PokerTDA
LIVE CASH GAME POKER RULES DISCUSSION => Live Cash Game Rules Questions => Topic started by: Spence on March 23, 2011, 03:39:25 PM
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nick, I think you may have misunderstood a bit. The essence of your post regarding the procedures for maintaining tables for both must move and balancing tables was correct - spot on - I was just commenting on the fact that I LIKE MUST MOVE rather than balancing. And that is apparently where we disagree. But I think that is just a preference thing.
I tell the guy at the main game to get comfortable where he is cause he ain't moving. It is that simple. As long as the players know that the MUST MOVE table players actually must move, then the main game players know they shouldn't even be looking at the other table. They just have to wait for the fish to come to them :)
Sorry Spencer, got off track. The answer to your question is that if it is the same game and limit any player moving to another table takes all his chips. If it is a different limit and or structure he must cash out and buy in for the table buy-in limits of the new game.
-
Spence, I thought I did answer that question on my first reply. If a player is forced to move by the house he can take his winnings and cash out as long as he meets the buy-in requirements for the game. If he asks to be moved, (requests a table change) he has to bring all his chips. This is the way we used to do it and I notice that Jasper says if it's the same game and limit any player brings all his chips. So there you have it, another optional house rule for us to ponder. In a low limit game it was easier to understand. Example; Player at table 1 wants table 2, the buy in is only $40. He bought in for $40 when he started but now he only has $15. His seat opens at table 2, they call his name and he moves. He must re-buy in order to play. Now the same situation but he does not request to move, the house moves him because his game is breaking down. He can sit at table 2 with his $15 if he wants. I hope this helps you understand. That is how we always did it, but that was long ago.
-
Hey guys. Just to clarify this a bit more:
>Yes the player is choosing to move.
>This is not a forced moved situation.
>I am opening a new game.
>The max buy-in is $200.
>The game will open short handed so there is seating available.
>The player in question has $800.
>We have established that we want him to move all his chips.
The question remains, does it make sense to allow a player to move to a new table with more than the allowable max buy-in simply because he wishes to move? Yes it benefits us in keeping the games balanced to allow for a full rake to be taken but, isn't this an issue of integrity? Isn't our role as a TD or poker Houseman to preserve the integrity of the game? I am conflicting with other members of staff at my location over this. All I was asking is that the player who wishes to move be forced to wait one orbit of the button. No player is forced to post when entering a new game (except the blinds) unless the button has passed them or finished the first orbit. Do you feel this is necessary or am I just being picky? It will probably turn out that the table has no more chips after the first orbit and actually could have less due to rake, but can't I at least say I tried to do something to keep that player from coming to the game and being a potential bully?
Back me up guys!
-
Spence,
If you ask me, I think you answered your own question. 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. I think your defining the player as a "bully" might hold weight. If you are looking for some back-up, I'm on your side. It is too much of an advantage to subject the other players to. It would probably hurt your chances of filling that game, too. Well, that's how I feel about it. I hope I answered your question.
-
Thanks Nick. Much appreciated. For some reason, my manager won't back me up...
-
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
-
Now that we agree, what rule does your card room use?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Brian: Does it make any difference if the move is:
A) at the direction of the house (perhaps to balance tables or a must move situation), or
B) at the request of the player (perhaps to start a new table or just to move to a different table when his request for a table change comes up)?
I know that if I was called to a new table and a player moved to that new table from an existing table with considerably more than the max buy-in I am allowed, I would just get up and leave. Why bother having a table maximum buy-in, there is no point.
Chet
-
Chet,
All I could find, pretty much confirms what I said about the minimum buy-in. The interesting part is the player that exceeds the max. 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.
-
When I first came to my current casino, they had the policy that if a player requested to move he couldn't bring over more than the max buy, but if the table broke down and combined he had to bring them all with him.
First off, this casino is in a state that has recently legalized poker, so you won't find very many "ethical" "etiquette following" players around here for no other reason than they didn't know any better. At first, players wanted to just take chips out of play after they built their $60 buy-in up to $300 and were now playing scared. Once they found out they couldn't do that, they just started asking for a table change request and were allowed to freely pocket their winnings and keep playing.
