you feel it's unfair if UTG had won the pot and paid everyone's time for the next half hour then left? I don't think everyone is going to toss him $12 just because he's leaving. This is just the price you pay for using time pots.

If you want the money back when he leaves instead of giving it to him, then he should have the right to win the pot, leave, and demand everyone pay him $12 for the time he just paid for them. Either he's involved in the time pot...and any time paid "on his behalf" belongs to him, or he's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is valid only in a theoretical sense. Sure if the player had won the pot he would be liable for time, however you have to believe that the player was actually going to to play the hand to believe that he could have been liable for the whole collection. In fact this rule encourages a player who was about to get up and leave, to take a hand merely for the opportunity to fold it and get paid $12. That is the player could not have been liable for the time collection because there was no chance that he would win the pot.

dizzle98 11-29-2007 01:13 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For everyone who thinks this is unfair, would you feel it's unfair if UTG had won the pot and paid everyone's time for the next half hour then left? I don't think everyone is going to toss him $12 just because he's leaving. This is just the price you pay for using time pots.

If you want the money back when he leaves instead of giving it to him, then he should have the right to win the pot, leave, and demand everyone pay him $12 for the time he just paid for them. Either he's involved in the time pot...and any time paid "on his behalf" belongs to him, or he's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is valid only in a theoretical sense. Sure if the player had won the pot he would be liable for time, however you have to believe that the player was actually going to to play the hand to believe that he could have been liable for the whole collection. In fact this rule encourages a player who was about to get up and leave, to take a hand merely for the opportunity to fold it and get paid $12. That is the player could not have been liable for the time collection because there was no chance that he would win the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think he's open-folding AA or KK here though? I don't. So he still has some chance to win the pot. That being said I still think it's scummy to have no intention to play just to grab the $12. But now you're getting into reading people's minds about what their intention for that 1 hand is. And he's UTG so probably not playing many hands here anyways. I think as long as his intent is to play the hand as he normally would then it's ok if he does it. I personally think the time pot is inherently unfair in the first place as tight players will almost never have to pay. (they play fewer pots and the pots they play are likely to be smaller due to their tight image and everyone folding).

But as long as people continue to play time pots the theory behind it is that everyone in the hand has "their money" taken out of the pot. Since it's their money, they are entitled to have it returned to them if they leave. Any player who has the intention of folding all but the nuts on these time pots is theoretically getting a "free $12 from the player who won the pot"

dizzle98 11-29-2007 01:18 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
Psandman-

Obviously you think the player should give his $12 time refund to Player A who won the pot. What would you say should happen if UTG wins the pot, pays time, and leaves after one hand? Should every other player at the table pay him $12 each for the time he just paid for them?

(I actually believe it's the right thing to do to give Player A the $12, but I also believe it's the right thing to do for every other player to give him $12 if he wins and leaves the next hand)

andyfox 11-29-2007 01:30 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
The way I look at it, if you decide to be in the collection pot, you're saying, "I owe $12 for collection. But I'm agreeing to gamble on not having to pay the $12 by being in the collection pot, the winner of which will pay my collection for me. So I will either end up having to pay $12 x the number of players in the pot or nothing." There is no thought of ending up plus $12.

Also, from another theoretical standpoint, collections are paid in advance. If he leaves and doesn't get any future hands, they should not have to be paid for. The house agrees that they should not be paid for, that's why they give the money back. Who should get it?

dizzle98 11-29-2007 01:31 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
Not that I have played in many places that use the time pot...but the clear solution imho seems to be that once a player knows they are leaving they declare themselves out of collection and pay their own time/get their own refund for their partial half hour. Thereby not paying anyone else's time for that 1 hand (or 2 or 5 or whatever) and not having anyone else pay their time.

Curiousity for those who play w/ time charge regularly, what is the rule in place for this situation in places besides Commerce? Does Player A get $12 back? Does no one get anything back?

psandman 11-29-2007 01:36 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think he's open-folding AA or KK here though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he may. first he may fold without even looking second. Plating AA or KK here has very little potential for him. Sure with AA he could win a huge pot, but in reality we know many players believe that with AA or KK you win a small pot or lose a big pot. Winning a small pot here is pointless because if its enough of a pot to pay the collection its going to be a smaller pot after paying. So in this instance where a player has decided to leave and only is playing the pot to get his $12 he very well may open fold AA or KK.

I agree any player who decides to not play until the time pot gets paid is theoretically getting a free 12 from the winner. However those players are giving up the opportunity to play a number of hands. The problem i have with this rule is that it actually encourages a player who was planning to leave to stay for another hand with no intention of playing simply to get the $12. If the house dropped the $12 it might be equally unfair to the winner of the pot, but at least the player who was leaving has no incentive to stay and make the collection higher.

dizzle98 11-29-2007 01:37 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
The way I look at it, if you decide to be in the collection pot, you're saying, "I owe $12 for collection. But I'm agreeing to gamble on not having to pay the $12 by being in the collection pot, the winner of which will pay my collection for me. So I will either end up having to pay $12 x the number of players in the pot or nothing." There is no thought of ending up plus $12.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who doesn't play that pot is theoretically up $12 though. Owing $12 and not having to pay is really being up $12. It's no different than collecting time individually and having the winner of the pot toss everyone $12 to compensate them...you're still up $12 from where you should have been.

psandman 11-29-2007 01:41 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
Psandman-

Obviously you think the player should give his $12 time refund to Player A who won the pot. What would you say should happen if UTG wins the pot, pays time, and leaves after one hand? Should every other player at the table pay him $12 each for the time he just paid for them?

