Last night, in a 1/2 NL game, a player sat down in an open seat with about $800 in chips in several racks (table stakes = $60 min, $300 max). He took about $100 out of his racks and placed it in play on the table, reserving the remainder on his lap. He proceeded to play exactly one hand in which he went all in, won, and doubled-up. He then racked up and took his chips to a different 1/2 NL game with an open seat.

When he moved, there was no list for 1/2 NL games. Moreover, the game from which he moved was a full table (until he left, obviously).

Players in the hit-and-run game complained to the floor. The floor found the player and told him that he had to go back to his previous seat. The player protested vigorously, asking what rule prevented him from moving between open seats in a game for which there is no list.

The floor didn't give an explanation, but instead insisted that the player had two choices: go back to the last table or leave for the night. The player left.

My view is that the floor made the correct decision, even if he did not state a reason. To me, this is a form of going south. I also think that, if this practice were allowed, games would be unstable, with players constantly moving between games to lock in profits after big hands.

Thoughts?

I think that my ideal rule here is you must take your stack with you if the move is voluntary but you should have an option of "going south" if the move is mandatory. I'm open to being convinced otherwise though.

In AC, whatever the limit is, if those games are not protected by a main game and a must move game/s(which these aren't) then if a player wants to hop around, he can, as long as the other tables remain balanced, meaning, he can't go from sitting at a table that is short to getting up and plopping his ass down in an 8 handed game. So, as long as he's not hurting the game in that regard, and, as long as he's bringing all his chips over to the other game, then he's good to go. Of course, if he went from a $1/2 game over to a $2/5 game, he's not required to do any of those things because those are two different games.

I hope the Floor at least explained himself and his reasons for not allowing the player to move because anything short of that is just poor service. And wrong.

I see your point and agree with your observation. However, my question is a little different: does the table from which the player left have a fair grievance? In other words, can or should the house require the departing player to remain at the table from which he departed, unless he wants to change stakes or games (i.e., go from 1/2 NL to 2/5 NL, or go from hold'em to Omaha)?

No, of course not. Why should he be forced to stay at that table if there are other tables with an open seat? Like I said, as long as he's not leaving a game that is already short/less players, he should be able to table hop. But, your chips go with you. You can't have it both ways. The player you are inquiring about was wrong because ALL of his chips were supposed to be in play. The only way he'd be able to skate over that would've been to quit the game all together for X amount of time(my room is 1 hour) and then he would've been able to sit back down for the minimum buy in had he chosen to do so.

I don't think the table has a fair grievance in the situation you described. But if this person hits and runs frequently, other people in the room will come to hear about it and that player likely will get a lot less action.

No, of course not, assuming table changes are allowed (in that room in general, or for that game specifically/must moves).

In my perfect world, all table changes are at the discretion of the floor, and no player is allowed to table change on his own, without the approval of a floor. First of all, this is needed to make sure the tables remain balanced. Assuming the player is moving from a fuller table to a less full one, that approval should nearly always be given, but if a player is abusing the privilege, then it can be retracted.

No. They are a bunch of whiny crybabies who don't like the fact that they don't get a chance to win back "their" money.

As pointed out above, if you know George likes to hit and run, adjust your play against him accordingly.

I'm not sure if you're stating this as an opinion or a fact, but as I'm sure you know, room rules on this subject vary quite a bit. Some require you to bring your whole stack, some allow you to go down to the table max, some require you to go down to the table max, and some let you sit with any valid amount, as if you were a new player, all without having to leave the game for a set period of time.

You must be talking about a very inexperienced player because I have never been in a room where you can move tables on your own whenever you feel like it. You need to request a table change from the floor and they will let you know when, where and if you can change tables.

Whatever the reasons are/were, however wrong the player is/was, when a Floor tells you that you can't do X, he should explain why. That's all I was saying.

Yes, it absolutely does vary, which is why I stated as such in my first post by saying "In AC"...

Lol... well put, as usual.

I accept the developing consensus that the practice of table hopping is permitted, subject to the caveats listed above. However, if that is right, then I was wondering if someone can help me with the rationale behind the going south rule.

I was under the impression that the going south rule exists to protect the remaining players at the table. If that is correct, isn't table hopping between same games/stakes just an extreme version of this problem? From the perspective of the remaining players, the impact of this practice upon them is the same as a player going south on them, if not more acute.

I'll give it a shot.

Going south, and the rules against it, are a peculiar artifact of the implementation of the rule that makes poker casino friendly: table stakes. Essentially, having the ability to go all-in (without having to put your watch, or your car, or get a loan, or whatever in order to cover a bet made by an opponent) means you can mix and match people with different bankrolls, and create liquidity in the market of forming poker games among strangers.

The problem with table stakes is that there is (or maybe can be, there is some disagreement on this front) a distinct advantage to being short stacked relative to the rest of the table. I won't go into the arguments of why that is here in this message, it would take too long, but if you search here you can probably find some discussion of it.

We put up with it as the lesser of evils, because table stakes allows casinos to host successful games. But we try to limit its abuse by also creating a rule against going south - that is, once you win money, you cannot take it off the table and go back to being short stacked.

