Posted Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:42 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Okay, technically, I'm referring to a homegame, but the hosts claim they play "Trop Rules". They claim to play regularly in AC.
Issue #1: It's a NL homegame. They allow players to "buy chips" off of other players who have large stacks. This I know to be illegal in a casino, but I don't really have a problem with it as they have a limited number of chips in supply. However, this issue arose at the last game that I attended. A player had cash on the table from where another player had bought chips off of him after going broke. A hand arises and that player announces "all-in" and proceeds to push their stack inclusive of the cash into the middle. The hosts say "The cash doesn't play."
Issue #2: A player with a large stack sells off some of his chips. He then proceeds to pocket that cash. Later, he sells off more chips to another player who still has chips and pockets that cash too. A player calls him out for "going south" and an argument ensues.
Issue #3: Player A raises, Player B reraises, Player C reraises and Player A declares "all-in" only to be told that there's a 3 bet cap and that "that's how they play at the Trop." I've never seen a cap in NL in a casino.
Any help on these matters would be appreciated as I would like to share with the hosts in private the correct rulings in these matters. I think I know the answer to all, but I'd like to have more collaboration before addressing the issues.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:50 pm GMT by Dave B
No idea what Trop rules are, but I say BS on all counts. Although some casinos have goofy rules, taking money off the table would be a new one.
I have seen the "cash doesnt play" rule, even after you sold someone at the table chips. This was NOT a NL game.
Posted Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:52 pm GMT by supafrey
| BeerWench13 wrote: | Okay, technically, I'm referring to a homegame, but the hosts claim they play "Trop Rules". They claim to play regularly in AC.
Issue #1: It's a NL homegame. They allow players to "buy chips" off of other players who have large stacks. This I know to be illegal in a casino, but I don't really have a problem with it as they have a limited number of chips in supply. However, this issue arose at the last game that I attended. A player had cash on the table from where another player had bought chips off of him after going broke. A hand arises and that player announces "all-in" and proceeds to push their stack inclusive of the cash into the middle. The hosts say "The cash doesn't play."
Issue #2: A player with a large stack sells off some of his chips. He then proceeds to pocket that cash. Later, he sells off more chips to another player who still has chips and pockets that cash too. A player calls him out for "going south" and an argument ensues.
Issue #3: Player A raises, Player B reraises, Player C reraises and Player A declares "all-in" only to be told that there's a 3 bet cap and that "that's how they play at the Trop." I've never seen a cap in NL in a casino.
Any help on these matters would be appreciated as I would like to share with the hosts in private the correct rulings in these matters. I think I know the answer to all, but I'd like to have more collaboration before addressing the issues. |
You can't buy chips off of other players. If you do, the money goes off the table. You can't have chips that have been paid for twice, etc. So, to answer your questions.
1. Once the chips are bought, the money should be in the guy's pocket, not on his stack. Only a certain number of chips have been "purchased". If this comes up, why not simply let people play with cash (like in casinos) and have the guy that busted out simply play with a stack of 20s or 50s until more chips are found/freed up?
2. Not allowed anywhere. If you're going to allow this at your home game, the money should be going into his pocket. Choose a rule and stick with it.
3. complete bullshit. at any point in nl poker, you're allowed to go all in.
Posted Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:57 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Thanks, guys. I was 99.9% sure on #3, but the first two had me baffled as I've never played a game that allowed players to buy chips off of one another.
The "Trop Rules" to which they were referring were the rules as they understood them to be at the Tropicana in AC. I've played there many times and never seen a cap.
Supa, thanks for the explanation on #1. That makes sense to me and may help me explain it a bit better to others who were questioning it after the game.
Fortunately I was not involved in any of the hands which caused a difference of opinion, I just wanted to clarify for future reference should the situation reoccur.
Posted Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:04 pm GMT by supafrey
at my 1/2 game, we "technically" don't allow buying off of players (it's nothing more than ratholing some profits for the big winners) but if nobody objects we let small stacks get 20 to 50 bucks off of people with effective stacks greater than the rest of the players by far. (People sitting with $800 bucks will likely not be in a situation where them losing $30 to save the dealer some trouble will cause any probs..)
