One of my first experiences playing NLHE in a casino, I was seated at a really good 1-3 table (300 max buyin), mostly loose passive guys + a couple of loose aggro donks with short stacks. I hit a few hands, and my stack was up around $1500, which was more than I had ever had in play at once. I was still pretty comfortable, because all the aggro guys had small stacks. After a while, a guy with $2000+ got moved to our table, and started playing pretty aggressively - this made me pretty uneasy at the time, and I was wishing that he would have been required to buy in as a new player. I left soon afterwards - it was getting late anyways, but I may have stayed a little longer without the big stack moving to my table.

Not saying this should be the rule, just giving an example of when moving a big stack to a new table is bad for the players there.

Yea, having him rathole would be great too.....

Money is money.

Well I can confirm that the Harrahs corp rule in Vegas is:

If a player voluntarily changes tables and has more than the max buy in, ONLY the max will be brought into play on the new table, nothing more nothing less. If less than the max, all chips must be brought.

If coming from a broken game, ALL monies in play must be brought to the new game.

The cash out rule of 1 hour or 2 hours is property dependent.

But in a tournament you're not scored in money, you're scored by survival. Tournament chips are not equivalent to cash.

But it's important to note that most people don't have infinite reloading. Many that come to play poker and, for the most part, are the ones that make up soft games, are there for recreation and may only come with a couple buy ins.

These are the players that view someone coming to the game with a huge stack as having a large advantage. They have chosen to play 1-2 NL with $100 max (or whatever it might be) so they could play with like minded individuals, who value that $100 just as they do. In the players mind the playing field is level. When someone arrives at the table with $1500 their perception is that the playing field is no longer level.

If poker is going to grow, as recreational players are introduced to the game they need to be comfortable and to feel as though the playing field is level. If they feel intimidated they may not play, plain and simple. Perception is what's important here, not what the "effective stacks" are.

In low limit games I think it's important to maintain the level playing field because, in reality, recreational players don't have unlimited buy ins. The game plays more like a tournament to them because they may only budget a couple buy-ins. IMO, making the table-changing player reduce to the max is protecting the other players, and in the long run is better for poker.

This is utterly ridiculous. By this logic, if I buy in for $100 but play every hand by barreling people constantly and always making them decide if they want to play for stacks, this is unfair? That's what poker is. Having a big stack in a cash game has no advantage whatsoever over shortstacks. In tournaments, the big stack has a big advantage but in a cash game it's a much much bigger advantage to be a shortstack. They have all the power because they can just end the hand whenever they want to basically to avoid getting bluffed, and they also cut down on the implied odds of the big stack meaning they have to play fewer pots and can win less with the big hands they get.

Especially for players who don't have the experience of a better player, being a shortstack is a huge advantage.

But whatever, no one will believe me anyway.

I change tables a lot but house rules don't matter to me that much. I would rather be able to move a large stack to a table that has weak players with large stacks, but I would make the same move if I am capped. All things being equal I prefer as much money on the table as possible so I don't care if someone moves in with a large stack. In the long run the abilty to deter hit and run table changers makes me prefer the idea of making players take a full stack

My "logic" is just an opinion on the "perception" of recreational players.

Also, everyone agrees that having a big stack in a tournament is an advantage. Again, my point is that a low limit cash game plays much like a tournament in that a high percentage of recreational players have a very limited bank roll, maybe only 1-2 buy ins. In that sense, to them the cash game plays just like a tournament, when it's gone it's gone.

To all those who want to deter hit-and-runners: Learn how to beat them. Don't rely on changing house rules.

This is a cash game!

Gobbo FTW ldo.

Some rooms have a rule that you must transfer your entire stack but you can not have more chips than the largest stack at the table you are going to. This happened to me at Showboat at Atlantic City.

Example: I had $1200+ at a $1/2NL game when it broke at 4am and I was moved to the other game still going. The floor helped me get 3 racks and when I sat down, asked the biggest stack to count his chips. He had around $700. The floor made me match his stack and told me to pocket about $500 (the difference between his stack and mine). I protested but the floor explained the rule to me and said that I didn't have a choice. I felt cheated because I spent the last 5 hours building that stack from $200 and it wasn't my fault the table broke.

Photoc, what is the Harrahs corp rule in vegas for a player who voluntarily changes tables and has less than the min buy in? Must he add on to at least the min buy in?

