Poker floor enforced a rule that nobody cares about nor have motivation to care about
August 17th, 2014 at 8:25:33 PM
permalink
Yes, rules are rules, you break it, they call you out on it with no warning, no punishment whatsoever, what's the big deal? You knew about the rule but broke it anyway, so why are you complaining?
So the poker floor has a anti-ratholing rule. Which states if you leave the table you are not free to re-buy in for any amount at the same limits table for 2 hours. You must buy in for at least what you left the tables with. Otherwise you are free to buy in for 20BB-100BB
I play a 20BB shortstacked strategy and I personally find it +EV and have enough play history to support my theory. From my knowledge, the vast majority of people do not agree. The vast majority of people believe that the bigger the stack the better, so you can push people around. I do not have enough knowledge of that kind of play strategy to say how good it is, but I know as a fact it's not 100% correct because those people rip on my short stack strategy all the time and I know for a fact my strategy is +EV.
My biggest problem in poker is this ratholing rule, which really, other than player emotions, make no sense. And from the point of view of player emotions, it's strange as well that they do not have an anti-hit-and-run rule but do have an anti-ratholing rule. This rule, which nobody has any motivation to care about, only hurts strategies like mine where I can not keep the stack size constant at low size.
I'm just really surprised that rule was enforced on me. Someone did complain to the floor about my ratholing, but he clearly hated me and not my ratholing because I cleaned his stack. I've done quite a bit of research to attempt to look for "Why ratholing is bad" or "Why people hate ratholing" and found no answers. What's the difference really, if I sit down with 20BB, clean someone out, leave with 50BB, and another person sits in my seat with 20BB, compared to if that other person was myself?
If you don't know laws are not always enforced in real life, you severely lack wisdom. True wisdom in law is not knowing the law itself, it's knowing how are the laws enforced. Such as if you drink alcohol @20 years old the police can't do shit to you, talk to a lawyer if you don't believe me. If you think you're always a law abiding citizen, you're not. Look up "weird laws, dumb laws, etc" and surprise yourself. So, I thought I could get away with ratholing because I analyzed nobody has the motivation to care, including the floor who is getting the same if not more rake from my short stack aggressive play. I was surprised they enforced such rule, only basing on a complaint from a sore loser, or is there more to their reasoning that I don't know of?
So the poker floor has a anti-ratholing rule. Which states if you leave the table you are not free to re-buy in for any amount at the same limits table for 2 hours. You must buy in for at least what you left the tables with. Otherwise you are free to buy in for 20BB-100BB
I play a 20BB shortstacked strategy and I personally find it +EV and have enough play history to support my theory. From my knowledge, the vast majority of people do not agree. The vast majority of people believe that the bigger the stack the better, so you can push people around. I do not have enough knowledge of that kind of play strategy to say how good it is, but I know as a fact it's not 100% correct because those people rip on my short stack strategy all the time and I know for a fact my strategy is +EV.
My biggest problem in poker is this ratholing rule, which really, other than player emotions, make no sense. And from the point of view of player emotions, it's strange as well that they do not have an anti-hit-and-run rule but do have an anti-ratholing rule. This rule, which nobody has any motivation to care about, only hurts strategies like mine where I can not keep the stack size constant at low size.
I'm just really surprised that rule was enforced on me. Someone did complain to the floor about my ratholing, but he clearly hated me and not my ratholing because I cleaned his stack. I've done quite a bit of research to attempt to look for "Why ratholing is bad" or "Why people hate ratholing" and found no answers. What's the difference really, if I sit down with 20BB, clean someone out, leave with 50BB, and another person sits in my seat with 20BB, compared to if that other person was myself?
If you don't know laws are not always enforced in real life, you severely lack wisdom. True wisdom in law is not knowing the law itself, it's knowing how are the laws enforced. Such as if you drink alcohol @20 years old the police can't do shit to you, talk to a lawyer if you don't believe me. If you think you're always a law abiding citizen, you're not. Look up "weird laws, dumb laws, etc" and surprise yourself. So, I thought I could get away with ratholing because I analyzed nobody has the motivation to care, including the floor who is getting the same if not more rake from my short stack aggressive play. I was surprised they enforced such rule, only basing on a complaint from a sore loser, or is there more to their reasoning that I don't know of?
