Time charge question. I’m at a new casino. Night 1, I sit down and they deal me in free behind the button and I pay the time charge at the next dealer change about 20 minutes later.

Night 2, as I sit down the dealer has pulled in time from all players and asks me for time and I say I’ll wait till the next hand. He says nope and won’t proceed unless I pay.

Maybe this is room dependent but I’ve never had to pay time if I haven’t been dealt a hand yet.

If you just sat down at the push and the dealer's collecting time, you have to pay it or leave the table. She did the right thing.

If you sat down the night before in the middle of a down you're supposed to post your BB unless it's a new game that started mid down and time wasn't collected yet.

The general rule at the places I play (AC, PA, Vegas) is that you pay time if there is a list - i.e. you can't say you'll wait a hand. If you don't want to pay, you don't get the seat and they go to the next person on the list (theoretically, no one has ever refused to pay once they understand what happens).

If there is no list, then they let you wait a hand, since what else are they going to do.

Occasionally, with no list, someone might play a hand or two then discover that push is coming. Depending on the floor they might cut you some slack and let you dodge time, especially if it might leave the table paying half time instead of full. Sometimes the players or dealer assist in some white lie telling to make this happen.

Your two examples seem to be very different about when you're sitting down (at time collection vs 10 min in). Generally speaking, if you sit after the time has been collected, you get to avoid paying time that down regardless of the list status. Some exceptions if the floor is around and sees you purposefully dodging the time collection by sandbagging around the table.

Long ago I played at a place where they made you pay time up to 10 or 15 minutes into the down when you sat, and explained you were paying time for the next half hour not the last half hour. I can't actually remember where this was, but I think it changed to one of the normal rules soon thereafter because everyone hated it.

With the normal rules in place, in theory someone can play after a down starts, play for “free” and then leave right before the dealer change?

Sure. For free on time. Still have to post and whatnot.

No one does this though, especially if they had to wait any amount of time to get the seat in the first place and/or there is a list to get back in the game later.

And if they did, the floors are sure to notice eventually, and could well have a talk with the person and/or bar them.

I see stuff like this all the time. It's amazing to me how ridiculously cheap some people can be and the lengths they will go to avoid paying time.

Many times you'll see a player coming to the table and wait to take their seat until after the time is collected just to not have to pay the time. There's a particular player who likes to do this at a room I frequent. So they get to skip like one hand or two hands while everyone else had to pay and they'll tell the dealer, "I haven't been dealt in yet, so I'm not paying the time". They get into a big argument over $6 and get away with not paying it! Then like 5 minutes later, a hot waitress comes over and he gives her $5 for a free bottle of water! Amazing!

I like the rule where if you're at the table when time is collected even if you haven't played a hand, you still have to pay!!! You're paying for the whole half in advance!!! Why should you get to skip paying just because you weren't dealt in the first hand???

Room dependent? Certainly. I've been in casinos where a Floor was called over to verify the amount collected.

I've also seen LOTS of Players play their last hand before time is collected and we all certainly know that the next Player is not just standing there with a rack of chips ready to sit down.

The last time I sat at a 'just starting' time table the Dealer asked all the Players for a partial payment as it was 10 min past. I immediately did a quick calculation and opted to take a seat at a raked table. Time was $198/hour at time or probably less at a $6 max table. My thoughts were that I could play against much weaker competition .. and yet still the Players waiting for the time rake table .. at lower cost. It worked out the few sessions I played that trip, but I can see both sides to playing 'weak' or playing deeper/higher. GL

I think so many of the rules and customs in rooms are based off the old time idea that poker is a battle of the blinds. The idea of making new players post, or players moving so many spots post and when time collection takes place. I think the implied odds of postflop pots have given lie to the game being a battle of the blinds in even the tightest, biggest games.

Instead, I like to think of poker as a game of opportunity. It is the opportunity to play hands of poker against everyone else at the table.

As a result, I would like to see posting and time collection policies simplified. If a player is considered to be at a table (i.e. taking up a seat that could otherwise go to a different player) and the the big blind gets to them, they have to post. It doesn't matter if they just sat down and want to wait until the button has passed them. I also wouldn't make new players post (unless they were the big blind). If they sit down in the cutoff, let them play for free. If a new player has reserved a seat by putting their card down and they are supposed to be the big blind but they haven't gotten their chips yet? Give them a missed blind button.

Point is, from a casino point of view, I wouldn't concern myself with the nuances of new players coming into the game. Treat them all as players in the game. They post when it is their turn. Can this be abused? Sure. Slightly. Is it worth it to anyone? Nope.

Same with time collection. When there is a dealer change, the casino should collect time from everyone who has 'dibs' on any seat at the table. Have they played a hand yet? Doesn't matter. They are taking up a seat in the game. Pay for the right to do so.

