Texas Poker Supply banner Poker DIY banner Home Poker Tourney Forums
* How To Host a Poker Tournament
Welcome, %1$s. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email? Sep 20, 2017 at 03:39
Welcome, %1$s. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
:
:

^ 

Use the arrows at the
top to close this sidebar

: [1]
: How to best handle adding second table and chips?  ( 6707 )
R-Ho
Regular
***
: 2839



« : Mar 14, 2009 at 17:06 »

Question about when a chip leader at a NLHE home cash game moves to join a newly formed table to accomodate newcomers...and takes some of his chips out of play (cashes them in) to create more 'fair' starting stacks when he joins the new players at that table.

10c/20c blinds.  Buy-in is max of $20, but you can add on when down to $10.  So players sometimes buy-in for $10 then add another $20 next hand to get themselves to a $30 stack.  (I know it sounds weird, but that's what we do...)

Anyway, last night the game was one table, and our host was up to about $80 in chips, when five additional players arrived at nearly the same time, requiring the host to set up a second table for them.  Those guests were limited to buy-in to a max of $30 as described above, and the host decided to join that new table because a couple of the guys were new...which made for two tables, six players at each.

So, host makes the decision to cash out $50 worth of his chips to bring his playing stack down to $30, equal to the starting stacks of everyone else at that newly set up table.

I hadn't yet arrived when that happened, but when I arrived I didn't like the reports about how he took chips out of play.  Yet, he did it (so he said) to be fair to the new guys all starting with a max of $30.  All of them at table two played for about 3 to 4 hours at that table, with no players changing tables during that time.  After it got really late, about 3 AM, some guys left and we consolidated back to one table.

Then we had the situation where the guys coming from the other table with big stacks wanted to cash out enough to start with $30 at the remaining table, citing the host's practice earlier in the eve.  I've never seen these players try to do this until they witnessed the host do it earlier, they otherwise would have come over expecting to play with the amount of chips they had at table two.

I'm against letting a player take chips out of play until they cash out for the evening, yet I can somewhat appreciate a sense of fairness in the host's decision about starting fresh with the second table. But, it is almost a certainty that the two tables will consolidate on any given evening, so the host is on a very slippery slope.

I appreciate any input you might offer as to how best handle this.  Might we do better by allowing buy-ins that are proportional to the stack of the chip leader at a given table?

Thanks

R-Ho
« : Mar 14, 2009 at 17:25 R-Ho »
William
Regular
***
: 2303


Bloody Marvellous


« #1 : Mar 14, 2009 at 19:28 »

I would make it a rule that you must adhere to the buyin limits when moving to a new table in a cash game.
However, if he were to return to the original table he'd have to put the full $80 back into play.

If there's a rule that you have to put your full chipstack into play at the other table during the same night, then he's violating the rules of the house and it should not be allowed (even when he's the host).

I'll play you in any game you name for any amount you can count.
Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #2 : Mar 14, 2009 at 20:43 »

I would keep all chips in play in that situation. You are really just taking the same .10/.20 $20 NLHE game and spreading it across two tables. Just because new players arrive does not justify taking chips off the table. What if you started off short handed with only four players at one table then five more player show up at once to sit down at the same table, are you going to allow someone to go south in that situation? The same "reasoning" about being fair to new players would apply there as well.

If it were a situation of switching from Limit to No Limit, or from Omaha to Hold'em, or from NLHE .25/.50 to NLHE .10/.20, etc. then I would impose the buy in restrictions for anyone sitting down at the game for the first time.

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
doc
Regular
***
: 1521



« #3 : Mar 14, 2009 at 21:16 »

chips stay in the game...doc
links_slayer
Regular
***
: 3492


« #4 : Mar 15, 2009 at 07:10 »

I know it's a home game, not a casino but how is this different than playing 1/2NL (for example) at a casino, building your $200 buy-in to $1k, walking to the cashier, getting your $800 profit, and sitting down at a different 1/2NL table with your $200 buy-in?
Nerre
Regular
***
: 1126


« #5 : Mar 15, 2009 at 07:36 »


RR says:
7. If you return to the same game within one hour of cashing out, your buy-in must be equal to the amount removed when leaving that game.

So, the issue here is: Does the other table constitute the same game, or another game?

IMO it is a new game, since in a game you can win money from all the other players. In this case you can only win money from the players at your table, so two tables makes two separate games.
Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #6 : Mar 15, 2009 at 10:14 »

What constitutes a "different game"? Personally I think that the same form of poker with the identical betting structure and same stakes would be the same game regardless of which table you are at or the people you are playing against.

Let's say that the auto-shuffler at a table is broken and they take every player from one table and move them to the same seats at a different table. Isn't that the same game even though it is at a completely different table?

