Part of the problem is people worry about getting the button in the right place. You need to worry about getting the blinds in the right place, determine who is allowed to be dealt in, and let the "button" fall where it does.

+++ above ... Just had a conversation about 'no dead buttons' at my room and the Players' attitude about someone getting the advantage of the Button (and even the ability to straddle) two hands in a row.

Some were pushing for 'just don't move it' and 'so what' if a Player can straddle two hands in a row. There are scenarios where the UTG could straddle multiple hands in a row as well ... so why not the Button as well?

I would prefer the 'moving button' myself, but then you have the same situation of 'fairness' when the would-be SB/BB is now the B due to forward movement. Even though they still have to post the SB, they now get one less hand OOP in that orbit.

My thoughts are that as long as two Players are putting in some form of blind/post, then lets play some poker. I know that conflicts with BTB, which I like as well, but you should always be able to figure out how to make sure 'someone' is OTB in every hand. GL

I don't see how. He's allowed to decline a hand any time he wants.

Also, what about timed games where everyone is dealt in regardless of presence at the table? Seat 4 comes back and wants to post in the cutoff, Seat 5 in the button walks away. Seat 5 will receive cards, so does that mean Seat 4 is allowed to post in, even though Seat 5's cards will be mucked if he doesn't come back, thereby granting Seat 4 the dreaded positional advantage?

I'm not sure why all these complications are necessary in the first place. Does anyone really think posting dead money last to act is some kind of game breaking advantage? Pretty sure playing your button with 100% VPIP is -EV.

If you decline a hand and walk away after the hand is already in process of being dealt, that is the same as folding out of turn and is against the rules. If someone makes a habit of deliberately breaking minor rules, he should be talked to about it and eventually punished.

In games where they deal in walkers then, yes, someone can post in the cutoff and may get to go last. But he can't be certain of last action, because the button could always get back at the last second.

Not sure why you are trying to find fault with a system that clearly works 99.9% of the time. I've played tons of poker and never played with anyone who routinely walks away right as he is getting the button, the most valued position. Your bizzaro world superstitious player who hates playing on the button does not exist.

If you've played poker that long then you should know that you've seen the most absurd things possible, and yet continue to be stunned by new absurd things.

Also a rule that works 99.9% of the time is not good enough when I'm playing millions of hands for significant money.

Lol, which rule do you think works better then? Any rule can be confused if you try to be difficult.

And you don't have any money on the line when you're still trying to figure out who gets to be dealt in.

Given that this "rule" is merely an interpretation of the actual, written, ambiguous rules, and that nobody other than busybodies like Seat 6 who insist that they have the rulebook memorized have an issue with letting the cutoff post behind a dead button, just let the cutoff post behind a dead button and tell Seat 6 to be quiet because he doesn't run the room.

But in any case, it's not my job to write rules. It's the poker room manager's job to write rules. It's the customer's prerogative to complain about poorly written rules and urge to have them changed by suggestion or ultimately voting with their feet.

Okay, first of all you're not playing millions of hands of live poker, and the 99.9% more realistically applies to those times when a dead button is invoked, so good luck finding a more fair and efficient rule.

Second, aside from the BTB confusion, Seat 6 actually know what is going on. Regardless of what you think of the rules, why would you tell him to be quiet about them?

Finally, very few people are voting against the dead button rule, and at max one but probably zero are voting with their feet. This is such a molehill.

Because he didn't? His argument was "I deal over at [Other Casino] and they make me memorize the rulebook, unlike here where I am playing now which might use a different rulebook." He also called Seat 4 a moron for trying to make his case right in front of the floor, which I'm pretty sure is against the rules.

It really depends on the house
Some places would allow him to post and effectively get the button some don't

I had an argument once when I sat down on the cutoff
It was in a room where in time games you get dealt in until you miss your blinds
Apparently the button was in the bathroom and got dealt in
So I argued he was a live player aomi can get dealt in even though it's likely his hand will get mucked

Dealer said I was wrong
Floor overruled him