I think Cap's point was actually that if Player A, sitting with $100, gives $50 from his stack to Player B and then Player C, also sitting with $100, wins Player A's stack on the next hand, then Player C has just been screwed out of $50. That, most certainly, is not a silly way to think.

When lending chips, the issue isn't between you and the borrower; the issue is the fairness to the other players at the table.

sure it is because it ignores that Player C while only being able to win $50 correspondingly was in a position where he could not lose more than $50. Plus Player C also had the chance to win $50 from Player B which he otherwise would not have.

I agree with this and have already explained why it creates unfairness ..... and it has nothing to do with the results oriented thinking that you put forth.

What's the point of sitting down with $100 in front of you if you are only comfortable with losing $50? This sounds like playing scared, in which case Player C is probably destined to lose his money anyway.

You'd rather have to win $50 each from two players than $100 from one? Okay then.

It has nothing to do with Player C going from being able to win $150 from these two players to being able to win only $100? Okay again.

Poker is results oriented. When you sit down at a table, you should know how much you stand to win. When money is taken off the table, that is unfair.

sandman, the two scenarios at hand here are 1) player A lends player B $50 in chips or 2) player A lends player B $50 which he uses to buy chips. Where did you get this scenario you seem to have in mind where player B quits and goes home because player A can't lend him chips from his stack?

It should be clear (and in fact you said this in an earlier post in this thread!) that the reason scenario 1 is unacceptable is because it is allowing player A to take $50 off the table, in effect cashing out $50 of his stack.

Now you change your mind and say this is a silly way of thinking?

How was player C able to win $150 from these two players. Player A has $100. Player B has $0. How is player C able to win $150?

If you look at it that way you will never understand it

[/quote] When you sit down at a table, you should know how much you stand to win. When money is taken off the table, that is unfair.[/QUOTE]

In this scenario they are discussing money isn't taken off the table it was moved to a different player...... I have already explained why it is unfair ..... but if taking money off the table is unfair then is it unfair for a player to leave the game and cash out?

We were initially discussing Player A loaning money to Player B to rebuy. The scenario was Player A winning $50 from B and either a) Player B going home, b) Player A keeping the $100 and loaning $50 to B, or c) Player A giving Player B back the $50 straight from his stack.

If A gives B money ($50) to rebuy (rather than taking $50 from his stack), $100 just turned into $150. Sorry for the confusion; I can see where my wording could have made this difficult to follow.

I knew this statement would be called out; which is mostly why I wrote it. I am happy to be wrong and am here to learn. I have always regarding being results oriented as being focused on the end-goal, i.e., winning the money the other players have in front of them. If my definition of results oriented is different than yours (and/or the standard poker definition), then I am perfectly willing to learn.

You must know that your question has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. A player is allowed to leave a table any time he wants. We're not talking about a player leaving; we're talking about a player staying at the table and using another player's chips. Chips given to a player from another player's stack without them having won them is akin to going south. If he is to be paid back after the game, Player A just pocketed $50 he won and yet continues to sit at the table. No one at that table can ever touch those $50. It also unfairly gives the Player A better all-in protection (which you brought up in a concurrently-running thread).

I truly hope that this you consider this a worthwhile discussion and understand that I'm not just debating for the sake of debate. I appreciate your opinion and have been looking forward to each of your responses.

This sums up the conclusion of this thread. I was curious as to why people cared, the same money is still on the table. The reason is not because of unfairness to other people in terms of money able to be earned, but because a player who lends chips is essentially guaranteeing he earns money later on. Purely gifting chips, however, according to this conclusion is completely fine.

The problem with my friend was that he didn't want to buy in a gain, nor owe anyone money. He had the money to buy in, but he didn't want to. Play was too shorthanded after him leaving to play anymore, so after this point no-one would've played or earned more money. I believe in this particular situation gifting him chips was necessary and does not make others earning of money or my own irrelevant. therefore the statement that we should just play without money is ridiculous. I still believe I did the correct thing in this situation.

