At my local casino, one of the floors has twice showed favoritism toward another reg and against me. At my casino floors cannot take tips, so this isn't a lack of grease situation. Details on each situation below. Neither situation directly cost me money, but I think were incorrect actions by the floor. I have a good relationship with the room manager, and plan to speak to them about it, but wondering if this is enough to insist on filing a formal complaint. After the second incident, I called the floor out on this and we got into a heated conversation. My biggest concern is this floor having to make a future ruling on a pot and then directly costing me money.

Situation 1: Late night with 3 tables running. My table breaks with 3 players remaining. There are 3 open seats between the remaining 2 tables. While we are deciding to break, Player X walks into the room to get on the list. The remaining players on my table are told to pick our own new seats, first to them gets their choice (which is standard protocol in this room when a table breaks). I move to table A with 1 seat open, unrack and am dealt in and play a hand. After I leave the former game, the remaining 2 players apparently decide not to continue playing. Floor comes and tells me I must rerack and move to table B, even though I have been dealt in for 2 hands at table A now. I go ahead and move, and floor sits Player X in the seat I just vacate.

Situation 2: Again 3 tables running and my table breaks with 3 remaining players. This time Player X is one of the three. There are no seats open on the other 2 tables. The third player remaining (let's call him Player Y) asks first to be put on the list, so is. Me and Player X are unsure of whether we want to wait. Player X leaves the room, and I stay at the desk. Two seats open up. The floor is away from the desk now, so I go ahead and sit in the second open seat. When floor returns, they tell me I must rack up because Player X has priority. I look up and Player X is listed on the waitlist now, but was not on the list until floor returned.

I don’t get why you can’t just say something about these issues right away? Breaking tables can be somewhat confusing for a floor and they might have just been innocently (and wrongly) mixed up about the situations.

Player X is apparently friends with the floor while you’re friends with the poker room manager. Now you can find out where that leaves you.

Not sure what you want to file a ‘formal complaint’ about. Situation 1 was just a misunderstanding, that seat had been promised to player X and you shouldn’t have been directed to sit down there. Situation 2 was your fault all the way. You sat down in an open seat without permission and player X name was on the list. [that’s what happend according to the floor when asked by his superior]

OP, I'm curious about situation 2. When you have 3 players breaking a tableand no available seats, is it really the first player to yell dibs who gets put on the list first? Or was it because you and player x werent sure if you wanted to go on the list or not that they put the other player first, versus say drawing cards to determine the order on the list. And once a list was made, you never put your name on it while you were hanging around,is that correct? Seems like ifyou had just done that then the issue would have been avoided in situation 2.

With either of the table breaks, did you draw for seat preference or list order? There should be some system for determining who gets preference other than whoever is fastest to jump into a seat.

I don't think there is evidence of favoritism based on your post.

1. Not sure why it mattered which of the players went to the other table, but I don't get how you were even slighted.

2. I don't sit at a table unless directed to do so by someone. Maybe that would have prevented this?

Yes, this is the standard protocol in this room. No high card draw, which is how I have seen it everywhere but here.

No draw. Standard in this room is the order that the players ask.

If there was no table breaking and Player X is first up, they would be directed to the table with 2 open seats, not the table where I was sitting. I'm not following your logic. Are you saying that a new player should always have priority for seat selection over players from a breaking table?

Let's say that in Situation #1 the other two players decided up front that they were done playing. Would you have been given the choice between the table with one seat open and the table with two seats open?

Your energy should be focused on petitioning the room to fix whatever the hell this is.

I think filing a formal complaint over some trivial wait-list shenanigans would be a good way of turning a nothing incident into a real problem. Every poker room I have ever been in has staff who will abuse the wait list in favor of their buddies (or whoever just slipped them a $20.) It's just part of the general cussedness of life.

Honestly it’s kind of tilting when someone has a complaint that they could address directly on the spot but instead decide to escalate what would have been a quick correction.

I’m saying that filing a complaint is pointless because the floor is going to have a very easy and reasonable explanation when asked about it. And that’s the more ‘controversial’ first complaint. The second one is immediately mood when the floor says that you sat down in a seat you weren’t assigned to. That’s a huge no-no almost everywhere.
There’s no ‘quick correction’ to a problem that’s pretty standard. Floor favoritism is common in a lot of rooms including some of the most prestigious ones in the country. Usually you have to deal with it or start greasing the floor yourself. OP says he’s on friendly terms with the manager so that’s the obvious route to take.