If you DO buy chips, the money immediately goes off of the table.
Posted Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:11 pm GMT by Dave B
1. Once the chips are bought, the money should be in the guy's pocket, not on his stack. Only a certain number of chips have been "purchased". If this comes up, why not simply let people play with cash (like in casinos) and have the guy that busted out simply play with a stack of 20s or 50s until more chips are found/freed up?
I dont agree with this. For example:
Player 1 100
Player 2 100
Player 3 100
Player 4 100 400 chips bought, $400 cash for the house
after an hour
Player 1 225
Player 2 zero
Player 3 75
Player 4 100 Player 2 buys 100 chips for $100
Player 1 125 + $100 cash on table
Player 2 100
Player 3 75
Player 4 100 There is still 400 chips in play and $400 cash, there is also $100 of cash in play
The real problem I have w/ putting money in your pocket is that now that money is not in the game and cannot be won. So if Player 1 goes on a tear and bust out everyone and sells them chips back each twice, he has $800 in cash and 100 in play. These guys are into him for $200 each and cannot get their money back unless he decides to rebuy. That is total BS and cannot be allowed. Am I missing something here?
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:50 am GMT by BeerWench13
| Dave B wrote: | | The real problem I have w/ putting money in your pocket is that now that money is not in the game and cannot be won. |
That is precisely why the argument ensued. The guy who kept selling off chips to everyone else was a complete luckbox who just happened to have paid homage to the poker gods prior to his arrival. It was a matter of time before he went bust calling $16 preflop raises at $1/2 with J5o. However, all the money he'd donked out of the other players was no longer on the table since he kept selling down his stack to $40. That's what caused the problem.
I think, to rectify the situation, I will just bring my chips next time I go. Then, there'll be enough chips to go around and no one will need to buy chips off of other players.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:55 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
We let players buy chips from others when necessary in our game, but the money stays on the table and cash plays. Of course, everyone knows this before we start because I'm a control freak.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:39 am GMT by UrAteUp
| BeerWench13 wrote: |
Issue #1: It's a NL homegame. They allow players to "buy chips" off of other players who have large stacks. This I know to be illegal in a casino, but I don't really have a problem with it as they have a limited number of chips in supply. However, this issue arose at the last game that I attended. A player had cash on the table from where another player had bought chips off of him after going broke. A hand arises and that player announces "all-in" and proceeds to push their stack inclusive of the cash into the middle. The hosts say "The cash doesn't play." |
The money should remain on the table because in affect it is still in play. If the chips were bought off of another player, they still represent money in play at that table. There is no taking money off of the table.
| Quote: | | Issue #2: A player with a large stack sells off some of his chips. He then proceeds to pocket that cash. Later, he sells off more chips to another player who still has chips and pockets that cash too. A player calls him out for "going south" and an argument ensues. |
No "rat holing" allowed. This rule she be made known at the beggining of the night when the person running it can see there might be chips being bought from other players. I have been to a game or two where this actually caused some physical problems.
| Quote: | | Issue #3: Player A raises, Player B reraises, Player C reraises and Player A declares "all-in" only to be told that there's a 3 bet cap and that "that's how they play at the Trop." I've never seen a cap in NL in a casino. |
Just as is with any home game, if your going to have a rule then you should state it before hand. I have "NEVER" had a NL game where you were limited in raising. Might as well play FL or PL.
Man I didn't think she was talking poker when I read the title of this post...I guess my mind hit the gutter pretty fast there... 
Supa...no comments buddy...I bet your mind hit the gutter as well.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:22 am GMT by supafrey
If you're going to allow buying chips off of other player to result in money staying on the table, why not simply let the person that busted keep the bills in front of them? Why bother moving them around?
Just don't allow it. It's alot easier.