August 17th, 2014 at 8:29:18 PM
permalink
I read your post, it's quite confusing so I'll just rephrase your question:
Why would the floor enforce a anti rathole rule to piss off a customer, when nobody has the motivation to care about short stacked opponents anyway?
I don't mind short stackers. But I do want to point out that nobody caring about short stackers/ratholers is just your assumption. I agree with your assumption, but nonetheless who knows what other people think.
Why would the floor enforce a anti rathole rule to piss off a customer, when nobody has the motivation to care about short stacked opponents anyway?
I don't mind short stackers. But I do want to point out that nobody caring about short stackers/ratholers is just your assumption. I agree with your assumption, but nonetheless who knows what other people think.
August 17th, 2014 at 8:36:04 PM
permalink
Quote: NeutrinoI agree with your assumption, but nonetheless who knows what other people think.
"other people" don't even understand nor care about what OP was talking about. :)
winning streaks come and go, losing streak never ends.
August 17th, 2014 at 8:37:55 PM
permalink
I don't necessarily agree with this particular rule, but it's extremely common in poker rooms and is definitely going nowhere. Part of it is to keep the "fish" happy, which the casino should value more, because "good" players will quit the game if it gets bad enough when "fish" leave. But it also keeps a lot of "sharks" happy too because they know how to play >100bb NL much better than the "fish".
August 17th, 2014 at 8:42:20 PM
permalink
I'm not going to waste effort explaining why ratholing is bad for the game and should be prohibited. I will say that you're completely wrong, and the sooner you open yourself up to that possibility, the better off you'll be.
PS ... many people understand that it's easier to play a +EV shortstack game than deepstack. Less skill and knowledge is required since more decisions are made preflop and on the flop. But playing deepstack well is more profitable than playing shortstack well since you can get more money into play.
Most people think shortstackers are terrible because most shortstackers are terrible. But they aren't inherently terrible because they play a short stack. It just happens that a lot of bad players like to buy in short.
PS ... many people understand that it's easier to play a +EV shortstack game than deepstack. Less skill and knowledge is required since more decisions are made preflop and on the flop. But playing deepstack well is more profitable than playing shortstack well since you can get more money into play.
Most people think shortstackers are terrible because most shortstackers are terrible. But they aren't inherently terrible because they play a short stack. It just happens that a lot of bad players like to buy in short.
August 17th, 2014 at 8:46:22 PM
permalink
Quote: sabreI'm not going to waste effort explaining why ratholing is bad for the game and should be prohibited. I will say that you're completely wrong, and the sooner you open yourself up to that possibility, the better off you'll be.
I've very interested in the explaination
August 17th, 2014 at 9:51:20 PM
permalink
Quote: BatMannI've very interested in the explaination
"Shortstacking" (with ratholing) discourages play on every street. Playing more streets keeps regs (aka main rake generators) happier.
August 17th, 2014 at 10:25:52 PM
permalink
Does this tie in with your racial profiling post or a separate problem?
I am a robot.
August 17th, 2014 at 10:49:27 PM
permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracleDoes this tie in with your racial profiling post or a separate problem?
separate topics
August 17th, 2014 at 10:50:37 PM
permalink
Quote: tringlomane"Shortstacking" (with ratholing) discourages play on every street. Playing more streets keeps regs (aka main rake generators) happier.
So why is ratholing against the rules but short stacking not?
In fact about 2 years ago they reduced the min buyin from 40BB to 20BB
August 17th, 2014 at 10:50:55 PM
permalink
I have motivation to care.
I want your chips.
If you're able to stand up and then immediately buy back in, then clearly the tables are hurting for players. "Players" who just want to make a single bet and skedaddle if it wins don't help, even if they do come back. Sure, they're good for others' EV for the few hands they play*, but they don't keep the game going.
I do think it's always better to be deep-stacked, because if you truly gain an advantage from limiting your own options, your best move is not to play. But if your game is short-stacked, I want you deep-stacked, so those chips stay where they are.
Even if we put aside considerations like that, brick and mortar poker rooms aren't only for the benefit of "serious" players. Your strategy is, as it were, "simply not cricket."
What's more, if they're enforcing a time window, this must have become a problem.
I'll say this, though: two hours is excessive.
(* I'm not going to say your strategy's not +EV at many tables, just that it wouldn't be at all tables.)
I want your chips.
If you're able to stand up and then immediately buy back in, then clearly the tables are hurting for players. "Players" who just want to make a single bet and skedaddle if it wins don't help, even if they do come back. Sure, they're good for others' EV for the few hands they play*, but they don't keep the game going.