I don't think these issues should lead you to believe that this floor would rule against you in a hand decision. They are very minor issues. All I would do is ask "Why?" in the first case. Maybe you'll get a logical answer like that table 2 is now becoming a feeder game and Player X was playing longer than you. In the second, don't take a seat until it is given to you.

What you should talk to the manager about is the protocol for the order of the list after a game breaks. I would start the conversation by asking the manager, who you're friendly with, what the policy actually is, and go from there in a calm, non-bitchy manner.

How would you have addressed it differently on the spot? I explained to the floor my view both times, they disregarded it, the second time I commented that they are obviously making decisions to favor Player X, they got defensive and the conversation became heated. They were the only floor working at the time and the room manager was not at the casino.

Answer to first question is yes, as long as Player X is buying into a table.

After I've thought about it, I agree with your second point (attempting to fix the protocol in these situations) is the best route to take. I've asked about it before, but maybe with specific examples of why their standard is bad it will get through to the room manager.

Op I agree with you I'd be pissed especially at the first one
You should have put yourself on the list in the second situation though even if you didn't know you were taking it

I agree with several people that have stated situation 1 is way worse than situation 2, given I decided to seat myself in 2 rather than wait for the floor to return. Had the order of the incidents been reversed, I probably would have disregarded situation 2 tbh. But because situation 1 had already occured, it was the pattern of favoring Player X that I was mad about.

Right, so Player X can hack this by taking himself off the list, forcing your placement at the short table, and then getting his pick between the two balanced tables.

I'm not saying this is right at all, but it is a path for the floor to be acting incompetently instead of maliciously. It could even happen without the participation of Player X if the floor is confused enough to not realize that he should be considering you both at once.

By that logic, when forced to move I could've elected to cashout, force Player X to sit at the table with two open seats and then immediately bought back in and had my choice. Seems incredibly petty though, which is why after stating my reason for disagreement and being shot down, I just moved.

Hyper technically in the line 1 floor was correct. Balance the remaining tables with players from breaking game. Then seat new player. Since only you of the breaking players stayed you go to table with more open seats. The fact you already were dealt you in and flood just did not correct the balance with new player is odd but not wrong.

I appreciate everyone's opinions. You helped me to see that I was likely overreacting/OOL here. I apologized to the floor when I saw them today for the heated conversation. I plan to speak with the room manager next time I see them and ask for them to consider implementing the high card practice for reseating players from broken tables to prevent stuff like this or worse in the future.

Breaking tables can be a thing for sure. In a room with OP's policy the short stacks have the advantage of being able to 'rack' up and dash to an open seat, so to speak. I try to scout the seats and get my Player's card put down into the seat I want, then go back for my chips.

The first spot has been hashed out .. very open to a chicken/egg feel. I do find it pretty unusual to move a Player once they have taken a hand, but not saying it isn't appropriate in some cases either.

The second spot is also marginal. They could easily say that you were just 'hanging out' and hadn't indicted you were going to stay. Whereas Player X may have told the Floor that he was hitting the pits for a bit and let him know when a seat opens up. The Floor may have known this without updating the list ... not recommended, but certainly possible.

High card procedure doesn't solve the issue of Case #1 ... You still (probably) would've been the only Player left playing of the three, unless the table you went to was the 'attractive' one.

In Case #2, I would try to put Players on the list in the order of 'tenure' for the session ... not leaving it up to the Players to make a mad dash to the desk.

The tone of the events has led me to believe there may be some issue going on, but to the extent that it would affect a 'real' ruling we don't know and would hope that's not the case. GL

I agree with most of the comments here so far...

This is a good reason to be upset. Player X is on the list until the other 2 decide to quit. He gets to go to the other table with 2 open seats.

Do you know for certain that player X didn't tell the floor to put him on the list before he walked away? I bet its possible he did when you weren't paying attention. Either way, you did not ask to be on the list yet, so you have no argument here.

Best plan IMO. The way they break tables is lol bad. How they have been able to do it that way for more than a couple times without a huge argument is beyond me.

One rant at the floorman is enough, move on. It sounds petty but I have been told to move before in situations like this and it really does piss you off if you are losing so I hear ya. I have gone to the cage on one occasion because I was winning and didnt care much to argue. I think in one occasion I just said I wasn't moving again, told them to figure it out or let me know and I would leave for the night.