(I actually believe it's the right thing to do to give Player A the $12, but I also believe it's the right thing to do for every other player to give him $12 if he wins and leaves the next hand)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I don't think its the right thing for the player to give the money back to the player. I think the right thing to do is change the rule. The reason i don't like the rule is itr actually encourages a player to stay with no intnetion of playing just to get the $12.

I would say a better rule would be this: If a player is going to be allowed to play to his blinds and get the collection back, then a player who wishes to take advantage of that rule should not be permitted to participate in the time pot. Now there is no concern. And this doesn't encourage a player to stay unless he is actually intending to play those hands.

dizzle98 11-29-2007 01:45 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
Well I would say open folding AA would be ridiculous even if you just wanted the $12. If a player is that set on skimming a few extra bucks they would open-push AA and get called as a major favorite or pick up the extra $60 in blinds in this case, no time pot, then leave.

I agree that I think it's an unfair situation, I just happen to think it's equally unfair for a player to play their last hand UTG, win a big pot and have to pay everyone's time for the next 30 mins. I just think a lot of people who think it's unfair to sit one hand and collect the $12 when you leave would have no problem with the same situation if UTG paid everyone's time by winning the pot.

dizzle98 11-29-2007 01:47 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]

I would say a better rule would be this: If a player is going to be allowed to play to his blinds and get the collection back, then a player who wishes to take advantage of that rule should not be permitted to participate in the time pot. Now there is no concern. And this doesn't encourage a player to stay unless he is actually intending to play those hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% agree with this.

dizzle98 11-29-2007 01:49 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
My new question would be this: In order to get your time charge back, do you have to announce you are only playing until the blinds? Assume I have decided to do just that but do not announce it. Time pot is won when I'm UTG...under the current rule would I still be entitled to get my $12 refund? If you don't have to announce it to get the refund what would make anyone announce it? If I care enough to get that $12 I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut till after I've played the hand. Though I admittedly don't know how it works...if you get the refund for leaving period, or only if you've announced that you are playing till your blind.

psandman 11-29-2007 02:31 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
My new question would be this: In order to get your time charge back, do you have to announce you are only playing until the blinds? Assume I have decided to do just that but do not announce it. Time pot is won when I'm UTG...under the current rule would I still be entitled to get my $12 refund? If you don't have to announce it to get the refund what would make anyone announce it? If I care enough to get that $12 I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut till after I've played the hand. Though I admittedly don't know how it works...if you get the refund for leaving period, or only if you've announced that you are playing till your blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your asking me what i think the rule should be...I would say that a player who wants to be able to get their time back should have to announce it before the first hand of the new down is dealt, it is this announcement that would make them them ineligible for the time pot. If a player did not announce it he would be eligible to participate in the time pot, but could not get a refund if he left. This way if a player wishes to particpate in the time pot he may, but he can't do it simply to get paid a free $12.

Its seems silly that anyone playing $20 $40 NL would care much about this $12, but apparently some do, or the OP wouldn't have posted. Presumably this rule applies at smaller games.

52s 11-29-2007 03:15 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
Its seems silly that anyone playing $20 $40 NL would care much about this $12, but apparently some do, or the OP wouldn't have posted. Presumably this rule applies at smaller games.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be surprised (or not so much) at how many players are nitty over paying time and over timepots in the bigger games.

LAgambol 11-29-2007 03:39 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
the time pot is super bogus, i ended up paying over $800 in time collection pots in one damn session, it seemed like a curse

andyfox 11-29-2007 03:51 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
I've seen more arguments over this issue than any other in collection pot games. And it's not close.

Ray Zee 11-30-2007 01:44 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
the time pots always are a bone of contention but that is what the players want. any player can be out of them and has an advantage doing so if he alters his play, but most play as its a player courtesy to be involved or feel that playing tight during them gives them an edge. the higher stakes players arent as nitty but always are trying to get the best of it.

but what no one has memtioned is that the player taking that free shot at 12 bucks has paid his blinds in advance already for that round and is entitled to get that hand. and that is what time pots hurt is that when you leave on a time collection you lose hands you paid for in advance. so in effect if he folds in the dark he gets 12$ but loses that hands value.
i think he is supposed to get his 12$ as he was in the time pot. if he wanted to not be he could say so. all other players have the same rules to be exploited.

psandman 11-30-2007 01:54 PM

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 
[ QUOTE ]
the time pots always are a bone of contention but that is what the players want. any player can be out of them and has an advantage doing so if he alters his play, but most play as its a player courtesy to be involved or feel that playing tight during them gives them an edge. the higher stakes players arent as nitty but always are trying to get the best of it.

but what no one has memtioned is that the player taking that free shot at 12 bucks has paid his blinds in advance already for that round and is entitled to get that hand. and that is what time pots hurt is that when you leave on a time collection you lose hands you paid for in advance. so in effect if he folds in the dark he gets 12$ but loses that hands value.
i think he is supposed to get his 12$ as he was in the time pot. if he wanted to not be he could say so. all other players have the same rules to be exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing something here. The player could have elected to not particpate in the time pot, played to his blinds get full vale and not pay the time collection.

So why would he elect to participate in the time pot? there is no other reason but for the chance to get paid $12 when he leaves.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.