I do think it's always better to be deep-stacked, because if you truly gain an advantage from limiting your own options, your best move is not to play. But if your game is short-stacked, I want you deep-stacked, so those chips stay where they are.
Even if we put aside considerations like that, brick and mortar poker rooms aren't only for the benefit of "serious" players. Your strategy is, as it were, "simply not cricket."
What's more, if they're enforcing a time window, this must have become a problem.
I'll say this, though: two hours is excessive.
(* I'm not going to say your strategy's not +EV at many tables, just that it wouldn't be at all tables.)
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
August 17th, 2014 at 10:57:44 PM
permalink
Quote: BatMannSo why is ratholing against the rules but short stacking not?
In fact about 2 years ago they reduced the min buyin from 40BB to 20BB
Because people like the chance to win the money they lost back? Now in your particular case, I assume you reload when you lose a preflop ~race, but the rule is there for people that really try to lock up any win. And 20bb max? You playing at Commerce or something? haha
August 17th, 2014 at 10:59:57 PM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneBecause people like the chance to win the money they lost back? Now in your particular case, I assume you reload when you lose a preflop ~race, but the rule is there for people that really try to lock up any win. And 20bb max? You playing at Commerce or something? haha
20 bb min...
(But what is up with the Commerce's low-stakes NL, anyway? Are they trying to cater to people who want to pretend to play poker?)
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
August 17th, 2014 at 11:05:50 PM
permalink
Quote: 24Bingo20 bb min...
(But what is up with the Commerce's low-stakes NL, anyway? Are they trying to cater to people who want to pretend to play poker?)
Yeah nice catch...too many beers tonight. But yeah, I don't really get Commerce, other than there are enough crazy gamblers willing to fall into that "drop" (not "rake" trap). Looks to be 12 of 86 tables running that game now via Bravo...haha
August 17th, 2014 at 11:36:14 PM
permalink
OP is delusional. Ratholing is sleazy and no legitimate poker room would ever allow it. It is hard to understand what his complaint is other than getting caught.
August 17th, 2014 at 11:46:42 PM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneBecause people like the chance to win the money they lost back? haha
So why is ratholing against the rules but hit-and-run not?
August 17th, 2014 at 11:48:52 PM
permalink
Quote: PokeraddictOP is delusional. Ratholing is sleazy and no legitimate poker room would ever allow it. It is hard to understand what his complaint is other than getting caught.
My complaint is trashtalkers like you think my play is -EV, yet refuse to let me make my so called -EV play by enforcing the rathole rule.
I know it's +EV, I don't need to prove it to you.
August 17th, 2014 at 11:59:43 PM
permalink
Quote: BatMann
I know it's +EV, I don't need to prove it to you.
Given the gigantic rake (or drop) of live poker, I'd really would like to see proof. I doubt you (or anyone) would be able to prove it though, or at the very least, my wish is not worth fulfilling. Against poor enough competition, it's is likely +EV though.
August 18th, 2014 at 12:41:40 AM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneGiven the gigantic rake (or drop) of live poker, I'd really would like to see proof. I doubt you (or anyone) would be able to prove it though, or at the very least, my wish is not worth fulfilling. Against poor enough competition, it's is likely +EV though.
I should be able to simulate it but I have no program to do so. I also hate the rake % on poker but you're probably leaving out the fact of no flop no rake. I am often able to steal straddles/calls and blinds/calls by shoving a mediocre hand late position and pay no rake for it since everyone folds.
August 18th, 2014 at 1:10:29 AM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneGiven the gigantic rake (or drop) of live poker, I'd really would like to see proof. I doubt you (or anyone) would be able to prove it though, or at the very least, my wish is not worth fulfilling. Against poor enough competition, it's is likely +EV though.
I don't agree with OP and I think ratholing s bad for poker, but given the standard raise sizes preflop in live 1-2, I'd imagine it's pretty easy to play shorstacked poker and win - even with the high rake. Obviously you can make more playing effective deeper stacked poker. Obviously not gonna bother with proof ATM cuz it's 410 AM where I am and I'm going to sleep - and I don't really care cuz I keep my stack topped off at 90-150bb at all time playing live.