Absent the rationale that being short stacked can be an advantage, there is no other good rule-oriented reason for preventing going south. (There may be some play oriented reasons, such as some players are much worse playing deep than playing short, but these are player specific, and regardless, they aren't good reasons for having a rule in place.) There is no asymmetry of risk - if someone goes south, you can win less from them, but they can win less from you, too. And as a practical matter, we let people take money off the table all the time - we let them quit the game whenever they want, and we let them table change. So there is no abstract rule-oriented reason for forcing someone to keep money on the table until you can "win it back" or whatever.

Long story short, if it weren't (debatably) beneficial to continually be short stacked, there probably wouldn't be a rule against going south. But it is, so there is. But it's not because you have some right to the chance to win your money back, it's to prevent you from having to continually give an opponent an edge as a side-effect of the table stakes rules.

In this case, the guy is obviously trying to take that exact advantage, but he has to table change to do it. Since there are a finite number of tables, and an even smaller number which are shorter handed than the table he is currently at at any given time, one piece of good news is that he can probably only table change a small number of times before he gets stuck somewhere. Additionally, as I mentioned above, my ideal room would give the floors discretion to restrict this players table changes, if they see he is abusing the table change mechanics to be short stacked repeatedly.

But no, as long as the room allows table changes (and for player happiness reasons, it probably should), then you don't have any right to demand the player stay at your table.

Perhaps you might lobby your room to implement a rule similar to what Rush mentioned earlier - if you table change, you are required to take your whole stack with you to your new table [if it's below the buy in max, and possibly even if it is not]. IMO this would be a valid rule in support of the rationale behind the going south rule; it would completely eliminate the ability of this player to do what he is doing as well.

Would you play in a game that allowed people to reduce their stack when in the blinds and then increase it in late position?

No. That is another good reason, which I overlooked. And while I think it's a good reason for having the rule against going south, I don't think it's necessarily germane to the issue posed in the OP, though of course the two strategies could be used simultaneously.

To the initial question. If the room has a rule that a player can reduce their stack when making a voluntary move, then that is the problem.

That rule creates this situation.

Should the floor not allow a move (in a situation where a table change is generally allowed)? Well part of me says ... that if a player is bouncing around a lot to take advantage of this rule the floor should use its discretion to stop it ..... but even more I think that once the floors have recognized this problem .... the correct solution is to get rid of the rule which causes the problem. I see no upside to that rule.

Rules aside, I share the opinion of whoever called the complainers crybabies.

Someone doesn't want a big stack at the table? It shows what they think of their own play.

Going south by table hopping is the Martingale system as applied to poker.

Whatever the rule is, it needs to be published, and applied consistently and equally to all players all the time.

Without a published rule, the floor was acting in an arbitrary fashion based on the whim of the moment from the other players.

Thank you very much for this explanation. I had never heard the prohibition on going south rule explained in this way. I now understand the rationale behind the rule much better.

At this point the dealer should've asked the player what he was doing. As in where did you come from? What are those other chips? And should've called for the floor to make sure he should have a player coming in. It is very unusual for a player to sit at your table with a bunch of chips and only put some in play.

I'm sure Dinesh answered the going south question but his post was TLDR. Basically you can't change tables of the same game and not bring your entire stack with you. Some rooms maybe allow it but they shouldn't and its very uncommon. Any and all table changes should go thru the floor/brush. Their approval should always be required.

Thanks, but I probably should have mentioned that it's something I have put together on my own after doing some thinking and some diving into poker history, but it's by no means generally accepted or canonical.

And furthermore, I seem to habitually ignore the "adding and removing chips as your position changes" reasoning for not allowing going south, which is obviously also quite important.

But I hope it did at least stimulate you (and everyone besides Suit!) to think about the reasoning and impact in some new and novel way.

In my room this would not be allowed. Yes, table changes are allowed, but you still need to check with the floor it most rooms, you can't just hop around as you wish. In my room in order to table change;

A) We must have a player replace you (unless you're at a full game).
B) You must go to the weakest game

If he's jumping around from table to table to whatever open seat he wants, I doubt he's following those rules. IME if you request a table change, you must take your whole stack.

every casino has different rules
in the borgata if you transfer you can only come in for the max
if it's a must move you have to come in for your stack

i think a broken game you have the option of matching the highest stack but i'm not 100 % sure

i did see a guy in 10/20 nl at commerce during the tournament when there were 4-5 tables buy in for the min of 600 (lol) and if he doubled up he would transfer and come in for 600 again

Lot's of good points in this thread.

I would have it that you have to have permission from the floor to move tables voluntarily. Just because a seat is "open" doesn't mean it is free to someone. The floor could have already promised that seat to another player. If the seat is free, then there should be no restriction to moving unless there is compelling reason to not do it (Rule 1). If a room wanted to discourage it, then make the player post or wait until the BB. I'd leave the stack size coming in optional to the player, as long as it is the minimum for the table. If the player comes in short, they can only top off the table maximum, regardless of what they had before. Once the money is on the table, it stays though (excluding tips).

The reason for the last is that as a room, you want people contributing to the rake. A devoted, good short stacker will just sit out the minimum time required. The reality is almost all short stackers below 5/10 are bad and just going to lose their money anyway.

That said, most players are irritated at short stackers and I can see the floor just playing to the crowd. It wasn't a good call, though.