To me, this is very bad for the house because it's less total money in play in the room. The less money in play in the room, the sooner your games will break down as the night goes on. From a player's view, I don't want some guy winning a huge pot off me, move tables and then even if I move tables too that money is no longer in play and I have no chance to win it back. Are we really that concerned with a player coming to a table with a large stack? The poker players I know always seem to want to play on a table with more money and are constantly asking for table changes if their table has too little money on it. Going south is a huge no-no, and I am strongly against any rule that helps facilitate this.
On a related note: Some rooms already have similar rules, but I am also in favor of implementing a rule that states that players may buy-in for up to 75% of the largest stack on the table. If the max buy-in at your table is $200 and someone comes over with $600 then you are now able to buy yourself up to $450 if you are that concerned about being out-stacked.
-
Spence,
Your first post was a real interesting one. I think that we can all see that, based on current rules that we've covered, we can't have it both ways. If a player wins a large amount of money, and wants to quit, he must not play the same limit and type game for 1 hour or he is supposed to return with all of his chips. If he waits, he my enter the game as long as he meets the buy-in requirements for that game. The rules for limit games are much easier to follow because there is no maximum limit required for the buy-in. I don't see how a player can move from one game to the same limit game at another table and not comply with the house rules that apply for the buy-in.
Brian, to answer your question :Are we really that concerned with a player coming to a table with a large stack? My answer is YES in a no-limit or pot-limit game. Because of that, your suggestion of putting a percentage of the amount of the highest stack on the table would have to be a house rule, and I guarantee, if that ever happened, you would have a range of different %'s form casino to casino. I think that there are a couple "fixes," that might be easier to introduce:
1)a.... In no-limit and pot-limit, any player REQUESTING a table change to the same type game; must meet ALL buy-in requirements for that game, including not to exceed the maximum.
b....or,Any player REQUESTING a table change must meet the minimum buy-in requirement and move all chips to the new table, even if the amount exceeds the maximum buy-in requirements for the game.
- OR-
2) Any player FORCED to move from any game to the same type game will be allowed to enter the new table with the amount that they had at the other table, even if it is LESS than the minimum or MORE than the maximum buy-in established for that game.
-
All great responses. I wanted to make one comment on Brian's post
On a related note: Some rooms already have similar rules, but I am also in favor of implementing a rule that states that players may buy-in for up to 75% of the largest stack on the table. If the max buy-in at your table is $200 and someone comes over with $600 then you are now able to buy yourself up to $450 if you are that concerned about being out-stacked.
An old rule of some of our local card room's is that in No-Limit, there was no cap on the buy-in. This has changed in most rooms now but perhaps it is not for the better. Maybe we should allow a buy-in up to 100% of the largest stack on the table. I think this might be the most equitable solution to the problem. It should effectively deal with the problem of having a larger stack move to a new table. That said, it'll never happen but I thought I'd put it out there anyway.
Just to refocus this whole post was over moving someone to a new table. Although I am not being supported by my manager(She said to move all chips) I will not allow a person with more than the maximum buy-in to join for one full orbit. After that, it's fair game.
-
Spence: I understand your problem, but you are now creating a new problem, one that may be even worse than the max. buy-in issue. That problem is inconsistent interpretation or application. In my opinion, one shift interpreting a rule in a different way than another or one manager using a different interpretation than another is worse for the player than the issue we have been discussing.
Since this is a cash game or house rule issue, the TDA, to my knowledge, does not and should not take a position. Is this something worth loosing your job over? If you knowingly take a position and interpret rules differently than your manager, it will not take very long for that word to get back to management.
Having considerable experience in the interpretation of management just cause for dismissal, I don't think you would have much justification for taking/enforcing a position contrary to management direction.
Just my 2 cents worth.
chet
-
Just to refocus this whole post was over moving someone to a new table. Although I am not being supported by my manager(She said to move all chips) I will be enforcing my own rule while I am the manager on duty. I will not allow a person with more than the maximum buy-in to join for one full orbit. After that, it's fair game.
Hopefully your manager doesn't read these boards.
Chet has it right on when he says that inconsistency in rulings is infinitely worse than enforcing a rule you don't agree with. The players who have been the "victim" of the "incorrect" rule will be even more upset if the next day another player is allowed to do something different. I've encountered this issue at both poker rooms I've worked in and NOTHING is more frustrating to me. Nothing.
-
INTEGRITY FIRST! Paycheque second... ;D