max buy-in rulings (FL capped buy-in)

[franknagaijr]

FL poker, max buy-in at the 2/5 is $100. (No, that's not a typo, one-hundred dollars maximum.) Player A sits down and folds two hands, then puts it all in the middle on a flush draw. Except Player A puts in about $200. Player B with the large pocket pair matches the bet, A hits flush draw and now has a stack of $400. There were two house rulings worth sharing.

1) If anybody said anything during the hand, A would have been obliged to scale back to $100 max, and betting beyond that amount involving A would be void. After the hand was awarded, they would not strip A of the excess winnings.

2) Player A had to take the excess winnings off of the table, as opposed to quickly having a $400 stack, he had $200 on the table, and $200 in his pocket.

These both sound pretty standard to me.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
FL poker, max buy-in at the 2/5 is $100. (No, that's not a typo, one-hundred dollars maximum.) Player A sits down and folds two hands, then puts it all in the middle on a flush draw. Except Player A puts in about $200. Player B with the large pocket pair matches the bet, A hits flush draw and now has a stack of $400. There were two house rulings worth sharing.

1) If anybody said anything during the hand, A would have been obliged to scale back to $100 max, and betting beyond that amount involving A would be void. After the hand was awarded, they would not strip A of the excess winnings.

2) Player A had to take the excess winnings off of the table, as opposed to quickly having a $400 stack, he had $200 on the table, and $200 in his pocket.

These both sound pretty standard to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

These may sound standard to you,

but from a poker stand point I don't see how you can have it both ways -- the money plays but gets taken off the table.

From a legal standpoint this is problematic for the house. They run the risk of legal issues if they allow players to exceed the legal buy-in limit, and in making the player remove the excess money the house is essentially admitting knowledge of the fact that the player exceeded the legal buy-in.

[franknagaijr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FL poker...

[/ QUOTE ]

These may sound standard to you,

but from a poker stand point I don't see how you can have it both ways -- the money plays but gets taken off the table.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean about the legality. However, from a poker and ethics standpoint, it seems like a reasonable compromise for an unpleasant situation. In the hand itself, the player with a legit stack had no qualms with the money behind, so it was risked before the dealer caught on. (dealer was SO embarrassed.) It would have been a really sick angle shoot if the loser to the flush draw had said something just as the pot was being awarded, but would have kept quiet if the pair had held up. The guy who lost the pot did not make a big deal about any of this, by the way.

Concerning chips staying on the table, that seems unfair to the rest of the table, all of whom had to come in for $100 and build their stacks from there, if johnny-come-lately can graduate to a $400 stack by virtue of a dealer error.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Concerning chips staying on the table, that seems unfair to the rest of the table, all of whom had to come in for $100 and build their stacks from there, if johnny-come-lately can graduate to a $400 stack by virtue of a dealer error.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never considered it a disadvantage to have another player put more money on the table.

But this wasn't just dealer error. It appears to be deliberate action by the player to circumvent the rules. I'm not going to reward him by letting him both get the pot and get to rathole money.

If its unfair for the player to keep the money on the table (which is a bizarre notion to me) then i gues sthe solution is that the money leaves the table along with the player.

[youtalkfunny]

When was it noticed that Player A had more money on the table than allowed? Who pointed it out?

And you guys are all nuts if you think the dealer is responsible to constantly monitor everyone's stack size. The players need to police the game, when it comes to things like that.

If you want the house to responsible for this stuff, just volunteer to pay extra rake, and I'm sure the house will provide a chair umpire, like in tennis, to sit high above the table and watch everything.

[Bossman9]

Are you sure that Player A did not just tranfer from another table??? If you request a table change, you can bring your stack to the new table regardless of size....

[franknagaijr]

Nope, they only had one 2/5 in the whole place, so unless the dude was coming from an alternate universe, he came from a 1/2. The rest of us also came from 1/2s, and the dealers had been enforcing the rule uniformly, except for this temporary lapse.

Sandman, I see what you mean. In effect, the table and the house turned the situation into obligatory ratholing.

[chillywater8]

I do not know if it is standard but I have seen players bring 100+ stacks from a broken 2/5 to a 1/2 and the other way around, pretty common when a seat at the preferred game is unavailable in the room I play. I once was at a broken 1/2 with a $300 stack and was allowed to move to a 2/5.
If the guy was not from another table he should only win what his $100 would have brought him the rest is returned.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure that Player A did not just tranfer from another table??? If you request a table change, you can bring your stack to the new table regardless of size....

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at Pompano - you can only bring more if the table is broken up.

[FlyinJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure that Player A did not just tranfer from another table??? If you request a table change, you can bring your stack to the new table regardless of size....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering how most of the rooms are handling this? At the room I play at you can not bring more than $100 to a table no matter what. Not if you transfer and not if your table is broken. It seems that open to doing it as they let us transfer stacks for a couple of days, but then they attended one of the pari mutual meetings and said they could no longer do it.