Table Change allows ratholing?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What does it matter anyway if he did change tables to lock up his profit? He was still leaving your table, right?

[/ QUOTE ]ot necessarily. Perhaps the player would not have changed tables except for the fact that he saw it as a way to get to put some chips in his pocket WHILE STILL CONTINUING TO PLAY. If he was told that his whole stack would have to go perhaps he would have stayed where he was. I have seen this happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it is clear that the OP presumes the player moved for the sole reason of locking up his profit it's is safe to say in this particular circumstance that if he had been told
his stack had to stay in play that he would have left for whatever period of time was required to wait before being considered a "new player". I wasn't there so I can't say for sure but since it was within the rules which are good for the cardroom any other "What-If's" are useless.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your assumption is invalid. I have seen many times where a player tries to find a loophole to get to take some money off, and when told his choice is it all plays or he has to leave the game and can't get on the list for X period of time, chooses to stay and play. This is typically someone who wants to play/

Now I will admit that some people will rack up and leave. I have seen a player rack up and leave in a huff because he was told that he could not take $20 off his stack to give to his buddy to buy in with.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


OK, the bottom line is the card club will do what it thinks is best for the card club.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I've rarely been impressed by the typical card club management decision making process but sometimes they stumble upon a policy (or set of policies) that is simply best not only to keep the games going (i.e. get more drops) but is also best for keeping the games good (i.e., action games) for the maximum amount of time (by time I'm speaking of months/years).

In the fixed or spread buy games if you allow top players (who probably would make savvy table change decisions) to take a voluntary change and move a large stack they will typically use that change to take a big stack to a game that has other big stacks held by much weaker players. He would obviously have a much better chance of stacking off the weak playing deep stacks then the typical player (or another good player who just joined the game).

Meanwhile, typical LA players who see a player chip down on a table change do not think of it as ratholing (and if the player quickly changes back he would usually be asked to chip back up). They look at the table change as any other player; that is one who must make the fixed buy or a buyin within the spread.

Meanwhile, typical LA players who see a game break have little objection to seeing those players being provided maximum options; after all they are usually happy that the other game breaks (instead of theirs) and that a player fills an empty seat in their game.

Meanwhile, typical LA players understand that if a must move is used the chips should travel with the mover; after all the must move game is a direct feed for the other games.

If a set of policies are reasonable and at the same time keep typical LA players happy then they are probably good policies considering LA's reputation for action games.

For a while (I think earlier this year) Hawaiian Gardens required that voluntary table changes in a fixed buy NL game must take all their chips. They probably make this change to please a purist of some sort. But they changed back because typical players didn't like it.

Remember, it's the typical players who make the games good, not the purists or the people who post here.

~ Rick

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Rick, this is the best post on this subject to date. Thanks.

Al

[davidlong14]

...rules vary widely.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
...rules vary widely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously but within Los Angeles County (or other major geographic legal poker playing areas) rules and policy tend to gravitate toward a commonality supported by the player base.

As an aside I prefer to separate poker rules and card room policy when possible. Poker rules should primarily concern what is supposed to happen (and can happen in the case of SNAFUS) during a hand from the placing of the blinds/antes to the awarding of the pot.

OTOH issues such as table changes, must moves, minimum buy-ins, disputed seat changes, game structures, and so on are really policy or marketing issues. How these issues are handled change often, really don't have much to do with the play of a hand and should be kept out of a poker rulebook.

~ Rick

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
Since Bay 101 was mentioned earlier in the thread, I'll clarify that unless you are from a broken table or must-move game, you are subject to the buy-in caps if you request a table change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I played the 10-200 a bit when they first spread the game and they made me take off extra money when I was a MUST MOVE! Absolutely terrible.

[pig4bill]

Maybe they were new at the must move thing at the time. Supposedly you bring your whole stack in the must move now.