Table Change allows ratholing?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

There was a COLLOSAL thread about this a few weeks back.

The actual problem is that there is a perception that abiding by the min/max buy-in rules when changing tables is the equivalent of ratholing. It's not. Just like your perception does not equal fact. In addition, these people with their perception always manage to completely ignore the potential negative consequences of the alternative (always being forced to bring all your chips). If I have to explain it to you, and you can't see the other side of the arguement on your own, then it's not worth my effort to rehash it all. Use search.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
...why should a table changing shark sit down with more than $200 because he sees a deep stacked fish at the new table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the essence of why the policy is best. I'm glad to see so many posters have said something similar in response.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a COLLOSAL thread about this a few weeks back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is the COLLOSAL thread you were thinking of but in it I helped cover the various buyin options in the LA area and the reasoning behind it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
There is the "must take the whole stack" camp. There is the "cannot take the whole stack" camp. And there is the "take whatever you want and pocket whatever you want" camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with the latter 2 regimes concerns the broken game. If a game breaks and players are absorbed into another game (or 2 or 10), then aren't these "broken game" players given greater rights than the non-broken game players (or fewer "rights" in the case of the "cannot take the whole stack" camp)?

If a regime exists where players who change tables can do anything but have to take their whole stack, shouldn't any player be free to lower or raise his stack (up to the max) between any hand?

I remember the rule at Bally's in Vegas used to be quite silly. It was an ultra "cannot take it with you" rule. Any table change required you to lower your stack to the table max.

I asked what the rationale was. They said it was because all table changes were voluntary. I brought up the issue of a broken game. They implied that even a broken game is "voluntary" as a player can choose to not allow the game to break.

This led to my calling it the "buddah" rule. If one were so inclined, one could stay at a restricted buy-in table with a big ass stack (I know all things being equal a large stack isn't an advantage in a cash game--but I'm just goin' for the image), holding all other would be new players (and existing players at the would be broken table) hostage.

Floor: You want to play 1/2NL sir?

New customer: Why yes. Looks like a fun table.

Floor: Yes sir. It's a very fun table indeed. You'll have to play here though as this other table is currently one-handed. We have to try and keep the games equal you know.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
then aren't these "broken game" players given greater rights than the non-broken game players (or fewer "rights" in the case of the "cannot take the whole stack" camp)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Broken game players typically have more rights than table change players.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
Broken game players typically have more rights than table change players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not comparing broken game players to table change players. I'm comparing broken game players to "absorbed game" players.

If a class of player can alter his stack due to his "broken" status, shouldn't a player have the right to alter his stack due to his "absorbed" status?

This is a large reason why I strongly support the "must take all of it with you" camp.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Broken game players typically have more rights than table change players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not comparing broken game players to table change players. I'm comparing broken game players to "absorbed game" players.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is an "absorbed game" and who are "absorbed game players"?. I read your other post and I'm mystified.

Perhaps you can connect these terms to:

- a player coming from a table that is a still active "must move" game (i.e., a game that protects one or more main games)

- a player who has requested a table change

- and of course a player coming from a game that has broken (whether it was must move or simply another game without must move protection).

~ Rick

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
but why should a table changing shark sit down with more than $200 because he sees a deep stacked fish at the new table.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason the deep stacked fish is allowed to have more chips than a new player could buy-in for. Presumably because he won them.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
What is an "absorbed game" and who are "absorbed game players"?.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a simple example.

Two games, niether is a "must move" or "main game". Both games are 5 handed.

Table A decides it wants to break and merge into table B. Under some regimes, Table A players (the broken) will have greater (or fewer) "rights" than Table B players (the absorbed. . .perhaps this is a poor moniker. . .maybe "non-broken" would be clearer).

In all three of the cases you mention, I believe the moved player should have to take his entire stack.


[ QUOTE ]
a player coming from a table that is a still active "must move" game (i.e., a game that protects one or more main games)

[/ QUOTE ]

These games are pretty much all the same game, as the players who populate the main game (looking forward) will all come from the "must move" trough.

[ QUOTE ]
- a player who has requested a table change

[/ QUOTE ]

To allow this species to alter his stack would allow an easy circumvention of the traditional "ratholing" rule. What happens if he wants to move back into the came from which he initially moved (after cashing out $). Do you stop him?

[ QUOTE ]
and of course a player coming from a game that has broken (whether it was must move or simply another game without must move protection).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the example I started this post with. Why should those coming from a game that elected to break be given more (or fewer) rights than those members of the other game that chose not to break?

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is an "absorbed game" and who are "absorbed game players"?.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a simple example.

Two games, niether is a "must move" or "main game". Both games are 5 handed.

Table A decides it wants to break and merge into table B. Under some regimes, Table A players (the broken) will have greater (or fewer) "rights" than Table B players (the absorbed. . .perhaps this is a poor moniker. . .maybe "non-broken" would be clearer).

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO the most practical (and fair) policy here is to allow the players from the broken game to take their exact amount of chips OR come up/down to the fixed or spread buy. Limiting their options tends to make it a little more likely they will simply leave the club/casino. I've rarely seen a player object or complain when a broken game player comes with either a deep or short stack; after all they tend to see they had to move involuntarily. Also keep in mind you rarely get two five-handed games involved in a waiting match; generally one game breaks down far faster than others.


[ QUOTE ]
In all three of the cases you mention, I believe the moved player should have to take his entire stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, we disagree for the reasons already expressed in other posts within the thread.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a player coming from a table that is a still active "must move" game (i.e., a game that protects one or more main games)

[/ QUOTE ]
These games are pretty much all the same game, as the players who populate the main game (looking forward) will all come from the "must move" trough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here of course we agree that a must move player brings his current stack and has no options.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- a player who has requested a table change

[/ QUOTE ]
To allow this species to alter his stack would allow an easy circumvention of the traditional "ratholing" rule. What happens if he wants to move back into the came from which he initially moved (after cashing out $). Do you stop him?

[/ 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. Also note as others have said that chipping down on a table change isn't really removing chips won from the current batch of players. If he moves back within an hour he usually has to restore his original stack.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and of course a player coming from a game that has broken (whether it was must move or simply another game without must move protection).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the example I started this post with. Why should those coming from a game that elected to break be given more (or fewer) rights than those members of the other game that chose not to break?

[/ QUOTE ]
As mentioned earlier games rarely break down at an equal rate so the policies need to reflect the most common situation; that is that one game was short, got shorter, people complained, then it broke. Here you want to give people who just undergo the displeasure of playing short (at most limits) maximum options. Once again I've rarely seen objections from the ongoing game players.

~ Rick