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

Moving to a new table

<< < (3/5) > >>

chet:
Nick:  Unless I am missing something, you have contradicted yourself.  Now, before I continue, I agree 100% that allowing this player to bring more than the buyin to the new table would give him a HUGE advantage. 

That said, in your last response you said, "Allowing the player with $800 to sit in a new game with a max of $200 would not be appealing to me, or any other players I asked." (This was from you most recent response, Posted Today at 1:16:58)

In your response prior to that one, Posted on: March 25, 2011, 07:09:33 pm, you said, "If he asks to be moved, (requests a table change) he has to bring all his chips."

If this isn't a contradiction, please tell me what I am missing.

Chet

Spence:
Now that we agree, what rule does your card room use?

Nick C:
Chet,
 All we are trying to do is prevent a player from pocketing his winnings and moving from table to table with the minimum buy-in. I guess we are more concerned about complying with table stakes. If the poor guy lost $600 and he only had $50 left (not enough for the buy-in), what are you going to do, send him home because you moved him to the last game going and he didn't have the buy-in. You figure it out. I know what I said and I don't see the contradiction but maybe there is. I guess I'm more familiar with the games when there was no maximum buy-in, only a minimum. If a player wanted to pocket his winnings and go the the same limit game he had to wait one hour before he could enter with the minimum. There is no question that there is a big difference in limit as opposed to no-limit. Maybe I'll be able to sort it out a little better tomorrow, but for now I'm calling it a night.

Nick C:
Chet and Spence and Jasper,
 I will now try to address Spence's original question with a little more clarity. The key to the question is the NEW GAME. There is no way that a player could be allowed to be seated with the original players, having $800, when the max is $200. No way. That defeats the purpose of having a max for that game. I've looked back at our responses and I can see why Chet questions my answers. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion. The good news is, it won't ever be a problem that we have to worry about in a tournament. Thinking this out, I realize that the buy-ins and methods that card rooms use for moving players from table to table are not POKER RULES, they are better classified as HOUSE RULES. When I consider that ten years ago, a maximum buy-in was unheard of in most casinos. The main reason was most rooms did not spread no-limit. I remember games with the lowest minimum buy-in requirement had no restriction whatsoever on the max. The more a player would put on the table, the more we all liked it.
 There is a definite separation that is neccessary between the more popular no-limit, and any limit game. Moving players is one of the toughest duties for any floor person. Keeping the players happy in the wee hours of the morning takes a lot of finese. Working the graveyard shift is always more challenging than working a shift where all the tables are full, and there are long lists of players waiting for a seat. When those games start to break, with no list, and no chance of starting another game, that's when we sometimes bend the rules.

Brian Vickers:
In order to maintain table stakes, players moving from one table to another table of the same game type and stakes must move all of their chip in order to maintain table stakes. 

Forcing a player to buy back down to the table's max would give a player a free pass to go south.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page