And it's a good one, IMO. One that I share after thinking about it.

A rec player with $100 *shouldn't* be intimidated by the $1500 stack, because he effectively also only has $100. But, 1) He *is* intimidated, so that lowers the EV big stack might extract from rec player, and 2) We don't want to educate the rec player on why he shouldn't be intimidated (don't educate the fish).

So, using some meta logic, having a disproportionately large stack could be disadvantageous.

Correct. No less than the minimum from the way I read the rules that were shown to me by a manager.

Hello!

I believe having a huge stack is just another weapon that affects how people play you more than anything.
However, what do you think of being at a table with, say, $1800, and the next highest stack is $800, with an average of $500 a stack? I usually leave at that point if it starts to get stagnant, thinking that I hit a peak, and can always come back. I don't see a huge advantage to sitting with a ton more than people, unless you are using it to test play and want to play a larger role of hands.

In Colorado, there are a ton of people that hit a good pot and cash out, so the only defense is to outplay and beat them.

So how much would you guys pay for the big stack advantage? Maybe I'll set up a room where you can pay extra to play against shorties.

This topic had been done so many times before I only skimmed it and somehow stopped on your post. Not only do I agree 100% but wish I could explain why I agree with you 10% as well as you presented your argument.

I believe you but your logic really works better in an online environment where most players tend to have a much smaller percentage of their "poker money" (i.e., their bankroll if a pro or how much they can lose without upsetting the wife) at or on any given table. In B&M you will see "the rent money" far more often on a single table.

The short-stack advantage (which I'm glad to see Stars is finally clamping down on) is well known in the high IQ poker world you inhabit. But in a casino or card club the most important thing is attracting casino or card club type recreational customers. They aren't usually high IQ. For whatever reason they are in fact intimidated by big stacks and have little understanding of "the short stack advantage". When they go in with a short stack it's usually because they've had a bad day and are ready to "get it over with and go home". The guy who table changed with a big stack just makes them feal sad or hopeless. Which of course is bad for business since you want happy and hopeful customers in order to attract more customers.

Obviously this doesn't apply to the really big games. But the really big games aren't where a card club or casino makes their money.

Exactly. I don't like caps on buyins ---- but i know that they benefit the room. I know that it doesn't matter how much you have in front of you, and in fact i want you to bring more.....thats more money to win. But I have seen far to many people walk away from a table because the other players had to many chiups. they are intimidated and won't play and thats not good for the game.

Yesterday a player in a 2/5 at the Wynn had accumulated over $10,000 over a 24 hour session. (Max buy-in $1500) There was a transfer list of players dying to get on the table and take a shot at him.

I don't like players being able to go south with chips when they transfer tables. It becomes a strategy for players that win a big pot and then jump ship. It violates the spirit of table stakes if not the letter.

Clearly these players wanted to play against a large stack, and were given the choice to do so. I'm not sure how that relates to a player with a large stack table changing into a game where the current players don't have a choice?

Then why have a max buy-in in the first place? What's the point of a max buy-in? Because by allowing players to table change with a dominating stack, IMO you're defeating it's purpose.

The spirit of table stakes is that if I win chips off of the other 9 at the table, I cannot "protect" my win by taking them off the table as long as I stay at the table.


As soon as I leave the table, you 9 players have no "right" to the chips I take off the table.

It doesn't matter if I take them to the cage and cash out and leave for a week or four hours.

I doesn't matter if I take them to a higher limit. Or a lower limit.

Or to another table at the same limit. I took the chips off of you 9, not the 9 on the table I am heading to.

People's dislike for short stackers and hit-and-run artists seems to be an excuse for making up concepts like "the spirit of table stakes" that have no relationship to reality.

I imagine that floor people and room managers share the players' general distaste for ratholers/shortstackers, and that if someone keeps doubling up and asking for a table transfer, eventually common sense would kick in. If the ratholers want to be clever and go for a walk for an hour, what does it matter?

the only advantage a big stack enjoys over shorter stacks in a nl cash game is psychological against people who think he has an advantage

but it's surprising that in this day and age of understanding of big bet poker that so many people still think otherwise

i'm pretty sure most decent poker books explain effective stacks in the introductory chapters, and why having a gigantic stack agsinst shorter stacks is not an advatage