Table Change allows ratholing?

[ungarop]

Playing 2/3 NL (100-300 buyin) at Oceans 11. First time at this card room, although I have been to other card rooms in California (Bay 101, Commerce, Bike).

Super LAG comes to the table, buys in for 200 and proceeds to run it up to 1000+ in about an hour. He's raising every hand to 10 preflop, calling reraises, betting every street and hitting 2 pair or better every hand.

Immediately after he wins the hand that puts him over 1K, he asks the brush for a table change to another 2/3 game.

15 minutes later he is called, goes to the cashier with his two racks of red, cashes out, and then buys into the other 2/3 game for 200.

I just don't understand a card room rule that would allow a player to do this when changing tables at the same limit. I can understand the rule when buying into a different limit (like only being able to bring the max to the next highest limit NL game for instance).

I guess I never noticed this at Bay 101, Commerce or the Bike if it happens there since I am not a regular. I am pretty sure this does not happen in Vegas either. At Foxwoods where I play, I believe the rule is that you bring the entire stack.

Can someone explain why this is a good rule for the players or the room?

[SellingtheDrama]

Generally you can only buy into a game for the posted max. unless you come from a broken game or a must-move.

Yeah this allows a ratholing option, but imagine how the other game would feel if a very talented player cleaned out the game in the same way, and then moved to your table. The rule is there to protect the next game.

How does it benefit the casino: odds are he'd leave if they don't let him change games, so they get more rake from him. Players - half the time he'll burn through his small buyin and rebuy for at least a good part of the winnings. Odds are stronger that eventually all the money will get back in play, just take longer.

I have noticed this rule at Borgata, and its very consistently enforced. Hell, I caught a guy shooting the angle the other way - in the 2/5 section he racks up a single rack of reds and asks for a table transfer. Floor grants it, he comes to my game, sits the rack down and then goes back for another $400 he had. I quietly ask the floor (who happens to be standing next to me), and he handles it correctly.

[psandman]

I know of two rooms in Vegas where this is not only allowed, but the player changing tables is not permitted to bring more than the maximum buy-in to the new table when making a voluntary table change.

I agree this is a bad rule, but unfortuinately it is not uncommon.

[AngusThermopyle]

Voluntary table change...you have to post? ...you need minimum buy in? ...you are treated like a new player? ...if you missed your blind at the old table, do you have to make up your blinds at the new table?

Player X takes money off of players on Table A. The 'anti-ratholing' rule is to allow players on Table A a shot at winning the money back, as long as Player X is there and trying to take more money off of them.
Player X moves to Table B. Why should the players there have a 'right' to win that money?
Player X cashes out. Comes back 8 hours later. Same players on Table A. Should he be required to buy in with what he left with?

Question for "must take it all" proponents:
George buys in $200. Runs it up to $1000. Moves to second table. Forced to take all $1000. Loses $700 quickly. Gets table change back to original table. It has been 10 minutes since he left.
Can he sit down with the $300 he has left?

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
The 'anti-ratholing' rule is to allow players on Table A a shot at winning the money back, as long as Player X is there and trying to take more money off of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the only reason for the rule. In fact though I believe most people think this is the reason for the rule, the more important reasoother than perception wise) is that the part of the table stakes rule that allows a player without enough money to call a bet to be all-in for what they have and not have to call additional bets is a significant advantage to an all-in player, therefore a player should be permitted to remove money in play in order to get closer to all-in status to enjoy the benefits of being all-in.

[Crusher19]

I think the official ruling at most places is that if you leave a table into another main game you have to bring the whole stack or wait 4 hours to buy in for a smaller amount, but im not %100.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the official ruling at most places is that if you leave a table into another main game you have to bring the whole stack or wait 4 hours to buy in for a smaller amount, but im not %100.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Southern California, because of the short buy ins, the rule is to protect the new game and I agree with it. At the 3/5 you can only sit down with 200. Stacks play much deeper than this, but why should a table changing shark sit down with more than $200 because he sees a deep stacked fish at the new table.

[kak1154]

[ QUOTE ]
Player X takes money off of players on Table A. The 'anti-ratholing' rule is to allow players on Table A a shot at winning the money back, as long as Player X is there and trying to take more money off of them.
Player X moves to Table B. Why should the players there have a 'right' to win that money?
Player X cashes out. Comes back 8 hours later. Same players on Table A. Should he be required to buy in with what he left with?

Question for "must take it all" proponents:
George buys in $200. Runs it up to $1000. Moves to second table. Forced to take all $1000. Loses $700 quickly. Gets table change back to original table. It has been 10 minutes since he left.
Can he sit down with the $300 he has left?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he can (and must) sit down with the $300 he has left.

I don't think the rule is there to protect the people at Table A. If they want to win their money back, they can request a table change and chase Player X around as much as they want to. It's there to prevent people from ratholing by switching tables all the time.

Why wouldn't players at Table B have the right to win Player X's money? You're saying that I can only win money that I already lost to someone? What about this example: Player X sits down at Table A and busts everyone else on the same hand. He now has 10 buyins. 9 new players get called to the table. Does Player A have to take 9 buyins off the table?

What I'm trying to prove is that it doesn't matter who you win money from. Everyone has equal right to the money that you are gambling with.

[pig4bill]

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.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the official ruling at most places is that if you leave a table into another main game you have to bring the whole stack or wait 4 hours to buy in for a smaller amount, but im not %100.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's safe to say there is no official rule at "most places". This one is all over the map. There is the "must take the whole stack" camp. There is the "cannot take the whole stack" camp. And there is the "take whatever you want and pocket whatever you want" camp. And as for time, there's the 30 minute, 45 minute, 60 minute camps. I've never played anywhere with a 4-hour rule...that seems a bit ludicrous. While we're at it, let's institute a 24 hour rule. Heck... I'm all for a 288 hour rule!

Rules is rules and you just gotta accept what the joint you've chosen to play in allows.