Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have never played in a time pot - so take this for what its worth.

I think UTG shot an angle and I think the dealer made a mistake.

Had UTG declared he was not going to play another hand before the hand and didn't want to pay time - the dealer would accept that and you would have paid for everybody's time less the UTG. The next player to be seated would pay his time directly to the dealer. And everybody would have been happy.

After the hand I think the dealer should have told UTG that if he knew this was the last hand he was playing he should have announced it before the hand. The dealer should then have returned the $12 to you (and collected the $12 from the next player to sit as he likely did anyway). This is equivalent to any dispute brought up by an aggrieved player well after the time of the violation in which the aggrieved player could have benefited from further action.

What would have happened if UTG had won? I doubt he would have agreed to pay time from the pot. And I don't think anybody would have had any recourse. To my knowledge casinos don't enforce time pot rules.

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 

What would have happened if no one took his place? Is the player who put up the time out 12 bucks?

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 

[ QUOTE ]
What would have happened if no one took his place? Is the player who put up the time out 12 bucks?

[/ QUOTE ]
No - the dealer would have returned it to him. The casino would be out the $12. As they should be if nobody is seated.

Re: Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would have happened if no one took his place? Is the player who put up the time out 12 bucks?

[/ QUOTE ]
No - the dealer would have returned it to him. The casino would be out the $12. As they should be if nobody is seated.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's even more retarded.