August 18th, 2014 at 3:38:17 AM
permalink
The least amount of chips on table might yield the highest ev percentage wiz, but not hourly. In your case, if you do better over all this way per hr, it means you have a big leak in your game somewhere. Probably not folding when you should, after the flop, turn or river.
Rat-holing is a form of cheating(i'm not judging). If someone takes 5 buck here and there no biggie. If I notice a player missing 100 or more, I ask him where his chips are. People should be paying attention to chip stacks.
The rule is in place so other players have a chance to get their money back while that person is still in the game. You might have paid him off just to see his hand, now you have a read on him. It's different then hitting and running, you cant force someone to gamble.
Rat-holing is a form of cheating(i'm not judging). If someone takes 5 buck here and there no biggie. If I notice a player missing 100 or more, I ask him where his chips are. People should be paying attention to chip stacks.
The rule is in place so other players have a chance to get their money back while that person is still in the game. You might have paid him off just to see his hand, now you have a read on him. It's different then hitting and running, you cant force someone to gamble.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
August 18th, 2014 at 6:23:23 AM
permalink
Hit and runs are not illegal because a casino cannot force someone to make bets against their will. People don't LIKE hit and runs, but everyone can see it would be unfair and borderline insane to force someone to play when they wanted to leave.
Short stacking is +ev if you are good at it, but it creates problems for the other players, especially if they want to make moves. I figure they allow it to let some small money tourist types to come sit in the game. Especially if they just want to dip their toe in and might eventually become more regular players. They don't particularly want +ev short stackers to be a constant presence and a thorn in the side of all the other players. Plus, as you said, you take down plenty of rake free pots. Yeah, casino's got to love that.
Short stacking is +ev if you are good at it, but it creates problems for the other players, especially if they want to make moves. I figure they allow it to let some small money tourist types to come sit in the game. Especially if they just want to dip their toe in and might eventually become more regular players. They don't particularly want +ev short stackers to be a constant presence and a thorn in the side of all the other players. Plus, as you said, you take down plenty of rake free pots. Yeah, casino's got to love that.
August 18th, 2014 at 6:49:13 AM
permalink
The rule is simple and correct. And many/most players DO care about it.
If a player loses money, he has a right to try to win it back.
If the winner leaves, well ok. He locked up a win. Good for him.
But if he ratholes, then he has an unfair advantage.
Note that minor ratholing is accepted. IE, you can take a souvenir chip. It's expected and encouraged. Ditto for paying for table-side food and massage.
If a player loses money, he has a right to try to win it back.
If the winner leaves, well ok. He locked up a win. Good for him.
But if he ratholes, then he has an unfair advantage.
Note that minor ratholing is accepted. IE, you can take a souvenir chip. It's expected and encouraged. Ditto for paying for table-side food and massage.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 18th, 2014 at 6:53:07 AM
permalink
And a hit and run is not illegal. Bad manners, perhaps, but no rule forbids it.
After all, what's the difference between a hit and run, and a hit followed by folding the next X number of hands and then leaving?
After all, what's the difference between a hit and run, and a hit followed by folding the next X number of hands and then leaving?
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 18th, 2014 at 7:39:04 AM
permalink
I am an inexperienced poker player, and I mostly play tournaments, not cash. However, part of my neophyte betting strategy does take into account the size of other players' stacks, and the amount of apparent risk to them of calling or raising me. It puts them on a range of hands, defines their strategy, and delineates their tolerance of risk. They are able to make the same estimates of my play, because my exposure is public.
Based on that, I find ratholing duplicitous and deceptive. You are no longer on equal footing with the people you're betting against, with the same exposure; instead, you have hidden reserves that violate the base values of the game as it is played. If you want to be a short-stack-shover, so be it, when the time comes in the game that it's appropriate to do so. But as your opponent, I have a right to know your resources and fairly evaluate my risk in calling you, or putting you all-in, rather than be trapped into a false premise. Poker is a game of bluffs and lies, but that's based on the cards and your demeanor, not on the size of your stake. I'm usually the fish (for now, anyway), but I'm only willing to play straight up, and the OP is cheating in my book.
