[kak1154]

[ QUOTE ]
Player X takes money off of players on Table A. The 'anti-ratholing' rule is to allow players on Table A a shot at winning the money back, as long as Player X is there and trying to take more money off of them.
Player X moves to Table B. Why should the players there have a 'right' to win that money?
Player X cashes out. Comes back 8 hours later. Same players on Table A. Should he be required to buy in with what he left with?

Question for "must take it all" proponents:
George buys in $200. Runs it up to $1000. Moves to second table. Forced to take all $1000. Loses $700 quickly. Gets table change back to original table. It has been 10 minutes since he left.
Can he sit down with the $300 he has left?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he can (and must) sit down with the $300 he has left.

I don't think the rule is there to protect the people at Table A. If they want to win their money back, they can request a table change and chase Player X around as much as they want to. It's there to prevent people from ratholing by switching tables all the time.

Why wouldn't players at Table B have the right to win Player X's money? You're saying that I can only win money that I already lost to someone? What about this example: Player X sits down at Table A and busts everyone else on the same hand. He now has 10 buyins. 9 new players get called to the table. Does Player A have to take 9 buyins off the table?

What I'm trying to prove is that it doesn't matter who you win money from. Everyone has equal right to the money that you are gambling with.