Author Topic: switching table  (Read 6356 times)

deagian

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 20
switching table
« on: November 03, 2014, 01:25:12 PM »
dear all
 i'm working as poker supervisor.
 on the cash game table we have that rule
A player switching games voluntarily must have the proper buy-in size for the new table.
so if a player in a 1/2 table decide to move to another 1/2 table and he has 800 euro he can seat with just 400 euro the maximum of the table
what do you think about it? how it works in your casino or card rooms?
thanks in advance

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: switching table
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2014, 04:12:20 PM »
Personally, I think that is wrong. 

If you are going to balance tables or if you are going to close a table and the players get moved, do you let them only bring the minimum buyin to the new table (400) in your example?

Just seems like "approved" ratholing to me.

chet


Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: switching table
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2014, 06:56:16 PM »
deagian,

 because it is a cash game and the player is moving voluntarily, he must comply with the rules of buy-in for that game. In other words, he must at least have the minimum buy-in requirement and can not exceed the maximum...so, in your example, the player my not put more than the max 400 euro on the table.

 If the player were forced to move by management, he must move all of his chips. This also applies when the player has less than the minimum buy-in requirement. If he asks for a table change, he must have the minimum buy-in requirement. If he is forced to move, he is allowed to continue to play with a lesser amount than required.

 There is another rule that we used to enforce when a player would cash out, and then try to return with less than he cashed out. Any player wishing to return to the same table that he cashed out of, must have been gone for at least 1 hour, or he must return with all of the chips he left with. This was enforced to discourage any player from winning hundreds of dollars and stashing it away, only to return with the minimum buy-in, again and again. Tough to enforce but surprisingly it was never a problem.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 08:09:33 PM by Nick C »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: switching table
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2014, 07:35:57 AM »
Found this on an earlier post on this subject:  I will quote the LVH Poker Rule Book: "A.1 (in part) A new player to a table must comply with the buy-in requirement for that game even if he has come from the same size and type of game, unless the house has transferred him from a similar game which has broken down, has the limit or type of game changed, or some related reason." There is no mention of the max, but it does state that the player must comply with the buy-in requirements for that game..so, that might be something that would need to be addressed by house rules.

deagian

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: switching table
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2014, 01:49:45 PM »
ok we have also the rule
A player who is forced to transfer from a broken game to a game of the same limit may continue to play the same amount of money even if it is less than the minimum buy-in.
but my point is: what is your opinion  about this rule
A player switching games voluntarily must have the proper buy-in size for the new table.
thanks

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Re: switching table
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2014, 02:39:47 PM »
I have always preached against this idea. This gives players an opportunity to go south (to pocket if you don't use that phrase there) with chips.  Allowing players to pocket winnings when moving tables violates the basis of Table Stakes.  In games that use table stakes, players must keep all chips in play in play unless moving to a game of a different type or limit.  By allowing a 1-2 player to move to another 1-2 table and pocket his winnings table stakes goes out the window.  There are several reasons why this is bad for your room:
1) It removes chips from play.  The more chips that are in play, the more chips that can be moved around between players.  The longer chips are moved around and not removed, the longer tables will stay open.  The longer tables stay open, the more rake you drop.  2) Player satisfaction.  Let's say a player busts me out, and then moves tables.  If I rebuy and move to his table, I no longer have a chance to win any of my money back from him.  Sure, I can win up to what I have
3) It makes enforcing other table stakes rules harder.  Surely you have a rule that a player can't cash out and then buy back in for less.  Well, what if I cash out, wait for you to fill my seat at the table I left, and then try to buy back in.  Either you don't let me, or I get to go to a new table with less money, mission accomplished for that player.  If you don't let him buy back in at all, even for what he left with, then you lose a player and that seat isn't filled, once again putting yourself closer to a table breaking.
4) It forces you to have two rules and does not eliminate what you perceive as being the actual issue.  If my table breaks I keep all chips but if I ask to move I get to pocket some?  Why would it matter how or why a player got to my table?  He’s at my table now and he has all those chips, if it actually mattered that he had more than me, the how he got there doesn’t change the situation.
5) CHIP STACKS ARE RELATIVE IN CASH GAMES.  If I have $100 and you have $10,000, you are not at an advantage.  I don't have to win your whole stack.  I am only at risk for and can only win up to what is in my stack at any time.  Unlike tournament play, I am under no pressure to make a move or get involved when I don’t want to.  If you buy in for $300 and I have $100 I am still only at risk for up to $100.  By forcing players to pocket chips you perpetuate the myth that a massive stack is advantageous in cash play.  Let's say I have $500 in front of me and I want a table change. When I get to my new table, every other player has $500 but now I can only buy in for $300, what did the casino accomplish by not letting me take over my whole $500?  Instead, you could educate players about relative chip stacks.  If a player complains that they only have $200 and a player just moved over with $800, you can neutralize the situation easily by (respectfully) letting the player know that “only $200 of it’s in play when he’s against you,” smile, walk away, and watch as the player suddenly come to the realization that he’s let himself be needlessly intimidated all these years.
The rule I propose for your room (and all rooms for that matter) is:
Table Stakes
A)   Chips that are in play must remain in play at all times until a player quits the game.  Players who quit a game may not return to a game of the same type and stakes with any fewer chips than they left with for a period of one hour.  
B)   Players who move tables to a table of the same game type and same stakes must move all chips, whether the table change was voluntary or as a result of a broken table.