Could this be gamed? Sure. However the amounts in question shouldn't make enough of a difference to anyone involved.

I absolutely hate partial time collection. Again, this is a casinos scraping for pennies who they should be looking at the bigger picture. Collect the full amount on each dealer change and leave it at that. If a few players get 15 minutes of free play at a new game, think of it as a reward for opening the game.

Limit games are a battle for the blinds. The blinds are large relative to the bets. Limit games should always require a post to enter, or if you move away from the blinds.

NL games are a battle for stacks. The blinds are relatively immaterial and exist solely to keep the game from deteriorating into a nitfest. Many rooms do not require a post to enter the game or when changing seats, and just need to manage blatant abuse.

I don't really see what your proposal does to improve things. It make posting slightly less onorous for limit games and more so for NL games.

I don't understand what you're proposing for time collection changes. It sounds like exactly how most rooms do it today.

Slightly off topic. I've played in Time Rake games that deal you into every hand .. hence you get posted even if you're gone (ala tournament 'proximity' rules). I've also played in the same (5-10-20) game where the more traditional 'posting' occurs when you return to the table.

I prefer the 'every hand' set up, but it is -EV if you are gone for more than one orbit.

We tried both since it was costing Players $35 to go to the bathroom! And when you're playing the short-handed MM table the Button comes around fast.



On a side note .. I really hope The Lodge has a good handle on their 'time' Business Model. They were offering $10 ANNUAL memberships earlier this week and are holding a $100k Freeroll for a one-time entry per member with 4 Day 1s. During this Freeroll members can by up to $500 in time at 50% off, thus reducing their hourly time payment to $5.50/hour from the standard $11. They are also opening a restaurant next to the Poker Room. It's usually not wise for a business to get too far outside their wheelhouse, but in this case it comes down to what their goals are for the restaurant. In our area well over 70% of 'food service' startups fail in less than 2 years, but I do think that the lease takes a big bite out of the business .. which in this case shouldn't be a burden. GL

I have never heard of a room forcing a player to post a blind when away from the table in a cash game. I would question how that is even legal in a regulated room.

I would not really want to play in a game like that, even though I personally am not a walker and almost never leave the table during a session. I don't know that I would ever support it, unless maybe you're in a room or a game where people habitually walk a lot and leave you short handed. Then I guess it might be a tool to help punish that sort of behavior. But again, since you're forcing someone to put money into a pot when they are not even there, I'm not sure how it is legal.

Tangentially related... In some rooms (in time games only I think, but possibly in rake games too), if you have posted your blinds properly (while you are at the table), then you continue to receive dealt hands even if you step away from the table later on in the orbit. If you are not back to the table by the time it is your turn to act (or, in some rooms, by the time the deal ends), then the dealer kills your hand.

On the pro side, you no longer need to tell the dealer to deal you in when you're just walking away to throw something out or speak to someone at a nearby table, which is nice. And if you go to the bathroom you don't need to wildly signal as you're walking back, and you might get an extra hand in that way.

On the con side, while it's supposed to "save time" for the above reasons, I'm sure it's a net loss overall, because at least once or twice a session there is a misdeal because the dealer forgot to deal someone in who was supposed to get a hand but who isn't at the table, and then you waste time redealing for someone who is not even there.

Agree with Dinesh that seems unlikely to be legal in a regulated room to force you to bet actual cash on a hand you are not in and cannot win. Plus, if you are playing short handed, what is going stop you from simply picking up, walking around or whatever, then coming back into the game (as long as you don't go south and are above min buyin.)

Aside, on the dealt in until you get to your blinds. I to have seen that for time games but not rake. One possible reason for not doing that in rake games (around here) is that getting a hand is the trigger to be included in a BBJP. The time games around here are usually not BBJP eligible anyway as no promo is dropped. (Time games are big enough relative to most promos that there are not promo chasers in those games.)

The only places I have ever seen where they make you post your blinds when you're away from the table are where they are basically a cash game masquerading as a tournament in an attempt to get around a local law. Officially a tournament but plays like a cash game in every other way.

I’ve never seen forced blinds posted, but it is pretty standard practice in big limit games to force people to put in half a sb or something as dead money if they miss two blinds (up to two collections and then they are picked up). That wouldn’t happen in a time game though because they are already penalized for walking.

Sometimes you gotta pee

ahh, you are right, I had forgotten they do that at commerce at least (in the 20-40 game). You get a missed blind button the first time, then they flip it over to the red side the second time, and the third time it gets to you they call the floor over to throw in $5 off your stack into the pot.

as you say, though, that isn't a time game, it's one of the cali drops.

Oh yeah I wasn’t trying to correct you, because you are absolutely right. They would never try to collect a blind without the player being there. I was just trying to say that the situation I was talking about is the only situation I could think about where the casino would force you to put money into the pot at all without you being at the table.

