Part of the table stakes rule says that a player may not take a portion of his chips off the table unless he leaves the game and takes his entire stack out of play.

When transferring to another table of the same game and the same stakes, is there any good, logical, relevant reason for a cardroom to not enforce this rule (as in, forcing the player to take his entire stack rather than allowing him to transfer for a lesser amount)?

Allowing a player to transfer to another table for less than what he has accumulated at his current table is a way for the player to bypass the table stakes rule, yet I have seen this being permitted (admittedly inconsistently) in some rooms, and I'm just wondering what the reason is for allowing this. Is there a good reason?

Also, should there be a distinction between a voluntary transfer and an involuntary transfer (broken game)? If so, what are they and why?

"No" to both questions.

Our room requires player who voluntarily change tables to another game with the same stakes to buy in at the new table for any amount between the minimum and the maximum.

Since we allow player to change tables freely, allowing a player with a huge stack to move to a newly opened table is allowing that player to immedately become the chip leader which is also wrong.

If a short stacked player decided to change tables, he must chip up to the minimum at least when he voluntarily changes tables.

In the case of a table breaking, players are assigned to new tables by high card and they are allowed to take all of their stack if they wish. They do not have to rebuy at the minimum if they are short stacked. The reasoining here is the player is not changing tables willingly so we do not require the polayers to increase or decrease their chips stacks.

Do you think it would be better if a player voluntarily transferring tables was able to keep his whole stack if he were moving to a full table, but not if it was a new table? I'm just curious.

No, not IMO. A player accumulates a big stack at one tabel and sees a table with a lot of short stacks on it. He moves over with a stack = to 4 buy ins and runs over the table. No one, except teh big stack player, enjoys that.

I guess, but I can also see the flipside. If the player with the big stack is a poor player and he moves to my table, I would like him to have as many chips as possible in play.

Thanks for your response, Dealer Guy. It does shed a little light for me on why a room would allow a player to transfer for less than what he has accumulated.

Basically, the room you work in has made the choice to sacrifice enforcing table stakes (when transferring tables) in order to avoid the possibility of players at the new table becoming unhappy about a big stack coming in. This keeps everyone at the new table happy (including the player who is effectively going south), which in turn is good for business.

It may, however, upset the players at the table that the big stack moved from as they might have wanted his stack and his action there, especially when not allowing him to transfer for less might have kept him at that table.

Are there any other reasons to allow a player to transfer with less chips than he has accumulated?

IMO the potential for players to change tables with the intention of going south are greater than the potential for players to change tables with the intention of picking on the short stacks.
allowing players to remove chips from play is a dangerous game

Unless a table is a must move game, each time a player changes tables, he is a new player. Allowing them to remove chips is within the rules. They simply cannot go back to their original game (within a certain time frame) without returning with their original stack

Is this per gaming regulations?

I have played with "hit and run" type players that will hit, cash out, put their name on the list and go for a beer or something for an hour and buy back in for the min. I hate that!!! these types of players would absolutely exploit this changing table/new player rule.

EDIT: idk what the local rule is where i am really but it just goes without saying you dont remove chips from play.

1. It's called "table stakes", not "room stakes" or "game and limit stakes". Table 14 is a completely separate game from Table 42, even though the limit and type are the same.

2. If you move from Table 14 to Table 42, you are treated as a new player. You have to post if a new player has to post. You have to buy in for at least the minimum. If you had a missed blind button on Table 14, you do not get one on Table 42. So why do you want to treat the player differently in just one aspect?

3. I've been playing for 30+ years. For the vast majority of the time and places, the rule has been as D-G states. OP talks like that is an aberration, when in fact it has historically been the norm. Agreed that historically most rooms have been limit poker, but OP's concept of "table stakes" extending to other tables is the aberration.

Most all rooms have a rule that you cannot return to a game (without putting down the greater of min buy in and what you cashed out ) in less than half hour or a full hour. That makes abuse of that rule harder if enforced.

Oh, if you can't beat the short stack hit and run guy, that is your problem. ("your" as in everybody else at the table). If you can't beat him, then he is playing better than you and deserves the money.

If my "aberration" has offended you, then I apologize. I only worded my posts based on what my understanding of the issue was. If my understanding was lacking, then again I apologize, but my reason for posting in the first place was to possibly learn from knowledgeable posters like yourself. So, if you'll forgive my aberration due to my lack of understanding, and instead focus on helping me understand, then hopefully I will not commit anymore "aberrations" in the future.