Based on that, I find ratholing duplicitous and deceptive. You are no longer on equal footing with the people you're betting against, with the same exposure; instead, you have hidden reserves that violate the base values of the game as it is played. If you want to be a short-stack-shover, so be it, when the time comes in the game that it's appropriate to do so. But as your opponent, I have a right to know your resources and fairly evaluate my risk in calling you, or putting you all-in, rather than be trapped into a false premise. Poker is a game of bluffs and lies, but that's based on the cards and your demeanor, not on the size of your stake. I'm usually the fish (for now, anyway), but I'm only willing to play straight up, and the OP is cheating in my book.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
August 18th, 2014 at 7:50:24 AM
permalink
I don't think the OP intends on putting hidden chips into a live hand. He just wants to limit his exposure at any given time to ~20BB.
This practice is sometimes called 'going south', but the technical difference between that and ratholing is debated for some silly reason. Here's a thread with many opinions at home games that may shine a light on why poker rooms have the rule:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/24/home-poker/ever-ok-go-south-928567/
This practice is sometimes called 'going south', but the technical difference between that and ratholing is debated for some silly reason. Here's a thread with many opinions at home games that may shine a light on why poker rooms have the rule:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/24/home-poker/ever-ok-go-south-928567/
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
August 18th, 2014 at 8:05:34 AM
permalink
It is called RATholing for a reason. DUH !
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
August 18th, 2014 at 8:07:12 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearIf a player loses money, he has a right to try to win it back.
I don't understand that as an intrinsic right, merely a commonly offered courtesy. I don't know why I would be compelled to place a bet on any future round.
Quote: DJTeddyBearAfter all, what's the difference between a hit and run, and a hit followed by folding the next X number of hands and then leaving?
Blinds.
May the cards fall in your favor.
August 18th, 2014 at 8:15:27 AM
permalink
I thought 'ratholing" and "going south" were the same. Silly me. At any rate, I've never done it and don't like it. I've seen fights nearly start over it too. In the poker room. BBB had a great explanation of why it's against the rules. Basically, to me, it's cheating.
At a pot limit table a few years back I did win a bonus for four Jacks. It was $100.00 and when I was paid I was told I didn't have to put it on the table. I did but I could have pocketed them and it would have been acceptable.
At a pot limit table a few years back I did win a bonus for four Jacks. It was $100.00 and when I was paid I was told I didn't have to put it on the table. I did but I could have pocketed them and it would have been acceptable.
Stupid is a choice
August 18th, 2014 at 8:22:58 AM
permalink
Well, that's different; that's not part of the game.
Because that would be false imprisonment?
Quote: BatMannSo why is ratholing against the rules but hit-and-run not?
Because that would be false imprisonment?
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
August 18th, 2014 at 10:25:25 AM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearAnd a hit and run is not illegal. Bad manners, perhaps, but no rule forbids it.
After all, what's the difference between a hit and run, and a hit followed by folding the next X number of hands and then leaving?
The difference is that if we allow ratholing then +EV shorstackers become more common, making the game less fun and less profitable.
August 18th, 2014 at 10:52:38 AM
permalink
It is hilarious that OP cannot come up with any rationale for this very common and logical rule.
Ratholing is bad for poker games. It pisses players off. It reduces action. If it were allowed with no delay, it would kill games.
If you want to do this, you have to wait the two hours to buy back in. Otherwise, you're cheating.
One time I saw a PLO game where a player won a huge pot, and desperately wanted to take money off the table. The game was already shorthanded and in danger of breaking. The floor ruled that he had to wait the full hour to buy back in with less. Even then, that was the correct decision.
Ratholing is bad for poker games. It pisses players off. It reduces action. If it were allowed with no delay, it would kill games.
If you want to do this, you have to wait the two hours to buy back in. Otherwise, you're cheating.
One time I saw a PLO game where a player won a huge pot, and desperately wanted to take money off the table. The game was already shorthanded and in danger of breaking. The floor ruled that he had to wait the full hour to buy back in with less. Even then, that was the correct decision.
August 18th, 2014 at 1:07:06 PM
permalink
Quote: BatMannMy complaint is trashtalkers like you think my play is -EV, yet refuse to let me make my so called -EV play by enforcing the rathole rule.
I know it's +EV, I don't need to prove it to you.
It is extremely rude and unethical, which is why it is banned in every poker room in the world AFAIK. I made no comment about the particular play. In general, those who short stack are poor players that have no ability to play turn or river correctly. If you fit into that category, then you are making a +EV move by short stacking. Regardless, if you leave the table and try to come back with less than you left with within the alloted time then you are trying to angleshoot and deserve to be banned from the room.
August 18th, 2014 at 1:14:13 PM
permalink
The real problem is right in the thread title:
That assumption is wrong.
