vvn. Psandman, you're one of the best posters on 2+2, imo.

Now my head isn't going to fit through the hole in my shirt.

I'm going to have to look through more of your responses on this, because the above would seem to contradict this:

.... unless you're saying that the penalty of not being able to win more, doesn't equal the gain of the all-in protection.

I'm assuming that's what you ARE saying... but it seems a tad contradictory.


Are you trying to stick your head through the armhole AGAIN??

Its not contradictory because I was separating the two issues just to deal with the specific argument raised in the post I was addressing.

But again because we agreeing in result ..... and just disagreed on the reasoning behind the result it sort of creates the appearance of a contradiction.

The best way to read this is to pretend for minute that I have not made my argument as to why this should not be allowed and I am simply making an argument against the other posters position.

The pros and cons of this are pretty straightforward:

Most home games aren't casinos with a list of players waiting at the must-move table. Sometimes the best interests of the game (both short-term and long-term) are served by keeping busted players in it - even if it means the money comes out of another player's stack.


Moving money from one stack to another changes the game. It allows players, essentially, to rat-hole. $50 that disappears from my stack can't be lost tonight. I can only lose what I have in front of me, because -- IOU or not -- that $50 went from my stack to my pocket. Sure, the table as a whole has the same money on it as it did a second ago, but it's not "my" money any more. I've rat-holed, and that's bad for the game.


Rat-holed money cuts both ways, of course. Sometimes I save $50 by not having it at risk. Sometimes I lose $50 by not having it to risk.


Anyway... ...sometimes it's more important to keep the game running.

I agree with this with a big caveat...... what is good for the game is not always as straight forward as what is good for the game this very moment. When you allow something for the sake of keep the game going tonight ..... you need to consider its effect on next weeks game.

Are players not going to bring a second buy-in because they expect to borrow it........


This issue sometimes comes up in a casino especially late at night on the graveyard shift. One player busts out and his buddy wants to give him some chips from his stack. One thing I have noticed is that when management stands firm very often that busted player somehow finds another buy-in........

I've had this come up in a relatively big home game. We had about $1,000 in the game ($.25-$50 $50 buy-in), and some of the players felt they should be able to sell chips to each other. One of the players protested me asking the re-buys to buy new chips, instead of the "simpler" way of current chip leaders just selling their chips for re-buys. I had a tough time explaining to them why all new chips should be bought from the case, so that we have an increasingly bigger game. I was met with a lot of opposition, and truly had trouble explaining why it was right. I knew it was, but had difficulty explaining it so they could understand. Can anyone help for next time?

They are correct this can be simpler, and its not a problem if money plays ... you tell them they can sell the chips but the money has to stay on the table.

River G never indicated that money plays (and personally I don't see why money should ever play as long as there are enough chips). It seems like what he was talking about is the big stacks wanted to go south with the money.

Well just like there are reasons not to allow money to play .... there are reasons to allow it play.

1) For many players it is easier to count money. That is many players seem to find it easioer to count out $500 in $100 bills than to count out chips (even $100 chips)

2) It makes reloading fast and easy. In a home game your banker doesn't have to involved.

3) In a game such as this one where there are a lot of chips on the table .... if the host doesn;t have a lot of high denomination chips .... the table can get overcrowded with chips.

sandman, I don't consider any of those good reasons to let money play.

1. They will learn in less time than you think if you just disallow money
2. People don't reload that often, and it doesn't take that much time to buy in with chips
3. The host would have to have absurdly lower denomination chips than the size of the game for this to even be remotely an issue. In the off chance this is the case (which implies very poor planning) maybe money can play one night, but the host better have bought some more higher denomination chips before next time.

Psandman gave what I consider the most easiest answer to players that want to sell chips.

I went thru alot of trouble and expense to get proper poker chips so we wouldn t have to use cash

Re: Money Plays

I have a custom set of chips. Plenty of higher denoms, and always have chips for rebuys. I prefer to have chips only (for a few reasons). I usually organize/run the couple of games that we play (semi-public location, not actual homes, no rake/vig).

Towards the end of the night, there may be a person who wants to 'top off' their stack. Sometimes that player has no intention of dipping below their current level of chips (stop loss), or they are going to cash out in a few hands, or they feel they are going to win (not need more chips). Since the game serves the players (not the players conform to my wishes all the time), the cash 'plays'. It's not the end of the world, and people are happier without conflicts and arguments.

Not so sure you're correct, River G. Don't always compare B&M rules to home game rules. Perhaps it's not better for the game to keep getting bigger.

or....... ?