taking chips off table

[DonkeyFish]

I profited once upon a time by buying in for the min when my bankroll was low, doubling up...leaving the table and buying in on a different table at the same stakes. I know it's frowned upon but when your bankroll is extremely low....it's a very good strategy to protect yourself from going bust on a bad beat

 

[IntenseHeat]

In my opinion, one of the the things that makes a game appealing is the amount of chips on the table, or the amount of money in the game. The more money in the game, the more I have the potential to win. With all other things being equal (stakes, number and skill of players at the table, etc.), what's likely to draw a player to one table over another is the amount of money in the game. By taking chips off the table and out of the game, you're lessening it's appeal to other players who will bring more money to the game.

I think in a lot of player's minds, when they sit down and buy in at the table, it becomes their game as much as your game and the guy sitting across from you. Now, it's our game. When you take chips off the table, you're taking chips out of the (our) game, which lessens the appeal of the (our) game. If you want to take your chips out of the (our) game, then leave the (our) (my) game. Make room for someone who is bringing money to the (our) game, not taking it out.

More than that, I think that every player wants a chance to win their money back. Even when I'm playing an MTT, I hate it when a player wins a chunk of my chips, then gets moved to another table before I get a chance to win them back. But it's an MTT and they have to try to keep the tables balanced. So there is nothing I can do about that. I hate it even more when I'm in a cash game and a player wins a chunk of my chips and immediately leaves the table before I get a chance to win them back (hits it and quits it). But you can leave the table anytime you like, and there is nothing I can do about it, except maybe avoid playing with that guy in the future. Now imagine that you're in a cash game and some guy wins a good chunk of your stack. Your can quit and leave with what you have left. But you're not going to do that. You're going to use your remaining stack to try to win back what you've lost and hopefully a little more. Except that this guy has just scooped all but the minimum buy in off the table and put the rest of the chips in his pocket so that you won't have the chance to win them back from him. Now you have to sit there looking at this guy's shit eating grin and try your hardest to resist the urge knock that look of smug satisfaction off of his face. I'll put up with it for the chance to win my chips back, but he's already put them in his pocket. So that's not going to happen. And the longer I have to sit there and see that look on his face, the more pissed I get. In fact, the very biggest argument against ratholing, my be that it promotes chair throwing.

 

[xlmnx]

Money off the table

I prefer to play roulette now because of this reason i dont like to be caught up in all these rules while trying to relax at the local casinos. waslking away from tables and entering fora quick black or bet on 00x. Now you cant even smoke while playing cards in buffalo Ny!! Anyone else having this issue with authority taking away your fun? Anyways i always end up winning $ so cant be that mad :rofl:

 

[kingphil02]

Craze shit if u ask me I think all money should stay on table . The reason I was playing in a cash game a guy pushed all in after flop and a girl who hit two pair calls went in her purse to cover the rest. Granted the guy had the straight but she hits her boat big problems can happen. Its really bad poker. Cant belave how crazy people our. Hopefully this post is okay. I had to give an example from this past weekend hopefully those to can read find this one day and one day fix there stupity .

 

[vinnie]

[...] I was playing in a cash game a guy pushed all in after flop and a girl who hit two pair calls went in her purse to cover the rest.

This would have been acceptable in our home games when I was a kid. We had an open-stakes policy. Basically, you could add money at any times. Still, you could not remove money from the table once it was on it.

You never had to add money to call a bet. So it was "table-stakes" in that sense. If I had $6 left and a person moved all-in for $10, I could call $6 and then any further betting would be a side-pot. Or I could call any amount between $6-$10 (adding only that extra amount to my stack). As a third option, I could raise above $10 (say I throw a $20 down and raise to $26). If I do that, the other player will have the option to remain all-in, call any amount up to the $26 by adding just enough money, or adding even more cash and raising. Once a player elects to be "all-in" they can't add money for the rest of that hand. So, if there is a side-pot that I am not in, I couldn't suddenly call all those extra bets on the river to join the side-pot (too much opportunity for angle shooting).

It created an interesting dynamic at times, especially when calling an amount larger than your original stack but smaller than the actual bet with a third player involved. It gave you a real sense of the "value" someone had for their hand. Obviously, that's only for players that understood that different hands have different intrinsic values.

We still allow this as a house rule. But, only if there's no objections at the table. It's rarely used. If it's all family, we've never had someone deny it. With non-family, we have only had one objection. A player with a large stack moved all-in against a shorter stack, believing that he was playing for $5 (not his whole $30+ stack). The shorter stack asked to be allowed to add money to call. The person who moved in was obviously not thrilled by the idea (could see it on his face), but didn't speak up. My uncle (who wasn't in the hand) objected to it until after that hand because the person who moved all-in thought it was table-stakes and didn't really make a $30+ bet, he intended to make a $5 bet. After that hand, we explained the normal house rule to the newbie and he was fine with it. Also, he was very careful trying to push people around with his "big" stack from that point on.

 

[aero87]

If you take money off the table, you should leave the table. Come back in an hour or so if you want to buy in for less. Just like in Doyle's book Poker Wisdom he says you shouldn't need an excuse to leave if you are winning or losing.

If I am playing slots and hit a jackpot, I should be able to take the money. If I double up in poker I should be able to take my chips and leave.

I feel like the only reason going south is frowned upon is because someone who lost a hand won't have a chance to get "their" money back. Since there are more losing players than winning players then it becomes an unwritten rule or etiquette or whatever.

Just another reason for someone who lost to be more bitter about losing.

 

[aero87]

That video with Freddy Deeb really annoys me. Sheik was obviously joking. When he was telling to stop the game was really rude. Sheik called him out on just acting like that for the camera. I totally agree.

Henry Tran did something similar in the wsop just because he didn't want to show his hole cards. He argued and got a penalty. Set him straight real fast.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

Frankly I can see both sides of that video. Obviously Freddy Deeb considers himself to be a good, upstanding guy, and once he felt that his integrity was being called into question, whether as a joke or not, he couldn't let that stand.

He was also getting emotional though, and was clearly overreacting, and if we can't have a joke here and there at the poker table, you may as well not talk at all. It seems pretty clear that no one was actually accusing him of going south - the situation just escalated (as I've seen happen once or twice in games I've played)...

As for going south in general, it's considered bad form mostly because it does not give opponents the opportunity to "win back" their money from you. It's similar etiquette-wise to a hit and run, but the casino obviously can't enforce any rules against hitting and running, because it would get too complicated. "You can't leave the table if you just won a pot worth more than X bb or more than Y% of someone's stack, and..." Blah blah. But going south is an easily enforced rule that keeps most players happier with the game.

 

[S3mper]

The thing about the going south video is that I would have never even noticed then accuse him of going south it be a joke or not if he didn't get so defensive about it. Seems like the only thing people remember about that statement is the argument that they made of it.

If he would of just laughed it off or whatever I don't think anyone even notices him being accused of going south.

BTW what happened to him haven't heard of him or sheik in awhile... Actually I head sheik got deported for a hit and run or something is this true?