Prior posts explain why.
Quote:. . . a rule that nobody cares about nor have motivation to care about
That assumption is wrong.
Prior posts explain why.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 18th, 2014 at 1:22:43 PM
permalink
Yes he can not be to seasoned of a PP, if he thinks this.Quote: DJTeddyBearThe real problem is right in the thread title:
That assumption is wrong.
Prior posts explain why.
90% of the players do care. He is egotistical thinking, the guy had it in, for just him.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
August 18th, 2014 at 1:30:37 PM
permalink
So now tell me, why am I not allowed to buy in normally when i SWITCH tables? Ratholing rule applies if it's the same stakes.
Once again, what's the difference between me sitting down at that new table with 20BB, vs someone else who didn't leave a previous table with 50BB doing it?
This sounds like the only logical explaination
Once again, what's the difference between me sitting down at that new table with 20BB, vs someone else who didn't leave a previous table with 50BB doing it?
Quote: Boney526The difference is that if we allow ratholing then +EV shorstackers become more common, making the game less fun and less profitable.
This sounds like the only logical explaination
August 18th, 2014 at 1:39:11 PM
permalink
Quote: dwheatleyI don't think the OP intends on putting hidden chips into a live hand. He just wants to limit his exposure at any given time to ~20BB.
This is optimal for short stack strategy since you can't just top off like you do deep stacked imo. I used to do short stacked as well and it's a pain in the balls to stay short except in the late stages of a tournament
August 18th, 2014 at 1:53:18 PM
permalink
Quote: BatMannOnce again, what's the difference between me sitting down at that new table with 20BB, vs someone else who didn't leave a previous table with 50BB doing it?
The rest of the players have rightly determined that it is disadvantageous to them* for you to be allowed to remove money from the table but stay in the game. The house is keeping them happy by enforcing the rule.
The rule forces you to decide if the value of the next two hours of play is more or less than the amount of money you are trying to remove from play.
If the value you are removing is greater, then cash out, have dinner, go for a walk, admire the artwork in the lobby, whatever.
*As near as I can tell, poker is a zero sum game - if you take an advantageous move, it's disadvantageous for the other people involved.
May the cards fall in your favor.
August 18th, 2014 at 1:58:40 PM
permalink
Quote: DieterThe rest of the players have rightly determined that it is disadvantageous to them* for you to be allowed to remove money from the table but stay in the game. The house is keeping them happy by enforcing the rule.
The rule forces you to decide if the value of the next two hours of play is more or less than the amount of money you are trying to remove from play.
If the value you are removing is greater, then cash out, have dinner, go for a walk, admire the artwork in the lobby, whatever.
*As near as I can tell, poker is a zero sum game - if you take an advantageous move, it's disadvantageous for the other people involved.
You see, most people don't seem to agree with you. Most people think my plays are -EV. I've been ripped on a lot for playing short stacked. What you said could be the definitive reason if everyone knows i'm playing +EV short stacked. But most people think i'm a fish yet refuse to let me play the way that they conceive as -EV. Hence I'm not understanding their reasoning.
August 18th, 2014 at 2:04:41 PM
permalink
I also dislike the rule, especially as it applies to limit games. In No-Limit i can see some justification although I don't agree with it. At the same time, I believe the house makes the rules and if you don't like them you should play elsewhere.
I once was yelled at for giving the cocktail server 2 $1 chips while playing no-limit and I was the big stack at about $1200. I told them if they want me to leave, fine, but I am not going to ask for them back from the server. They didn't want my big stack to just leave so all was forgotten.
I once was yelled at for giving the cocktail server 2 $1 chips while playing no-limit and I was the big stack at about $1200. I told them if they want me to leave, fine, but I am not going to ask for them back from the server. They didn't want my big stack to just leave so all was forgotten.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
August 18th, 2014 at 2:08:16 PM
permalink
Not -EV, lower Hourly rate for good players. playing with 1 chip might be better EV but the hourly wont be great.Quote: BatMannYou see, most people don't seem to agree with you. Most people think my plays are -EV. I've been ripped on a lot for playing short stacked. What you said could be the definitive reason if everyone knows i'm playing +EV short stacked. But most people think i'm a fish yet refuse to let me play the way that they conceive as -EV. Hence I'm not understanding their reasoning.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
August 18th, 2014 at 2:11:22 PM
permalink
I pay for everything with chips. Never had a problem. But I agree 100%, don't like the rules, don't play there.