Now let assume that a player is at a table and everyone else at the table leaves at the same time but the casino fills all those seats with new players from the waiting list. Would that player be allowed to take chips off the table just because he is playing against new players?

Since all players are free to move from table to table, I don't look at it as a different game when playing new players, I look at it as playing the same game against a different set of players all from the same pool of competitors.

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
links_slayer
Regular
***
: 3492


« #7 : Mar 15, 2009 at 11:17 »

What constitutes a "different game"? Personally I think that the same form of poker with the identical betting structure and same stakes would be the same game regardless of which table you are at or the people you are playing against.

So using my example above you would be okay when the casino makes you sit down at the new table (same stakes, same room) with all $1k from your previous table?
Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #8 : Mar 15, 2009 at 11:32 »

What constitutes a "different game"? Personally I think that the same form of poker with the identical betting structure and same stakes would be the same game regardless of which table you are at or the people you are playing against.

So using my example above you would be okay when the casino makes you sit down at the new table (same stakes, same room) with all $1k from your previous table?

If it is within one hour of leaving the other table then yes I would say that the full $1K should be in play.

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
LabRat
Regular
***
: 642



« #9 : Mar 15, 2009 at 12:02 »

IMO, two cash tables are two separate games since you can't win money from the people at the other table.  And when they "break up a game," they don't break up all the tables playing the same game and stakes in the room.

If he comes back to the same table within the hour, then yes, he's required to buy back in for the amount he left with.

Now, that being said, I think a house rule needs to be in place to clarify for future occurances since RR is geared more towards the larger card rooms because I'd be a bit peeved if somebody at my game of 8 players in my basement walked away and watched tv for an hour and then came back to the game solely for the reason of going south legally.



Edited for fatfingered typos.
« : Mar 15, 2009 at 12:06 LabRat »
Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #10 : Mar 15, 2009 at 12:15 »

IMO, two cash tables are two separate games since you can't win money from the people at the other table.  And when they "break up a game," they don't break up all the tables playing the same game and stakes in the room.

If he comes back to the same table within the hour, then yes, he's required to buy back in for the amount he left with.

Now, that being said, I think a house rule needs to be in place to clarify for future occurances since RR is geared more towards the larger card rooms because I'd be a bit peeved if somebody at my game of 8 players in my basement walked away and watched tv for an hour and then came back to the game solely for the reason of going south.



Edited for fatfingered typos.

Actually, you can win money from players at the other table if they move to your table, they move to yours, tables are condensed, etc. And the way I see it, casinos don't break up a game, they break up a table. Furthermore, the fact that they freely distribute players from a broken table to other tables playing the same form of poker at the same stakes supports the idea that those players actually are all playing the same game IMO.

I find it ironic that you are peeved that someone would go south by leaving your game for and hour and then returning but you think that it would be OK for someone to stand up from one table, go south, then sit down at a different table even though he may be playing against some of the same players he won money from earlier that night.

I agree with you about the going south issue for a home game though which is why the house rule for my games is that you must come back with the same amount as long as it is the same poker session.

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
LabRat
Regular
***
: 642



« #11 : Mar 15, 2009 at 14:48 »

Now wait a minute.  I never said I agreed with the rule.  I just interpreted the rule.  A cash "game," as the rule states and barring any house rules, is the game being played at one table.  As you are playing your hand IN THAT GAME, you cannot win money from people at other tables unless you move to that table.

No different than playing two games of 4-person Monopoly or any other board game for that matter.  You're playing the same type of game, but you're not playing the other people sitting at the other board.  Therefore they are separate games.

I'm of the opinion in cash games, a single table makes up a "game."  If you want to start a new table, that's fine, take your chips, cash them out, start a new game.  But if you come back to this table anytime tonight (nevermind that one-hour rule in a home game), you're going to have to buy in for what you picked up when you left.

Same for the guys at the other table.  I'm of the opinion if they break that game up and the original game is still going.  They cannot move all of their chips to the table if their stack is more than the maximum buy-in.  They have to cash out and re-buy in.

At least that's how my house rule goes.  Luckily this rarely happens at my house as we rarely have that many people showing up for a cash game.

Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #12 : Mar 15, 2009 at 15:47 »

Well, I think that taking players from a third NLHE table and putting them at the other two is more often referred to as "breaking a table" instead of "breaking a game" but I'm not going to argue over differences in terminology.

Poker is unique in how it works and I cannot think of an analogous situation in any other game. But I will say that in Monopoly you cannot switch from one game to another like you can in poker so I don't think that example really applies.

I really don't think starting a new table would constitute a situation where you can take chips off the table. Let's say you have a full table and one more person shows up so you split the table into two separate tables. Would people who went to the second table be able to go south but people at the original table be required to keep their stacks?

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
LabRat
Regular
***
: 642



« #13 : Mar 15, 2009 at 16:27 »

Would it be fair to have a new table started with (for argument's sake) a maximum buy-in of $20 and then let somebody move from another table with $400?

