Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce

[nineinchal]

Can we change the time pot rules at the Borgata? I would like to fold under the gun and get paid.

[Bishop22]

What a scumbag, typical local who uses an asinine rule to freeroll tourists. I am not a violent guy but he's going to have to pry the $12 from my cold dead hands.

[andyfox]

The problem is you don't get the $12. Under the rule, the guy who pays the collection is not entitled to it, the person who is leaving is.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is you don't get the $12. Under the rule, the guy who pays the collection is not entitled to it, the person who is leaving is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to point out the reason for this isn't some weird Commerce rule, it is because the time pot is actually an agreement between the players for one player to pay for everyone. Since they "collected $12 from each player" they would return that to the player that is leaving. Of course I agree that the player that actually paid it should get it back. It seems if they are able to make a deal among themselves to play a time pot they should manage to make another one to give the money to the player that paid it.

[dizzle98]

For everyone who thinks this is unfair, would you feel it's unfair if UTG had won the pot and paid everyone's time for the next half hour then left? I don't think everyone is going to toss him $12 just because he's leaving. This is just the price you pay for using time pots.

If you want the money back when he leaves instead of giving it to him, then he should have the right to win the pot, leave, and demand everyone pay him $12 for the time he just paid for them. Either he's involved in the time pot...and any time paid "on his behalf" belongs to him, or he's not.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
For everyone who thinks this is unfair, would you feel it's unfair if UTG had won the pot and paid everyone's time for the next half hour then left? I don't think everyone is going to toss him $12 just because he's leaving. This is just the price you pay for using time pots.

If you want the money back when he leaves instead of giving it to him, then he should have the right to win the pot, leave, and demand everyone pay him $12 for the time he just paid for them. Either he's involved in the time pot...and any time paid "on his behalf" belongs to him, or he's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is valid only in a theoretical sense. Sure if the player had won the pot he would be liable for time, however you have to believe that the player was actually going to to play the hand to believe that he could have been liable for the whole collection. In fact this rule encourages a player who was about to get up and leave, to take a hand merely for the opportunity to fold it and get paid $12. That is the player could not have been liable for the time collection because there was no chance that he would win the pot.

[dizzle98]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For everyone who thinks this is unfair, would you feel it's unfair if UTG had won the pot and paid everyone's time for the next half hour then left? I don't think everyone is going to toss him $12 just because he's leaving. This is just the price you pay for using time pots.

If you want the money back when he leaves instead of giving it to him, then he should have the right to win the pot, leave, and demand everyone pay him $12 for the time he just paid for them. Either he's involved in the time pot...and any time paid "on his behalf" belongs to him, or he's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is valid only in a theoretical sense. Sure if the player had won the pot he would be liable for time, however you have to believe that the player was actually going to to play the hand to believe that he could have been liable for the whole collection. In fact this rule encourages a player who was about to get up and leave, to take a hand merely for the opportunity to fold it and get paid $12. That is the player could not have been liable for the time collection because there was no chance that he would win the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think he's open-folding AA or KK here though? I don't. So he still has some chance to win the pot. That being said I still think it's scummy to have no intention to play just to grab the $12. But now you're getting into reading people's minds about what their intention for that 1 hand is. And he's UTG so probably not playing many hands here anyways. I think as long as his intent is to play the hand as he normally would then it's ok if he does it. I personally think the time pot is inherently unfair in the first place as tight players will almost never have to pay. (they play fewer pots and the pots they play are likely to be smaller due to their tight image and everyone folding).

But as long as people continue to play time pots the theory behind it is that everyone in the hand has "their money" taken out of the pot. Since it's their money, they are entitled to have it returned to them if they leave. Any player who has the intention of folding all but the nuts on these time pots is theoretically getting a "free $12 from the player who won the pot"

[dizzle98]

Psandman-

Obviously you think the player should give his $12 time refund to Player A who won the pot. What would you say should happen if UTG wins the pot, pays time, and leaves after one hand? Should every other player at the table pay him $12 each for the time he just paid for them?

(I actually believe it's the right thing to do to give Player A the $12, but I also believe it's the right thing to do for every other player to give him $12 if he wins and leaves the next hand)

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think he's open-folding AA or KK here though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he may. first he may fold without even looking second. Plating AA or KK here has very little potential for him. Sure with AA he could win a huge pot, but in reality we know many players believe that with AA or KK you win a small pot or lose a big pot. Winning a small pot here is pointless because if its enough of a pot to pay the collection its going to be a smaller pot after paying. So in this instance where a player has decided to leave and only is playing the pot to get his $12 he very well may open fold AA or KK.

I agree any player who decides to not play until the time pot gets paid is theoretically getting a free 12 from the winner. However those players are giving up the opportunity to play a number of hands. The problem i have with this rule is that it actually encourages a player who was planning to leave to stay for another hand with no intention of playing simply to get the $12. If the house dropped the $12 it might be equally unfair to the winner of the pot, but at least the player who was leaving has no incentive to stay and make the collection higher.

[andyfox]

The way I look at it, if you decide to be in the collection pot, you're saying, "I owe $12 for collection. But I'm agreeing to gamble on not having to pay the $12 by being in the collection pot, the winner of which will pay my collection for me. So I will either end up having to pay $12 x the number of players in the pot or nothing." There is no thought of ending up plus $12.

Also, from another theoretical standpoint, collections are paid in advance. If he leaves and doesn't get any future hands, they should not have to be paid for. The house agrees that they should not be paid for, that's why they give the money back. Who should get it?