[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
Here we consider what is more important. IMO that is to prevent skilled players with large stacks to take their large stack to another table with unskilled players and large stacks. To do so would lesson game quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the above assessment. I disagree with the notion that rules issues should consider "game quality" a criterion. I mean, sure, the rules at their most basic level (i.e. the amount of varience in a game) usually go a long way in determining the overall "goodness" of a game in the long run.

But once the basic rules of a game are settled (flush beats a straight, best hand gets the pot, etc.) the "customs" or ancillary rules should solely focus on something else. Maybe justice or something.

The basic problem with the quoted rationale is that it justifies an action on the basis that it penalises players who are good, thus, it will allow for a more even distribution of the pieces of fish.

I don't see this as a just goal for the ancillary rules of a game.

A rule exists that says when in a game, one must keep all of one's stack on the table. I think a compelling interest would need to be offered to circumvent this rule.

The easy answer is that every game is its own organism. If one accepts this answer then one must be of the "can't take it with you" camp. This is a decent agrument. I happen to disagree with it.

Again though, the idea that "goodness" of the game as far as ancillary rules goes doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Thanks for the opinions/clarifications though. Good issue.