In a home game, I'm going to say no.

In a casino game, I'm going to say yes.


My point is just because RR states something that fits a casino/commercial card room, it doesn't necessarily fit the single (or double in this case) table Saturday night basement game and a local rule is necessary for something like this.


By the way, the reason I'm calling a game a single table is if you look at rule 8 in RR:

8. In a new game, the player who arrives at the table the earliest gets first choice of remaining seats. If two players want the same seat and arrive at the same time, the higher player on the list has preference. A player playing a pot in another game may have a designated seat locked up until that hand is finished. Management may reserve a certain seat for a player for a good reason, such as to assist reading the board for a person with a vision problem.



According to that rule, each table is a separate game.


At any rate, I think a house rule is in order for this situation.


« : Mar 15, 2009 at 16:35 LabRat »
LabRat
Regular
***
: 642



« #14 : Mar 15, 2009 at 16:38 »

Sorry...that's rule 8 in the seating section.

Rule 14 in the same section seems to indicate a table is an individual game, too:

14. When a game breaks, each player may draw a card to determine the seating order for a similar game. The floorperson draws a card for an absent player. If the card entitles the absent player to an immediate seat, the player has until due for the big blind in a button game to take the seat (two hands in a stud game), and will be put first up on the list if not back in time.
LabRat
Regular
***
: 642



« #15 : Mar 15, 2009 at 16:41 »

By the way again....you make good points in your argument, not saying you're wrong.  Just saying there are a whole bunch of variables involved.

Hence, house rule is needed.  I think we both agree on that, at least.
Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #16 : Mar 15, 2009 at 22:19 »

Yup, I certainly think that there could be clearer rules and examples regarding this topic.

If RRoP refers to a single table as a "game" then that's good enough for me.

I don't tend to make distinctions between rules for casinos and rules for my home game but I understand that people have house rules which override standard rules.

To answer your initial question, if someone was up to $400 and sat down at another table playing the same format/stakes that he was playing before then I would not only think it is OK for him to move with all of his chips but that it would be unfair to make him come in for the standard buy in. I find that to be basically the same situation as the $400 player sitting at the same table and the remaining seats being filled with new players.

I know that in a casino I've been moved from one table to another with my stack (larger than max buy in) intact and that is how it works in my home game as well. If the house allows players to move freely between tables of the same format/stakes and does not allow players to take chips off the table then I think that allowing someone to take chips out of play when switching tables goes against the spirit of the going south rule.

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
LabRat
Regular
***
: 642



« #17 : Mar 15, 2009 at 23:48 »

I haven't played in a casino, so I didn't know how they handle it.

However, I would think that in order for them to open up another table, woudln't they usually want a full table's-worth of players on a waiting list before they do so?  If so, I guess the point of somebody moving to it with a huge stack would be moot.

I could see if the floor moved you involuntarily to a table that you should be able to bring your full stack with you, since you didn't make the choice.  But, what's to stop people from loading up, seeing a table that has much smaller stacks than he/she has and moving to that table to bully them?

And then if I was playing somebody in a cash game and they have a bunch of my chips (which never, EVER happens  ;) ), and the casino moves them to a table to fill it up and then me to another table to fill it up, did the casino just make the guy go south on me anyway, in a way?  I've just lost my chance to win that stack back since the table he's been moved to is full, haven't I?

It's all so damned convoluted to me, I just feel in my house since nobody's really there to make money, cashing out and starting over really isn't a big deal.

And to REALLY throw the monkeywrench into this discussion...can't anybody go south by just not jeopardizing a certain part of their stack in the first place?
Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #18 : Mar 16, 2009 at 01:00 »

One reason to be moved in a casino is if one table loses enough players they will fill empty spots on other tables so you will not necessarily be moved to a table full of standard buy ins.

There's nothing to stop someone from loading up on chips then moving to another table but then if someone can load up on chips at one table why would they want to move from it?

Regarding your scenario of being sent to a different table than the guy who won chips off of you, you would be able to move to his table when a spot opens up.

As for your house rule, if no one is there to make money then perhaps you should consider going with the casino rule. One of the reasons people advocate keeping the same rules for home games as for casino games is so that people will already be familiar with casino rules when they go play there. If players don't care about the money then keeping everything on the table shouldn't matter to them either.

Your monkeywrench question would cover many situations but what if another big stack shoves all in and you pick up Aces? Are you going to fold to protect your stack? You could if you wanted to.

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
LabRat
Regular
***
: 642



« #19 : Mar 16, 2009 at 01:22 »

One reason to be moved in a casino is if one table loses enough players they will fill empty spots on other tables so you will not necessarily be moved to a table full of standard buy ins.

