Nevada and California Rules regarding Table Change buy ins

[AngusThermopyle]

I you change tables (not from broken game) at the same limit, you have to have the table minimum and post, right?
You are treated like a new player, right?
Hence, you should not be able to bring more than the max, just like a new player.

Of course, if you table change back to your original table, you should be required to put the full amount you left the original table with, if less than a half hour (or whatever the room rule is) has passed since you left.

[Wongboy]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he doesn't.

[chucky]

MOP is mathematics of poker. Read chapter 12.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

...and I stopped reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopped reading why? This game does exist, caesars I believe. Most vegas games are now $300 max. Wynn and binion's no cap. Compared to LA that is very deep, but it's a fact, not a reason to disregard a good post.

[Rottersod]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

...and I stopped reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopped reading why? This game does exist, caesars I believe. Most vegas games are now $300 max. Wynn and binion's no cap. Compared to LA that is very deep, but it's a fact, not a reason to disregard a good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading because I play in LA and am very jealous of a casino that is allowed to spread a 1/2 NL at $500.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find this argument persuasive, largely because I don't even believe you believe it. After all, if thats your reason for allowing a player to rathole when he changes games, why isn't it equally valid for allowing a player to rathole while remaining in the game?

[rchandra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find this argument persuasive, largely because I don't even believe you believe it. After all, if thats your reason for allowing a player to rathole when he changes games, why isn't it equally valid for allowing a player to rathole while remaining in the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I find it persuasive for allowing ratholing too, as long as a min stack-size is enforced (no all-in advantage please) and there's a mechanism for making it obvious (so a player can't manipulate his stacksize midhand). But I think the reason why Al's argument works for table change and not ratholing is that when table changing the players at the old table are no longer involved and probably won't even notice the guy's stack size. The new table will care so enforcing the cap makes a little sense (and many players hate ratholing so enforcing that makes a little sense also).

[Al_Capone_Junior]

As I stated, neither rule is clearly superior, both have clear downsides. However, I don't feel that changing tables within the same limit is equivalent to staying in the game (and at the same table) as where you are playing now. Therefore abiding by the min/max buy-in rules when switching tables, and subsequently having to remove some chips from play, is equivalent to ratholing.

I do feel that changing tables is equivalent to changing games. Otherwise it would be as if all tables of a specified game/limit were linked together. So there's not three full tables of 1-2, there's thirty players. Baloney.

And as for giving players a chance to get their money back, there's no chance if a winner switches games anyway, unless you follow him, which few ever do.

Al

[pokerdoug1973]

Players moving to a game of the same limit, on a voluntary basis are required to keep the same stack and are not allowed to cash out. Player's from a forced move situation, such as a broken game, can enter for less than the minimum buy in, provided thats all the chips they had when the game broke.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Players moving to a game of the same limit, on a voluntary basis are required to keep the same stack and are not allowed to cash out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Location? Please understand that rules for things like this are not universal.