Didn’t mean to give the impression that I wad correcting you, I’m actually in full agreement with your post. If taking a blind for being away from the table is the rule, I would not want to play in that game, because that seems very punitive. The lobby fee on the other hand is very good at preventing cascading walkers, which is the whole purpose of the rule.

No worries I was agreeing with you. And It is an example of the casino putting money into a pot for a player who can't win it in a regulated room.

You are correct about limit games. I wasn't thinking of limit when I made my screed. I was thinking of NL. I absolutely hate how many NL rooms make players post when the move away from the blind or are new to the game, or allow new players to sit out until the blinds pass. To me, on NL, blinds should not be that much of a concern to either players or the casino. It should be more about getting players playing hands who are taking up seats in the game.

My comments on time collection come from how many time collection games require new players to post to enter but also if a new player hasn't posted yet they do not pay time on dealer change. I also worked at a place where new players who sat down the last 10 minutes of a down didn't have to pay time collection at the next dealer change. Thus was a nightmare because sometimes pushes are late, and exiting dealers would almost always forget to tell incoming dealers who the new players were. So I would sit down and try and collect time and have two players tell me they are new players (exiting dealer said nothing). My choices are either accepting what they say or calling a floor and asking. It was stupid and a waste of time over an amount that wasn't significant in the game.

I might be wrong because I am going from memory from many, many years ago, but I seem to remember in the 1990's poker games in Iowa or Illinois that they would force posting.

I think this was because of archaic gaming laws. A casino license granted X number of gaming positions in the whole casino. A slot machine would be 1 gaming position, blackjack would be 5 gaming positions, craps might be 7 gaming positions, etc. So if a casino was allowed 1200 gaming positions and they were maxed out on a Friday night, they would literally turn off a bank of slot machines so they could open up a blackjack table. Or vice versa, when a table game went dead they would turn on a bank of slot machines.

Since poker wasn't very profitable for the casino, during busy times there was never enough tables open so there was always huge waiting lists. So they made it that if you had rights to a seat at a table you had to play. Your choice was post blinds while absent or be picked up so someone else could take that seat.

Again, this is vague memories from long ago and I might be blending Illinois and Iowa rules.

That'd be great if EVERYTHING in a poker room were run in a spirit of "what causes the least amount of nits to hold up the game haggling over $2", but I don't think the rules are the problem here. No matter where you set the boundary, there are going to be borderline cases, and nits are gonna try to exploit those as much as possible. I don't think "dibs" or "dropping their card to reserve a seat" are any clearer lines of demarcation than "Has this person been dealt into a hand?"

I think the rules are already fashioned on the assumption that blinds aren't a big deal. Online games make you post when you're new to a table or sit out to the big blind, and it definitely leads to MUCH more sitting out waiting for the blinds to hit you naturally than someone sitting out the two hands they woulda been the natural blind just to get their first hand in the cutoff.

Although not as pronounced as limit, NL is still a battle of the blinds (and position as well). Just think of the counterfactual where there’s a game with no blinds and only a dealer button. In that game it would only make sense to play aces and players would just sit there all day. Why play anything less than the best possible hand when it’s free to wait? Of course players have pointed out (Bart Hansen calls it “hidden antes” I think) that because many poker players are bad and put money in the pot just out of sheer boredom, this game would probably still be profitable, but it’s only because players would be playing incorrectly. However, solvers have sort of demonstrated that battling for the blinds is definitely worthwhile, in the sense that they play much more aggressively to go after dead money than the “tight is right” mantra had people believing for many years.

Also think about games with multiple blinds/straddles. A four blind game is going to incentivize a fight for the blinds much more than a traditional two blind game. Or if there’s an ante. Etc.

So yeah, being able to not pay a blind or to stall paying the blinds by moving is a big deal and rooms have put in place rules to discourage that. The reason we think blinds are irrelevant is mostly because a lot of people play in games where players make super huge initial raises compared to the size of the blinds. So I’m not completely disagreeing with the overall point.

In theory that is 100% true, but anyone who has played low level NL knows that is 100% false in reality.

In 99.9999% of any NL games I have ever played in or dealt there are clear implied odds besides the blinds. NL games are more played for stacks, not blinds.

Yes, 'how' they are regulated is the key to any procedure at the table. I will say that the forced posting was very short lived at the one casino where the game was spread .. so perhaps someone didn't think it through enough while allowing it to happen. And the other Room has since changed their policy to only deal towards stacks that don't have a missed BB button.

Certainly a case where a Room was trying to do what it could to keep the game on site and yet also provide some sort of 'standard' control. Not quite the wild west approach, but definitely the 'bend but don't break' approach. GL

A few places prorate time collection. For example if time charge is $10/half hour, and you sit down roughly at the quarter hour, you owe $5 whether you choose to take a hand immediately or not.

It might be harder to implement than the alternative, but it does eliminate the petty angling.