Harrahs New Orleans - Trip Report (Bitter) - With an Interesting Rule

[bav]

I'm with the crowd that's never seen a game's limits change so long as a single player objected. Every player has always had veto power over all such changes anytime I've seen it done. But yeah, the practical matter is if 9 people at the table wanted to change limits, and you were the only dissenter, they could have just opened a new table, 9 people woulda moved, and you would have been left by yourself on the old table. So the end result was the same and this way was far more efficient.

[ QUOTE ]
I have never heard of a casino comping ATM fees. Is this SOP at most places? Why wouldn't they just have no service charge on the ATM's (which I assume they own).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point is he spent money on ATM fees so he could play pokah, and then they went and killed the game he was in so he thinks they should compensate him.

No... I don't buy that. You could have brought cash to the casino and avoided any ATM fees. Plus you'd already lost all but $200, so you got your money's worth. I don't see comping you for ATM fees in this case. It's not the casino's fault you chose an expensive means of getting cash.

But I could see comping you for the last time charge if the game changed shortly after the half-hour. It's not very fair for them to bill you a time charge, then 5 minutes later nuke the game.

[gadflier]

I appreciate the responses. A few responses back:

1. I have regularly had my ATM fees comped at Commerce, if you ask nicely and show that it is or was put into play. The $8 isn't a big deal, it's the approach to the answer - which was awful close to go f yourself. I didn't bring money to the game because I didn't feel I needed to.
2. As to whether I belonged in the game, I agree I did not, and genuinely appreciate the caution to me of some of the responders, BUT I knew (presumed) I was the fish going in. I am of the personal belief of trying to play up. My typical game is 15-30 up to very occasional 100-200 LH, and I didn't want to play 3-6 LH that night. I came prepared to lose 2 buy-ins to the game, and when I was short-stacked I wanted to play that particular version of the game. I didn't want to sit down at a lower stakes game; I wanted to finish my string of the game I had spent 2 hours getting to learn the players at with my remaining buyin.
3. Intellectually, I fully disagree that opening another game, which is what I think they should have done and mentioned originally, is "essentially the same" as just ejecting me. First, the peer pressure to say yes or have to leave might mean that others WOULD stay (I didn't feel the need to mention it originally, but the first vote had at least one other player saying no thanks with me). Also, who's to say that other players might not have come to the table and kept that particular blind set going? I would have lost my original goal, which was playing the players there, but it's still much more fair.
4. The ruling makes sense to me as a businessman, which is keep the regulars happy at all costs, but I don't believe that such a ruling makes any sense in a poker room, AND I would think that a N.O. (more so than, say, a L.A.) room would be interested in keeping its tourists happy. And I have never heard of such a ruling being made, though one responder says he has seen it at other casinos too, which I find very interesting, and surprising.

As for those who DO want to play this level of NLH - I strongly recommend this particular table if you play the ever popular tight-aggr.

Thanks for so many well thought out responses.