Table Change allows ratholing?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Is that there is a perception that changing the size of your stake when changing tables equals ratholing. By definition ratholing is removing chips from your stake while playing. This isn't specific enough for he nits. Nits think that all games of a specific type/limit are all part of the same game. They aren't. Each table is a different game, whether the type/stakes are similar or different. Therefore ratholing does not apply when you switch to a different game.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that there is a perception that changing the size of your stake when changing tables equals ratholing. By definition ratholing is removing chips from your stake while playing. This isn't specific enough for he nits. Nits think that all games of a specific type/limit are all part of the same game. They aren't. Each table is a different game, whether the type/stakes are similar or different. Therefore ratholing does not apply when you switch to a different game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post.

Rarely does a very good player change games to chip down. Instead, it's usually a weaker player who wants to protect one of his rare wins. Meanwhile, requiring that a player start over with the fixed/spread buy discourages table changes by good players.

~ Rick

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, requiring that a player start over with the fixed/spread buy discourages table changes by good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is true, but you haven't convinced me that this a good thing.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
Here we consider what is more important. IMO that is to prevent skilled players with large stacks to take their large stack to another table with unskilled players and large stacks. To do so would lesson game quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the above assessment. I disagree with the notion that rules issues should consider "game quality" a criterion. I mean, sure, the rules at their most basic level (i.e. the amount of varience in a game) usually go a long way in determining the overall "goodness" of a game in the long run.

But once the basic rules of a game are settled (flush beats a straight, best hand gets the pot, etc.) the "customs" or ancillary rules should solely focus on something else. Maybe justice or something.

The basic problem with the quoted rationale is that it justifies an action on the basis that it penalises players who are good, thus, it will allow for a more even distribution of the pieces of fish.

I don't see this as a just goal for the ancillary rules of a game.

A rule exists that says when in a game, one must keep all of one's stack on the table. I think a compelling interest would need to be offered to circumvent this rule.

The easy answer is that every game is its own organism. If one accepts this answer then one must be of the "can't take it with you" camp. This is a decent agrument. I happen to disagree with it.

Again though, the idea that "goodness" of the game as far as ancillary rules goes doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Thanks for the opinions/clarifications though. Good issue.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here we consider what is more important. IMO that is to prevent skilled players with large stacks to take their large stack to another table with unskilled players and large stacks. To do so would lesson game quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the above assessment. I disagree with the notion that rules issues should consider "game quality" a criterion. I mean, sure, the rules at their most basic level (i.e. the amount of varience in a game) usually go a long way in determining the overall "goodness" of a game in the long run.

But once the basic rules of a game are settled (flush beats a straight, best hand gets the pot, etc.) the "customs" or ancillary rules should solely focus on something else. Maybe justice or something.

The basic problem with the quoted rationale is that it justifies an action on the basis that it penalises players who are good, thus, it will allow for a more even distribution of the pieces of fish.

I don't see this as a just goal for the ancillary rules of a game.

A rule exists that says when in a game, one must keep all of one's stack on the table. I think a compelling interest would need to be offered to circumvent this rule.

The easy answer is that every game is its own organism. If one accepts this answer then one must be of the "can't take it with you" camp. This is a decent agrument. I happen to disagree with it.

Again though, the idea that "goodness" of the game as far as ancillary rules goes doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Thanks for the opinions/clarifications though. Good issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, the bottom line is the card club will do whats best for the card club. Rick N has posted many dissertations on why Southern California lower level NL games are structured with 20-50BB max buy ins.


In a 20-40BB max buy in game, its against the best interest of the card club to allow a shark to sit down with more than the table max. The card clubs interest is to keep the bigger stacks playing longer, collecting more drops. If we dont like it here, we can play live in Vegas or play on line.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]


OK, the bottom line is the card club will do what it thinks is best for the card club.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ungarop]

First off, I admittedly did not search for a similar thread before posting this. I read this forum fairly regularly and did not see anything on some time on this. Guess I missed it.

Second, maybe the title of the thread was a little too strong. Instead of "ratholing", would it have made any difference in anyone's responses if I had said "pocketing profit"?

In the game that I was in where this occurred, it is my opinion (and it is just that, an opinion) that the player was not asking for a table change because he was in a bad game. In fact, he was in a very good game, getting called repeatedly with all of his big hands.

He also intended to play far more at the same limit, as I saw him in the room many hours later.

The only conclusion I could come to then was that the table change rule was used to "protect his profits" and allow him to start over. I guess I am having a hard time reconciling that this is good for the game even with the solid posts recommending that players be forced to buy up or down to match the buy-in for that limit.

Does it make any difference if there are multiple established games and he is not moving to a new table that was just started within the hour?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, maybe the title of the thread was a little too strong. Instead of "ratholing", would it have made any difference in anyone's responses if I had said "pocketing profit"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope

[ QUOTE ]
In the game that I was in where this occurred, it is my opinion (and it is just that, an opinion) that the player was not asking for a table change because he was in a bad game. In fact, he was in a very good game, getting called repeatedly with all of his big hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps his defintion of a "good game" is much different than yours. Just like your opinion on this subject is different than the rules. What does it matter anyway if he did change tables to lock up his profit? He was still leaving your table, right? You weren't going to get his chips unless you stalked him from table to table.

[ QUOTE ]
He also intended to play far more at the same limit, as I saw him in the room many hours later.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find this completely irrelevant.


[ QUOTE ]
Does it make any difference if there are multiple established games and he is not moving to a new table that was just started within the hour?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, why would that make any difference at all? It wouldn't matter if there were only two games that have never broken in the last forty years or 100 tables that just dealt one hand before he moved.

Jimbo

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
What does it matter anyway if he did change tables to lock up his profit? He was still leaving your table, right?

[/ QUOTE ]ot necessarily. Perhaps the player would not have changed tables except for the fact that he saw it as a way to get to put some chips in his pocket WHILE STILL CONTINUING TO PLAY. If he was told that his whole stack would have to go perhaps he would have stayed where he was. I have seen this happen.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What does it matter anyway if he did change tables to lock up his profit? He was still leaving your table, right?

[/ QUOTE ]ot necessarily. Perhaps the player would not have changed tables except for the fact that he saw it as a way to get to put some chips in his pocket WHILE STILL CONTINUING TO PLAY. If he was told that his whole stack would have to go perhaps he would have stayed where he was. I have seen this happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it is clear that the OP presumes the player moved for the sole reason of locking up his profit it's is safe to say in this particular circumstance that if he had been told
his stack had to stay in play that he would have left for whatever period of time was required to wait before being considered a "new player". I wasn't there so I can't say for sure but since it was within the rules which are good for the cardroom any other "What-If's" are useless.

Jimbo