Hold a fish to the rules or let it go?

[jar]

[ QUOTE ]
Cash on the table is bad for the game, here's yet another example of why.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think cash on the table is bad for the game? When playing limit, if I get down toward 12BB, I pull a bill out of my wallet to top up. Why should the game be slowed down to change it if I win the next hand? I can understand letting only hundreds play to avoid slowing the game down changing a twenty here and a twenty there. If I get down to only a few chips, I'll change the bill at a natural place in between hands.

[fishyak]

It's Commerce baby and the $ is in play.

The only thing I would ask is did you know beforehand that the fish did NOT intend to have the $ play? If so, the courtesy move would have been to ask the fish if he was aware that $ on the table plays. Done before this hand the whole problem could have been avoided and maybe the fish keeps reaching for his wallet.

This follows two rules: 1) Be nice to fish, They are our friends. 2) An ounce of prevention = a pound of cure.

Since Commerce is such a big pond, live and learn.

[Scarmiglio]

1. I didn't know that the guy didn't intend to have the money in play.
2. It was very clear that he was scaping bottom when he pulled out the $50. To be honest I was looking forward to having him bust out and get someone with some $$ in the seat.
3. Having one fish "swim away" is no big deal at the 4/8 commerce game. The players there all suck and there are hundreds of them. FWIW - everyone else at the table agreed with me and wanted to see him go as he was a 'sit there on a short stack and wait for a premium hand to push all in' type player. I can't stand people like that.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, the player burned through his first rack in about 20 minutes.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been playing with a noob for 30 minutes, he goes through 17BB ($136).

[ QUOTE ]
as he was a 'sit there on a short stack and wait for a premium hand to push all in' type player. I can't stand people like that.

[/ QUOTE ]



[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Scarmiglio]

After burning through his initial buy in, this is what he did. He wasn't reloading with another rack, he bought in short and was milking it. It took another 20 minutes for him to finally dump his last $14 and walk.

[AngusThermopyle]

So he tightened up after you played rules lawyer and forced him to put $6 more into the pot, which he felt was unfair and greedy on your part. That should teach him a lesson not to come up against the big boys at Commerce. But just maybe if you had cut him some slack, he would have pulled out more money, or gone to the ATM, since the table was so friendly.

Keep telling yourself that the supply of fish is infinite.

[punkass]

You'd be able to cash in for $30 at a 4/8 table?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd be able to cash in for $30 at a 4/8 table?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most places allow one short buy.

[slowplayj]

It's a 4/8 game. No one's going to make or break their mortgage at the 4/8 table. Keep it friendly and quit playing the table sheriff. Sure, 4/8 players are a dime a dozen today, but tomorrow ...

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
After burning through his initial buy in, this is what he did. He wasn't reloading with another rack....

[/ QUOTE ]

In my mind, the decision comes down to 2 factors, EV and morality. From an EV standpoint, it is a pretty simple calc based primarily on the likelihood that the fish will reload. It sounds like your read was that he was not going to hit the ATM and get more cash regardless, so you made the right EV play.

The guy was new and IF you honestly felt that he believed the cash did not play, then you might have decided to be nice and let him keep his $6. This is very similar to decisions about what percentage of your salary you should give to charity. Everyone will have a different answer and you are the only one that can answer this for yourself.