Perhaps it has been discussed in this thread at some point, but I was pretty embarrassed after a ruling made this past weekend at the B. An older gentleman, seemingly a reg, requested a transfer to my 1-3 table. He carried over more than the max buy-in, and walked away. The dealers changed halfway into his leave, and he returned with my stern declaration that only $300 of his $600 should play, as this gentleman was from a transfer and not broken table.
Dealer looked at me and laughed.
Player looked at me and laughed.
4 French players at the table had only a vague understanding of my argument, but at least they didn’t laugh.
I called the floor. Floor, player and dealer all reiterated the same anti-ratholing sentiment. How is it that the rules that apply almost everywhere else I’ve ever played (NJ, PA, FL) run counter to the prevailing and outspoken ruling at the B? I would take my business elsewhere next time, but it was a very nice experience.
Trying not to be overly nitty about it. I earned my spot as the big stack at the table and this guy just waltzed over and took it from me due to a stupid ruling. I’m all for playing deeper, but why even have table limits if they only matter on your initial buy-in at any one table in the room?
Also, apparently the ruling in CA as well:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...-games-954740/
Tl;dr—B regs,dealers,floor think table transfers with limits are ratholing. Nobody there ever heard of the prevailing notion elsewhere in the country.