(Although honestly I think the entire idea of people getting pissed at others' "going south" is stupid)
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:32 am GMT by BeerWench13
| supafrey wrote: | | (Although honestly I think the entire idea of people getting pissed at others' "going south" is stupid) |
Look at it this way. You buy in, then get stacked by a horrible beat from a horrible player. That player proceeds to "cash in" those chips and take the money off of the table. Now, the most you can win from him is his original buy-in and the money you lost is no longer in play. Then, let's say he gets stacked by some other player and instead of rebuying with your money he leaves. Now, you have no way of retaining the funds that you lost in that first hand. Thus, the frustration at watching a horrible player get lucky and instantly remove their profits from the table not allowing anyone a chance to get them.
I saw a guy at the Trop color up his stack of $25 chips to 2 $100 chips and then try to put them in his pocket. The dealer instantly told him that all of that money has to stay on the table in play until he cashes out/walks away.
The reason that chips are bought from other players is that the blinds are $1/2 and most players have only $20's or higher for bills. It's easier to chip them in for blind purposes than to try to make change for a $20 during the hand.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:57 am GMT by Dave B
Here is the real problem w/ pocketing cash and why it absolutely cannot be allowed:
Cheap Ass Tony sits down at 1/2NL w/ $20. His only play is all in. Each time he wins, he takes the profit and pockets it so that he only has $20 in play. He doubles up twice and wins $15 of blinds and has $55 of other players money in his pocket but only $20 on the table.
Trust me, a TON of people love to buy in for the table min and use it as a stop loss. They can win 5-10x their buy in but can only lose a tiny amount. If they are allowed to pocket the cash, then they ruin a game.
Would you really want to play w/ someone who is all in every pot knowing that you need to beat that person AND someone w/ a deep stack? You cant get an all in to fold.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:04 pm GMT by supafrey
I understand the nuances of the rule - it's for expediency more than anything.
Realistically though, there's nothing stopping that player from getting up at any moment and being replaced with another douchebag. Even half hour limits enforcing "buying back in with how much you left" can be worked around, especially online. If it doesn't slow down the game, however, I really couldn't care less what people do with their money.
Money lost is not money i'm "hoping to win back".
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:10 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| supafrey wrote: | | Money lost is not money i'm "hoping to win back". |
You mean to tell me that you've never sat at a table with a complete donk who lucked out on you and thought, "That's okay, I know I can get that back with interest because this guy is an idiot"?
I'm not saying you're playing to "win back your money", but spotting the sucker at the table even after he's gotten lucky is part of the game. Thus the sharks and the fish analogy.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:19 pm GMT by Dave B
When there is a 2 hour wait for a seat, it is quite a deterent to just moving on to a new table.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:21 pm GMT by supafrey
| BeerWench13 wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | | Money lost is not money i'm "hoping to win back". |
You mean to tell me that you've never sat at a table with a complete donk who lucked out on you and thought, "That's okay, I know I can get that back with interest because this guy is an idiot"?
I'm not saying you're playing to "win back your money", but spotting the sucker at the table even after he's gotten lucky is part of the game. Thus the sharks and the fish analogy. |
No, never.
That guy can leave at any second - results are the only thing that matter. I make a note of player weaknesses, obviously, but couldn't care less about the previous losses. Lucking out, being a big favourite, having the best hand, etc, are pretty much irrelevant to me. Snoo's seen me at tables - I'm pretty much indifferent to everything going on around me. (Another reason I play with a >75buyin roll).
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:28 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| supfrey wrote: | | Realistically though, there's nothing stopping that player from getting up at any moment and being replaced with another douchebag. |
I agree in a casino setting. However, we're talking about a homegame here. Yes, there is a "second shift" that shows up around 11:00 each time they have a game, but most of the original players are still there and continue to play even as the new players are rotated in. I'd have no problem with that guy taking down a huge pot by hitting his one-outer, standing up and cashing out right after. My problem is when he's taking money off the table that should still be in play if he is still seated.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:46 pm GMT by supafrey
See that's the thing i don't get. In a casino we're pretty much powerless outside of the strict interpretations of rules...
In a home game, we can tell a douchebag that their behaviour is ridiculous and either they will stop (friends?) or not (ban'd!).