There's nothing to stop someone from loading up on chips then moving to another table but then if someone can load up on chips at one table why would they want to move from it?
Because maybe the fish have moved on and play has just gotten a lot tougher?

Regarding your scenario of being sent to a different table than the guy who won chips off of you, you would be able to move to his table when a spot opens up.
Even if there are people on the waiting list?  Do I have first refusal rights at changing tables?  Honest question since like I said, I've never played at a B&M.

As for your house rule, if no one is there to make money then perhaps you should consider going with the casino rule. One of the reasons people advocate keeping the same rules for home games as for casino games is so that people will already be familiar with casino rules when they go play there. If players don't care about the money then keeping everything on the table shouldn't matter to them either.
A fair statement.  But trust me, being in Ohio (and under the morons who run Ohio), the chance of anybody at my game playing at a casino is very low.  Most would rather play Let It Ride than play poker at a casino.  I realize this goes against 90% of the people here, but our games are as much social events as they are gambling events.

Your monkeywrench question would cover many situations but what if another big stack shoves all in and you pick up Aces? Are you going to fold to protect your stack? You could if you wanted to.
If I wanted to go south, yes.  There are other hands to be played where I will be able to risk a whole lot less of my stack.  (Please realize this isn't what I think, just a hypothetical.  I'd be calling until I was blue in the face.).  I understand there's stupidity added to the equation, but what I'm saying is if people wanted to truly go south, they can.  There's obvious ways around the rules (which drives me nuts).  Much like two people checking down when one person is all in.  Bad form, and we all know you shouldn't agree to check it down, but everybody does it.

Great conversation by the way, Martini.
Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #20 : Mar 16, 2009 at 01:55 »

Fish have moved on and play has gotten tougher. Fair enough. Kinda meant that rhetorically but short answer, nothing to stop someone from loading up then moving.

Honestly, I don't know who gets preference but from reading through RRoP's section on Seating (http://www.homepokertourney.com/roberts-rules-of-poker.htm#SEATING) Rule 12 I think someone can request a seat at a different table and take precedence over someone on a waiting list. What I meant originally is that in theory one could be at the same table again.

I hear you about house rules and how it shouldn't make a difference. A lot of people say that about their home games. Not trying to change anyone's home game but I will say that by the same argument one could allow string bets. All I'm saying is that if it doesn't matter too much one way or the other I think that defaulting to standard conventions would be more advantageous. If someone who is used to standard rules comes in to your game then there will be no conflict with their understanding of the rules and your rules.

If you really wanted to protect your stack you could just leave or even just take a 60 minute dinner break and come back in with a standard buy.

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
William
Regular
***
: 2303


Bloody Marvellous


« #21 : Mar 16, 2009 at 16:26 »

I think there's a difference between a forced move (i.e. breaking up a table), or voluntarily moving to another table cuz you wanna play different players.

I think that if the latter is the case you pay for your move by having to start with the max buy-in for that table (though it's debatable if that's paying for it, or being rewarded for it).

I would also think that if you're playing in a casino it'd be too much trouble to enforce having to bring the same amount to another table. It'd be a lot easier to enforce the max buy-in limit per table.

If the casino decides that a table needs to be broken up it'd be unfair to make players cash in chips. Let's not forget that a big chipstack is intimidating, and gives you a very definite advantage over the other players.

I'll play you in any game you name for any amount you can count.
THE MAN CALLED SPARTACUS
Regular
***
: 498


The poster formerly known as wastedyungsta


« #22 : Mar 16, 2009 at 18:44 »

Why don't we just let the dude with less than $30 move to the new table and call it a day? Simple.

"Gladiators don't make friends. If we're ever matched in the arena together, I have to kill you." Spartacus
R-Ho
Regular
***
: 2839



« #23 : Mar 17, 2009 at 16:13 »

Why don't we just let the dude with less than $30 move to the new table and call it a day? Simple.

After a few bust outs and more buy-ins, there's sometimes noone at the first table with only $30 (or a full buy-in...doesn't change the argument much) in front of them.  We discourage a player from moving only it if it's going to cause overcrowding at our smallish tables.  But we don't have to regulate that aspect very much, for the two tables tend to balance themselves out, in part because our average player prefers to play more hands, and can hope to do so by leaving a table of say, 9, to join a table of 4. The fishing doesn't tend to be much better at one table or another.

R-Ho
« : Mar 17, 2009 at 16:41 R-Ho »
Martini
Regular
***
: 9999



« #24 : Mar 17, 2009 at 18:31 »

If I have two cash game tables going then I will balance them by card draw whenever there is more than one player difference.

(not a real alcoholic beverage)
: [1]
Home Poker Tourney Forums  |  General Poker Discussion  |  Poker Ring Games (Cash Games)  |  Topic: How to best handle adding second table and chips?
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


nutN2Lewz image
Copyright © 2017 HomePokerTourney.com