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

Moving to a new table

<< < (2/5) > >>

JasperToo:
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.

Nick C:
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.

Spence:
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!

Nick C:
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.

Spence:
Thanks Nick. Much appreciated. For some reason, my manager won't back me up...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page