Horrible Time Pot Rule at Commerce

[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.

[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?

[SellingtheDrama]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

heck I'd settle for getting my UTG hand free of paying time if I'm leaving anyway.

[andyfox]

The actual rule is not that you can play up to your blinds without paying time. You are supposed to pay at the time the collection pot is taken, and then, if you leave while the light is still on, you get a blowback: they give you a slip of paper that you take up to the window and you get cash back. But most of the floormen will allow you to play up to your blinds because then they don't have to go to the trouble of writing out the blowback slip.

But the rule as Bobby explained it to you is correct, stupid as it is. Most people who are leaving on their blind will declare themselves out of collection so that in case they win the hand they aren't liable for the full table collection. I have had two occasions where I thought I was going to stay but then had to leave; I asked for the blowback and gave the money to the guy who had paid the collection. This is surely the fair thing to do. The current rule is silly. Player B shouldnt get his collection "back" if player A actually paid it.

I don't think I have enough pull there to see about changing the rule, but I'll find out.

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
He folded his hand before the flop and I ended up winning the pot and paid time for the table. UTG then told the dealer he would like to get his time back because he wasnt going to play through the blinds and the dealer actually gave him $12 out of the money that I paid for the time pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have never played in a time pot - so take this for what its worth.

I think UTG shot an angle and I think the dealer made a mistake.

Had UTG declared he was not going to play another hand before the hand and didn't want to pay time - the dealer would accept that and you would have paid for everybody's time less the UTG. The next player to be seated would pay his time directly to the dealer. And everybody would have been happy.

After the hand I think the dealer should have told UTG that if he knew this was the last hand he was playing he should have announced it before the hand. The dealer should then have returned the $12 to you (and collected the $12 from the next player to sit as he likely did anyway). This is equivalent to any dispute brought up by an aggrieved player well after the time of the violation in which the aggrieved player could have benefited from further action.

What would have happened if UTG had won? I doubt he would have agreed to pay time from the pot. And I don't think anybody would have had any recourse. To my knowledge casinos don't enforce time pot rules.

[nineinchal]

What would have happened if no one took his place? Is the player who put up the time out 12 bucks?

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
What would have happened if no one took his place? Is the player who put up the time out 12 bucks?

[/ QUOTE ]
No - the dealer would have returned it to him. The casino would be out the $12. As they should be if nobody is seated.

[nineinchal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would have happened if no one took his place? Is the player who put up the time out 12 bucks?

[/ QUOTE ]
No - the dealer would have returned it to him. The casino would be out the $12. As they should be if nobody is seated.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's even more retarded.