And I wouldn't want you leaving with your huge stack either. Haha
And I wouldn't want you leaving with your huge stack either. Haha
Stupid is a choice
August 18th, 2014 at 2:13:08 PM
permalink
There is no doubt that you can easily generate the +EV using the shortstacked strategy by playing the premium hands at the preflop. If ratholing is allowed, I think a lot of people will copy this same strategy because it takes less risk and requires less skill. As the result, there is no point playing deep stack no-limit poker and it takes away the fun from the people who want to play deep stack poker. If the player wants to hit and run, it is totally fine but that player has to make the effort to leave the table and re-enter his or her name to the wait-list. If there is long waiting list, this is the price that they have to pay.
Leave Katie alone.
Rasul: Or what?
Or I come back and break your F** legs
August 18th, 2014 at 2:18:16 PM
permalink
Rats are revered animals aren't they and just delicious with some hot sauce. Sounds like everyone is shoplifting and the store picks on me when they see me do it.Quote: BuzzardIt is called RATholing for a reason. DUH !
I am a robot.
August 18th, 2014 at 2:43:35 PM
permalink
Quote: BatMannI'm not understanding their reasoning.
From what I can tell, you've found a way to use the table stakes rule in your favor. The other players seem to have figured this out, too.
I say you play the way you like. Keep in mind that if enough other people don't like it, they won't play with you. You can't win if nobody else will play against you.
May the cards fall in your favor.
August 18th, 2014 at 2:56:41 PM
permalink
Quote: tringlomaneGiven the gigantic rake (or drop) of live poker, I'd really would like to see proof. I doubt you (or anyone) would be able to prove it though
Wait, what?
If we assume players of equal skill, this is trivial to prove. You may very well not be able to overcome the rake or the time charge, but you will still have an advantage over the other players (assuming a 3+ player game, including you). In other words, if you are losing, the other players are losing more.
August 18th, 2014 at 3:39:47 PM
permalink
Quote: BatMannSo now tell me, why am I not allowed to buy in normally when i SWITCH tables? Ratholing rule applies if it's the same stakes.
Once again, what's the difference between me sitting down at that new table with 20BB, vs someone else who didn't leave a previous table with 50BB doing it?
Simple. To discourage you from doing it.
It you had to take your entire stake to the new table, what's the point?
Might as well stay where you are, and allow those players a shot at getting their money back rather than being a Robin Hood and letting players at the new table get a shot at it.
But, it you feel that the players at your table are better and you wanna switch? Fine. But you gotta bring the entire stack to the new table.
Quote: DRichI also dislike the rule, especially as it applies to limit games.
In limit, even if betting on every street was maxed out, there is a finite amount you can risk/lose on any single hand. It's easily calculated based on the limit and number of raises before it's capped. Typically $48 on a $2/$4 game.
But once your stack is below that finite amount, the money ratholed becomes protected from such a hand when it should remain at risk.
Quote: DRichI once was yelled at for giving the cocktail server 2 $1 chips while playing no-limit and I was the big stack at about $1200.
That's nuts. Was this the players complaining, or the dealer/floorperson?
If it was the players, then they're just ignorant.
If it was the house, don't ever play there again. That's just f'ed up.
Most poker rooms allow eating at the table, and even have waitress service. The reason is simple: To encourage you to stay rather than locking up a seat during a meal break. This is desired by the players to help increase the pot size. That makes a max rake more likely, and therefore desired by the poker room.
To facilitate this, they allow you to pay and tip from your stack. Ditto for cocktail tips, massage service and whatever else is offered table-side.
Note that some rooms do not allow eating at the table, only because they don't want spills on the table, or people to handle the cards and chips without wiping their hands, etc. But they still allow tipping cocktail service and paying for massages out of your stack.
What's next? You have to tip the dealer in cash???
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 18th, 2014 at 8:17:38 PM
permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs
Based on that, I find ratholing duplicitous and deceptive. .
Well, yeah. Ratholing is a time honored tradition
in BJ and other games where you don't want
the house to know how much you've won. I
just read it again in a great book on gambling.
The author is convinced ratholing is an invaluable
tool in keeping the house and adversaries from
knowing where you are in a game.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 18th, 2014 at 8:23:54 PM
permalink
Any techs on line ? The first letter of the op's name is showing a B instead of a R on my computer !
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