With that as the standard, I am also favor of an additional rule:  A player may buy in for up to 75% of the largest current stack on his table.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 02:43:03 PM by Brian Vickers »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: switching table
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2014, 07:01:54 AM »
Hello Brian,
 You've got me confused on this one. The rule that I quoted above supports most of what you are complaining about. Players are not allowed to go from game to game and pocket any winnings. I will say that some of the confusion can be blamed on the word "voluntarily" instead of "requesting" a table change. If a player asks for a table change to the same type game, he must bring all of the chips that he had on the table that he exited. The only exception is if the player has "less" than the minimum buy-in...he must re-buy to comply with the minimum and maximum for that game. The existing rule for most cash games that I'm aware of, will not allow players from pocketing their winnings and returning to the same game until at least 1 hour has passed.

 If the same player is moved by management, according to current rules, he is not forced to re-buy if he has less than the minimum required for that game. An example would be a player that lost a considerable amount during his time at the table he was playing at, should not be forced out, or refused a seat at the new table if he doesn't have enough to bring his short stack up to the minimum.

 I can see where Brian is going with the mention of percent: "With that as the standard, I am also in favor of an additional rule:  A player may buy in for up to 75% of the largest current stack on his table." This might address the issue that currently exists because our problem only pertains to the maximum buy-in requirement, not the minimum.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 08:53:54 AM by Nick C »

deagian

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: switching table
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2015, 07:05:51 PM »
I'd like to know if you let the players move to one table to another
 with just 2 tables open and let them do it for more than once.
thanks

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: switching table
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2015, 08:46:45 PM »
deagian:

 Cash games, though different from tournament poker, must still have rules that prevent players from jumping from table to table...especially when there are only two games.

 The following conditions were necessary in order for any player to jump from one like game to another:  #1) A prior request would allow a player to ask for a "table change." They would then be issued a table change button or be placed on a list. #2) They would only be moved if the game they were leaving had at least as many players as the game they were entering, in other words, the games needed to maintain a balance. Eight and eight as opposed to nine and seven. #3 They must comply with the buy-in requirements for the new table.

 That's about it. The practice was very common when I worked the floor on graveyard shifts. Games began to break down or weaken until we got down to enough players to make one full table.

 I don't know if this will help but, this is what we did all the time without problems. If players were unhappy because we would not allow them to move, they would wait or go home.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: switching table
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2015, 11:34:04 AM »
Originally the room I worked in only offered 6-12 limit games.  We had four tables and always ran one as a main game.  We forced moved players from the feeder tables to the main.  This made perfect sense as the night moved on to keep the most money on the main table to have the game run as long as possible.  Let me remind you I said 6-12 LIMIT
For no limit games doing a forced move with all the chips should be done s little as possible.  We had a ton of backlash when this was introduced into 5-10 No limit.  Players couldn't come from a feeder to the main game with less than $5000 or they had no play value.  If someone went broke on a hand at the main table then it would be ridiculous to try and buy back in for the max (which at the time was $1000)
For those who are volunteering to switch games they must bring all their chips but should also have to bring at least the minimum. If your room has a minimum $100 buy-in on 1-2 and this person only has $50 then a top up is necessary to switch tables.