Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

Ok, here's a question that we are discussing in our poker room.

Let's say the game is 1/2 NL with a $500 cap. Player makes a sick run and runs it up to say $2500, whatever. He then wants to transfer tables to another 1/2 NL game.

There are two options and two ways to look at this.

1) He HAS to bring the full amount $2500. This would put him at an advantage at the table.

2) He can ONLY buy in for the max at the new table, even though it's the same game. This would put him on a fair playing field with everyone else at that table.

3) he has an option???


I personally think it should be #2. Let's say we let him buy in for the full $2500, now he goes all in every hand and gets an advantage over everyone. The arguement for #1 was that now players at the other table have no shot at their money back.

What do you think? And what have you experienced at other casinos. Floorpeople please chime in.

Kevin

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

Read MOP. If the guy jams the blinds like that call with aa, ak, at.

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

what is MOP?

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

Ok, let's say he doesn't go all in everyhand, but in general with more money, he has an advantage.

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

the rule at HP is that you may only remove that from your stack if you are moving up in limits.

tables changes to the same limit means you have to bring all the money you won to that table. the only time you can leave one limit and return to it with a smaller buyin is when you leave the table (and limit) for 45 minutes.

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say the game is 1/2 NL with a $500 cap.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and I stopped reading.

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

I don't like having to take your entire stack regardless of cap because it does open up the possibility of abuse (i.e. taking a big stack to a new game). Some rooms use the "floorperson's discretion" to avoid such problems. I think that's a pile of bullpucky since one floor says yes and another says no to identical situations.

Proponents of the above system say that changing tables and abiding by the max buy-in allows big stacks to take some of their money off the table, thus avoiding the table stakes rule. This is partly true, but IMO trivial. Of course they can't go back into the game they left with less until a certain length of time has passed (two hours would be my choice here, some rooms use one). But the arguement of "bypassing the table stakes rule" just doesn't convince me, especially when the alternative lends itself to abuse.

Neither rule satisfies both sides of the debate.

I vote for "you must abide by min/max of new table" because it does not allow for real or imagined abuse.

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.

Al

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let's say he doesn't go all in everyhand, but in general with more money, he has an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhhhh no

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like having to take your entire stack regardless of cap because it does open up the possibility of abuse (i.e. taking a big stack to a new game). Some rooms use the "floorperson's discretion" to avoid such problems. I think that's a pile of bullpucky since one floor says yes and another says no to identical situations.

Proponents of the above system say that changing tables and abiding by the max buy-in allows big stacks to take some of their money off the table, thus avoiding the table stakes rule. This is partly true, but IMO trivial. Of course they can't go back into the game they left with less until a certain length of time has passed (two hours would be my choice here, some rooms use one). But the arguement of "bypassing the table stakes rule" just doesn't convince me, especially when the alternative lends itself to abuse.

Neither rule satisfies both sides of the debate.

I vote for "you must abide by min/max of new table" because it does not allow for real or imagined abuse.

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.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you for Nevada poker rooms, Remember that in LA buy ins are capped very low. It may take 2 or 3 hours to get a decent stack. At the Bike, if you are coming from a broken game you can bring a big stack. If you are transferring from another game, you can only buy in for the max stack. This seemed fair here in LA.

To the OP, read up on NL games. A large stack is a DISADVANTAGE, not an advantage. The disadvantage, is having to play very deep poker against other larger stacks, but still having to deal with short stacks. A short stack just plays short stack poker against all others. Only in tournament play is a larger stack an advantage since you normally can not reload chips, in a cash game if you loose your chips, just go back into your pocket and reload.

Re: Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins
 

So 2 for only coming in with the capped buy in for table changes, and 1 for you should bring all your money if transferring tables.

I do agree with Dennisa above, if your table breaks, you have to bring all your money, but if voluntarily changing tables you should only be able to come in with the max.

Anyone else want to chime in with their experiences and/or .02c?