LIVE CASH GAME POKER RULES DISCUSSION > Live Cash Game Rules Questions

Moving to a new table

(1/5) > >>

Spence:
I was curious to find a little about what rules your card rooms use in this circumstance. When an existing game has been running several hours, and you are opening a new game, do you allow players who have already been playing to move to the new games? As far as I know all card rooms dictate that you MUST move ALL your chips if you are moving to a table of the same stakes. In a no-limit game where the buy-in is capped what is your protocol on table changes?
Would you allow a player with $800 to move to a new table, but force them to take all their chips, even when the buy-in might be max. $200?
Would you allow that person to cash out the remaining $600?
Would you make them wait a set amount of time before the new table isn't considered new anymore?
Any other rules, comments, suggestions, I'd love to hear them thanks!

Nick C:
Welcome Spencer Wood,
 Usually when two or more games of the same limit are in progress and a player requests to move to another table he must meet all of the requirements for that game. In other words, he must have the minimum buy-in and he can not exceed the maximum (if there is one). If the house moves a player, then that player may maintain the chips that they had in play even if it does not meet the required buy in, this would also include an amount that exceeds the maximum. Sometimes when games are breaking down, management is forced to consolidate several short handed games down to a reduced number. So a good rule of thumb (it keeps a lot of players from jumping from table to table) is to stick with this formula. Players that leave a game after a big win and want to come back to the same game must be gone for at least one hour, or they are required to buy-in with the amount they cashed out. You can see where these rules might be tough to enforce, but it has never been a problem that I know of.
 Something else to consider might be to decide if you want to have balanced tables or use the main game with one or more "feeder tables." I prefer to balance but, many rooms use the feeder because they always want at least one full table. Example; Three tables spreading the same game, main game has 10 players and the first feeder might have 10 and the second feeder is in trouble when they get down to 6 or less. If you were using a balance with a total of twenty-six players, you could have 9 at two tables and 8 at the other. The balance would guarantee that no table had two more players than any other of the same game. We used to use table change buttons and if the player passed when asked to move they had to give up the button. In the wee hours of the morning, on a graveyard shift, when we knew that the games were going to break down, with no chance of attracting new players, I always liked the balance the best. I found that if we had three tables and we were at about twenty-two or twenty-three players, we would draw cards to see who would move and who would be first on the waiting list. Somehow, players were always more receptive to the luck of the draw as opposed to telling them they had to sit out because they were the last one seated by a minute or two. At times, we would actually make a table 11 handed to satisfy our early morning customers. I hope this helps.

JasperToo:
Nicks answer is spot on.. I just wanted to comment on using balanced tables or feeder tables.

I know personally and many other players really hate balanced tables.  They usually prefer must move tables and a "main" game.  Two things happen otherwise; a player will start the original game off at the beginning of the day and work a stack up and then later on has the other tables breakdown, instead of that first game getting all the players and lasting the longest, his table breaks and he is forced to move to a new table.  Or while the tables are being balanced throughout the afternoon, a player potentially would get bounced (most Floor guys are careful not to but it can happen)

Most players like to know that once they get to the 'main' game they are there for the duration.  If they start at a "must move" table they know they will have to / get to move to the main game eventually

Nick C:
Jasper,First you say my answer is spot on and then you turn around and tell us how you hate balanced tables. We don't agree on too much, that's for sure. More reasons why "Must Move" sucks, IMO:
 The main game isn't always the best game and I've seen the main game break in a hurry before one of the feeder games. Another question; what do you do when a player in the main game wants the feeder game? I've had quite a bit of experience with both and I like Balancing tables better.

Spence:
I think you guys are missing the point of my post. The question was what do you do if a player has more chips than the max buy on a new game. Do you force them to move ALL their chips? Do you have them cash out the remainder or do you say they cannot move?
Another card room I worked in we did both balance and force move. We force moved our big game to keep it alive, but for our regular games, just balanced out with new players.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page