I don't think he was berating you, just making it clear that your characterization of the process was wrong. Most casinos make you buy down to the table max if you choose to switch tables. It's pretty standard. (It also isn't always enforced even when it is a rule, like at Commerce)

Mark

No this is a standard poker rule. The gaming regulators probably could care less about table stakes, must move, or any of the other rules of the game. They just want to ensure that State Regulations are followed and that we treat players fairly. At least in my experience

no offense, but do you even play no limit?

having more chips than the other players is not an advantage in nl cash games

(I apologize in advance, my response here will effectively hi-jack the thread.)

Sir it is obvious you have been on this forum and playing poker for sometime now, but I absolutely have to disagree with you on this point. When a player has accumulated a 3:1 or 4:1 "chip lead" on the next largest stack, then that player can absolutely run over either individual players or the entire table.

Now YOU might not be intimidated by stack sizes at your table stakes due to the edge you believe you have in skill, but if all skill sets were equal, then stack-sizes, will greatly influence how the game is played.

example: (Note: I believe actuall $$ amounts are not relevant for this example.) you are playing a full table, all your opponents are as good as you in your opinion. You have THE short stack and you end-up heads-up pre-flop with a player who has you covered 5:1.
You (MP) raised 5BB (AA) and he called (OTB) (what is his calling range now?).
flop: 7-8-T
You make a Pot sized bet he raises 3x your bet. If you call, the pot will have your remaining stack covered 1.5:1, effectively pot-committing you.

Do you call?

If the starting stacks were reversed does that change how you play your hand? Does that change how many people call your initial raise? Do you think that would change how your oppenent(s) might have played vs You on this hand?

I believe your comments apply to you and how you feel when you sit at a table, but would not necessarily apply to all players at a table

It doesn't matter that you have them out-chipped 3:1 or 4:1, your effective stack size is the same as theirs.

Regarding the portion I bolded - if the other guy's calling range differs depending on whether he has you matched 1:1 or 4:1, then that's a leak in his game.

So much fail ITT.

I'm not sure everyone understands this.

If i have 5k at the table and everyone else is playing 500 then i am not at an advantage because i am just as well to be playing 500. I cannot win more monies with my 5k than they can with their 500.

Buying in short can actually be an advantage sometimes too, but i'm sure you didn't think of that.

This probably needs to be moved to a different forum.

Ok. I might stand corrected. Help me understand this as a leak and JasoninDallas's assertion "having more chips than the other players is not an advantage in nl cash games." Thinking about my own example, I can see where playing here could be a leak for the deep stack, but I think it is a bad call for reasons not related to chip stacks. (i.e. this call would be a leak regardless of stack sizes)

My thinking is (and I am sure this obv, but sometimes the obv needs stating) with a deeper stack I can expand my playable range pre-flop in certain situations; also, I can, in certain situations, expand my playable range after the flop.

Is this totally false and a major leak in the game of many 1-2, 2-5, and 5-10 players? OR does the "situationally dependent" aspect of this make my thinking correct, I just have to give more thought to when the situation is correct?

^ Your effective stack remains the same essentially.

IF i have $500 chips and the other person only has $30, I am only playing for $30, not for $500.

Of course when there are multiple people of multiple stacks things get complicated, but you will never be playing for mote than the person who is second in chips.

I understand what is in bold, but isn't there something to the flip side of this reasoning? I.E. with a DEEP stack, I never have to risk more than X% of my stack (in this case 10%) while you will might have to risk 100% of your stack to make the same decision.

Using your example, a $200 mistake to the $5K player has less impact than a $200 mistake to a $500 player. Leak or not, isn't a $200 decision a bigger decision when you have a $500 stack than when you have a $5K stack?

I guess I am asking, with a deep stack (relative the other stacks I am playing) can't I (shouldn't I be willing to) accept more risk (in selected situations), don't I have a greater margin of error than my (much) smaller stacked opponents?

Is this a mis-applicatoin of tournamet theory?

That's exactly what it is. In a tournament scenario, your line of thinking is absolutely correct. In cash games it doesn't apply, because you theoretically have infinte life (re-loading). Having a large stack only matters if you're involved in a hand with 1 or more other large stacks, because then factors such as implied odds and fold equity become more significant.

Also, as Bulletbait said, apologies for the hijack. I felt it was a point worth addressing.