Main 5/10 game been going for a bit, we've been doing a time pot each down. Must move game breaks around the same time someone from our game stands up, and a player from the must move comes over. He is asked if he is down for the time pot, and he says "I'm a new player". The flop comes out and his chair gets hit. The person who has to pay instead asks the floor if the new player has to pay time, and the floor says yes because they are not a new player, they came from the must move.

'new players' point of view is when he said he's a new player, that means he isn't doing the time pot. He also says that he normally always would do a time pot. He wants to just pay his individual time
The other players point of view is that NP was basically free rolling - if he doesn't get hit and is ruled not a new player, someone else would probably have paid his time. Plus if he always does a time pot when he's not a new player, and he's not a new player - he should do the time pot.

Thoughts?

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Which is to say, "I'm a new player" doesn't mean anything. One of you Jubjub birds should have pointed your vorpal blade at NP and demanded a clear answer before the first flop.

since you haven't clarified with him whether he's in on the slight off chance once in a blue moon shot that the floor rules he owes time, you have to eat it

Isn't it his right to pay his time individually if he so desires?

The whole thing is a gentlemans agreement that the floor allows, he could say he was doing the time pot and then just not pay if he so desired. But it would be poor etiquette. Question is less "can he do this" and more "should he do this".

Only before the time flop hits him..

1. There is a difference between time pot and time flop. As described this was time flop, not time pot.

2. If he didn't already pay time at old table he owes for this new table.

3. It's his option to do individual or time flop each down. situation could have been avoided if he was made aware he was sitting in on a time flop before the flop was dealt.

4. Ya, he probably just has sour grapes that he lost. He should have just paid and moved on. This is much like someone that always chops open raises into the big blind. Not a huge issue, but not great for your image.

How is he on the hook for this if he didn't explicitly say yes when asked if he was in? How did everyone else not clarify before it happened?

I don't really care if he came from another table or not ... I don't really care that this is his first hand ...

If it's time to pay ... It's time to pay ...

The only hickup here that I can even imagine is whether or not 'time' is considered 'pre-pay' or 'post'pay'. I'm going to assume that it's 'pre-pay' which means that if this player wants to sit down, then he is in for whatever agreement the table has made for paying the bill. GL

This. He did not agree at any point prior to the hand. When he said "I'm a new player." and it was corrected that he was not, that is not him saying yes. It is a non-answer. Everyone else, for some stupid reason, assumed he was in. There is no way I believe you could or should enforce him paying for anyone other than himself.

No way.

If the table has agreed to time flops before I arrive and I don't want to do time flops, I hand my time to the dealer and let the rest of the table do what they want.

And if the other players don't like it, we can have the Manager (maybe in consultation with Gaming) decide if I have to go along.

Slight mis-speak here perhaps ... If he wants to sit down then he is now part of the table .. and thus part of the table agreement that he has a right to be involved (or not) with making 'anew'. He was asked a question when he tried to sit down and he didn't really answer it 'effectively' IMO and yet the Flop came out. Was he dealt into the hand? Does it even matter?

What did he think "I'm a new player" meant when he said it. I'm all for giving him a voice and allowing the floor to resolve the issue but in this spot here I don't see where there was any agreement solidified before the Flop came out and payment was expected from him .. That's his, the players and perhaps the dealer's issue here. So yes, call the floor and stop the game and get it resolved. GL

I am very much NOT looking for a floor ruling on this. Not interested in the letter of the law - especially because in this room, time flop is not a room rule, it is a player agreement like chopping. We're not calling the floor here, just like we don't call the floor when we chop 5 times and then the same player raises aces when he's folded to in the SB. You can do it, it is bad form.

" He is asked if he is down for the time pot"

His response clearly indicated he was not participating in the time pot. He was in error about not owing time, but at the time the hand was played everyone at the table thought he was not participating.

There is no question that he thought he did not owe time (or if he thought he owed time he thought he could fool the dealer).

You just can't force someone to pay the time flop if they say they didn't agree to it. If it turns out the person was angling/freerolling, then you can only hope his character will emerge over time and people will treat him accordingly.

In this particular case, the guy seems like a jackass. Misunderstanding whether he has to pay for his first down is not a reason for sitting out of the time flop. So he is almost admitting to freerolling.

Of course it is. Why would he participate if he owes no time. Why do you assume this is a freeroll. If I ended up having to pay I wouldn't pay for his time because he wasn't participating ... so how is he on a freeroll?

Either you do time flops, or you don't. Either you owe time for this down, or the floor gives you a free pass. What does one thing have to do with the other?

According to OP, the guy said he normally does participate in time flops. He thought he didn't have to pay time in his first down, but the floor told him he was mistaken. At that point, the honorable thing to do is fork over the time for the whole table.

That being said, I still stand by my original statement that the floor shouldn't force him to pay for the table; if he wants to show his character by refusing, he should be allowed. And the rest of the table will treat him accordingly.

Both these. He probably honestly thought he didn't have to pay time. He said he wasn't in the time flop. Whoever "won" the time flop wouldn't pay for his seat. When floor corrected that he did owe time, he owes just his own time. If some other seat had "won" the time flop, they wouldn't now have to add an extra amount to cover the new player, either, he would still have to pay for himself.

If it were somehow corrected before the flop came out, then you can ask him if he wants in, and his new decision should stand. But if you don't ask, he's still out.

I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense to me. If you like to participate in time flops, and you are part of the time-paying contingent for this down, then why would you get to opt out when your number comes up?

I get that the villain thought he wasn't going to have to pay time this down, but he was wrong!

Off the top of my head, try this analogy for the reverse situation. Every week we pool our money to buy lottery tickets. We win. You mistakenly believe that your money didn't make it into the pool in time this week, so after I tell you the good news you say, "Enjoy your winnings, give me back my $20 since you didn't get to use it to buy the tickets." No no, psandman/dinesh/whoever, I explain that your money did make it into the pool, you get a share of the lottery, you're rich! So do you say, "be that as it may, I thought my money went in late, so just give me $20 out of your pocket, and you guys split up the millions without me."

Well yes. As I said above, if some other seat had been forced to pay the time, then it was discovered that the new player owed time, the new player would be required to pay it himself. The guy who paid for the rest of the table would not be expected to cough up another 7 or whatever.

This is really funny lol.

I'll just blatantly say that "no", you in fact DO NOT understand what Dinesh is saying, because his post was very clear and to the point (and I agree with him 100%)

It was made clear to everybody that this new-player was not participating in the time flop. If the floor comes over later and indicates "hey you have to pay time", he's going to pay it himself, not the person who lost the time-flop, so he was never actually free-rolling.

Not in the OP.

"I'm a new player" is pretty ambiguous. And the person who had to pay time wasn't sure if the new guy was in or out. Admittedly, he has a financial incentive to be confused or double check or whatever, but in any case, you're reading into it something that simply isn't there when you say he made it clear he was not playing the time flop game.

Regardless of how you interpret his intentions, I've played in time flop games, and if someone opted out in this fashion, I wouldn't try to force the issue, but I would think they were being a dick, and I wouldn't go out of my way to make things pleasant for them (unless they were a donater), and I'd be careful about ever getting involved in a side bet or prop bet with them.

Really? You think it is equally likely that he meant "I am a new player and would love to participate in your time pot" as opposed to "I am a new player, I do not have to pay time so i do not wish to participate?"