Lending chips is still wrong but in special circumstances gifting chips can be necessary.

These statements are wrong.

You have to understand that when you gift the person chips, you're still going south. You're just going south and then giving the money away. You are free to give your money away if you would like to, but you are not allowed to go south first.

How was it not possible for you to give him money to rebuy so that giving him chips from your stack was the only possibility? Did you not have any more money? It doesn't really matter whether he couldn't rebuy or didn't want to rebuy. The effect is the same. If you want to give him money, you have to actually give him money, not chips.

We have addressed this in PM



And this is the issue. And on this issue we agree. Our actual disagreement is about why going south is not permitted.

I contend that the reason is that the player brings himslef closer to the special protection afforded an all-in player by the table stakes rule. The table stakes rule is a two part rule and the portion of the rule that says you cant reduce your stake while continuing to play is to prevent players from abusing the part of the rule that says an all-in player does not have to call additional bets to make a claim on pot.

I understand that you think the rule is about being able to win back your money (which is basically in line with your position). That is a very common misconception. In fact if you go to a poker table anywhere and ask why you can't rathole you will most likely here that as the explanation.

I contend it that while people think that is the reason it is not. And as evidence of that I would point out the statement you yourself made.

If it is unfair for me to take money off the table because now you can't win it (or as more commonly expressed "win it back") then this logic would also apply to a player deciding to quit playing. After all if I get up and leave you can't win any of the money. If I reduce my stack you can still win some of it.


And even more evidence is the scenario in this thread. Player B is leaving unless Player A gives him chips to play with (assume that Player A has no more money on him so lending cash to buy chips is out of the question). And it was either in this thread or the other one where we find out it wasn't a loan as player A did not expect to get paid back.

Player C can not complain that he can't win the money. The money is still on the table ..... he can still win the same amount of money. If we agree that this is the equivalent of ratholing but the money stays on the table then our objection to ratholing most not be that we can;t win the money that comes off the table .... because in this case the money didn;t come off the table.

Keep in mind we are in agreement that this transaction should not be permitted. We are only disagreeing as to the logic behind the rule.

Going back to OP... most of the games that I play in now, would object if chips from a stack were loaned/given to another player. Sounds like that is the case around here.

Personally, circumstances could warrant that I wouldn't really mind. Of course, it's a narrow set of unlikely circumstances, but sure, it's possible. At most of the home poker games, it's about bragging, not breaking.

+1

To be clear, my concern has never been about someone "winning it back." It's been about splitting $100 between two players rather than having a player rebuy for $50 if he intends to keep playing (again, the $150) and its effect on the other players at the table. But I do understand the connection. Which leads to...

Given our PM discussion regarding long-term vs. short-term results orientation, I can certainly see where this "effect on the other players" would be flawed in Player C winning Player A's stack and thinking, "Man, that sucks. Had he not lent $50 to Player B, I could've won extra money!" (and thus ignoring the possibility of losing an extra $50) I'd still prefer that a busted player rebuy with cash, but that's never been the dividing issue in our discussion.

Thanks again for the discussion, both here and via PM.

What about the situation where the player Lending the chips is the overwhelming large stack at the table?

Lets say he has 200+ bb in his stack and the next biggest stack is 100bb (and lets assume that the max buyin at any time is 100bb). If this player wanted to lend or give his buddy 20-50 bb to allow him to stay in game, I wouldnt think twice about it....and I'm against rat-holing in general. This situation comes up not-infrequently at my game and nobody bats an eyelash. (And yes, lending cash is obviously superior.)

Sure that seems less problematic. But it really has the same issues because in just one hand he can dramatically change position and thus has brought himself artificially closer to the use of all-in protection.

If this is a limit game we can construct a situation where it is very unlikely he will ever be all-in. But still if you can win that many chips you can lose that many chips........ even if its not likely.