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.