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:06 pm GMT by shorn7
/quoteWe let players buy chips from others when necessary in our game, but the money stays on the table and cash plays. Of course, everyone knows this before we start because I'm a control freak.
| Quote: |
This is how we do it, although at one place the rule (and I absolutely hate this) is that before every lap of PL or NL, players can remove chips/cash from the table. This is because the host is afraid that someone who isn't experienced may lose a lot of $$ and therefore it is better for the health of the game if they allow that. |
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:23 pm GMT by kingetje
we only do this at our home game when there have been so many rebuys that the chip suitcase is empty. if after that point someone wishes to reload there is no option besides buying them off another players stack. in this case the money MUST go in the players pocket, because no extra chips enter he game, no extra cash can go in the pot.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:24 pm GMT by BeerWench13
The game was not at my house. There is no buying of chips off of other players at any game hosted at my house. I'm a strict rules fanatic and don't understand why anyone would alter the rules from those set forth in a casino other than maybe the profanity rule. If that rule was in place at my house, there would end up being no players at the table.
Shorn, put the drink down and back away slowly. You're over your limit.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:36 pm GMT by Dave B
I get the impression that some of you think that somehow if cash is put into play then the house may loose track of the cash and chips and someone may be out money.
Am I wrong? Because this just isnt true.
If you do believe that, please explain.
If the house has $500 and sells all $500 chips to players, then it doesnt matter what happens to those chips, it will still work out. They can be bought and sold for cash 97 times and the money will still balance. The only way things will NOT work out is if someone introduces more chips into the game that were not paid for. You can introduce a billion of cash without any issues, there will still be $500 of cash on the side to be available for the $500 of chips in play.
If you buy chips from any other player that cash MUST stay in play. Any other way is simply wrong.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:46 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Thanks, Dave. This was a new game and those of us who play regularly together had come to the same conclusion, but I wanted to make absolutely certain before I "dropped a hint" to the hosts since it is their game and not mine. The strange thing is that the hosts take the same junkets we do to AC and Vegas and play in a casino. I guess they just haven't really paid full attention to the rules.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:24 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
FWIW, I've sold chips to another player at the Trop when the dealer was waiting for a fill. Cash stayed on the table and it was in play.
Posted Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:41 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Thanks, Sean.
I saw this done at Bally's too, but considering the collusion, table talk and chips being passed from player to player even when there was no hand in play, I had no idea if it was legal or not. Most of what I saw at Bally's was illegal or improper etiquette. I have never used that experience as a reference other than to say that I'll not play there again.
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:06 am GMT by groton
I buy Chips off Players all the Time At Foxwoods
and Cash is always in play but at foxwoods its only 100dollers bill's
so I tend to carry only 100doller bill's or if i need a rebuy and the dealer dont have enough Red I'll Buy a Black chip or Four Green Chips and Exchange that in for 100 in Red
Posted Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:38 pm GMT by lwestatbus
This has to be a house rule and explained in advance.
At PokerRoom limit ring games you could adjust your money on the table up or down at any time. At PokerStars you can only add and my recollection is that they had a rule about rejoining a table once you've left it (to preclude taking money off by leaving and returning I guess).
I took money off the table at PR three or four times in two years and always under the same circumstances: I'd buy in with my always-the-same amount (as a stop loss and to simplify my record keeping). The table turns out to be wild and beatable but I'm unlucky and end up with a balance under what I could expect to have in the pot in one exceptional hand so I add money. If I then take down a big pot to bring me back above my buffer zone I would remove the amount I added in.
More than anything a house rule must be clear to all playing in advance. Chip stack sizes are tactically important and can be strategic as well and there just can't be any doubt as to what everyone has. I've seen a printed casino house rule that forces players to put their high value chips in the front of their stacks so they are visible to all.
For what it's worth, I also believe that anyone involved in a pot in a cash game should be able to do anything they want (e.g., bet the deed to the ranch, the car's pink slip, your first born male child, etc.) if ALL players in the hand agree, unanimously. Again, I've seen in two Vegas casinos two players heads up at the river in a limit game can exceed the 4-bet maximum as long as both are willing to continue betting.
Believe it or not, there is even a rule in Parker Brothers' Monopoly that requires that all player money be in plain sight!!! (A rule my cousins never seem to have read.)
|
|
