I don't play a lot of time-charge games, but at Rio cash games during this year's WSOP, I did play in some. Often times it would be suggested that we do time flop rather than individually pay for time.

How should it be handled logistically? Once the flop comes out (say 5 seat should pay), should the dealer take the time charge right then and there before any action occurs? Does the money come from the stack?

What happens when the player is all-in pre-flop? I ask because this happened to us. A short-stack player was all in pre-flop, and lost the hand. Of course he was the one who was to pay time. Once he lost, of course he hopped up and quickly left the room. How should the dealer have handled this?

Another problem that occurs is when players aren't present. They can't consent to paying for the table. Other players will swear that they agreed but how is the dealer to know? Should they just take it from the stack and not say anything when the player returns? What about if their stack gets picked up because they were absent?

At my casino we officially do not allow time flops or time pots. One player at the table must front the money before the hand starts, then that player is reimbursed afterwards. In your example it would be up to the players to work out what happens then - either the winner covers it or they use the next flop.

I can't speak definitely about how the Rio does it.

In my room the official policy is that the time gets collected before the first hand is dealt, so one player will put it up, and then whoever "loses" the time flop reimburses them. But even then, we often won't do that and just handle it after the flop comes out. But I also play mostly limit games, so it's rare for anyone to be all-in PF and cause the problem you described.

In your situation, I guess there are three options:
1- Somehow force the losing player to pay out of pocket if you can.
2- Go to the second (or third, 4th, or 5th) card as needed to determine who would be next in line to pay.
3- Agree to do it based on the subsequent hand

Assuming #1 doesn't happen, I would probably argue for #3, since it puts all the remaining players on even footing.

In my room time flops or pots are e between the players only. The dealer is supposed to collect the time before hand. If the players want a time flop someone must put up the money and get reimbursed by the loser .... But if their is an issue it's between the players.

I don't think I've ever played anywhere that didn't make one player pay for it upfront and then whatever happens later is up to the players.

I can't remember seeing any problems with that, but one time a player asked the dealer how it would be handled if somebody refused to pay up and he said the floor would probably kick that player out but couldn't force him to pay.

Oddly every time I tell players I need the time upfront they act as though they have never heard is such thing before.....

And all of this confusion is why I just always pay my own time, and do not participate in time flops.

in the games i normally play i'm always in for time flops and will buy people's time if they want out

however i learned at the rio not to be in for them,
there is too much table turn over with too many randoms and i've seen too many people get angled in them at rio.

I don't really play in those games but the only time I've heard highly negative views on TFs, it was about the WSOP Rio side games.

Sure because with a bunch of regulars things run relatively smooth. But at the WSOP there are to many people with different understandings or expectations

Played last night at Parx...10-10 game....after 1st flop came out...dealer or another player told the unfortunate one to come up with $54...was almost never layed out up-front. Seems like there was no set rule...the regs pretty much controlled.

Since the subject is "time flops," has anyone ever experienced negative consequences of opting out?

I guess standard thinking is it's 0 EV on the merits, just taking on variance for fun, and it builds a good table atmosphere and avoids a nitty image. So that's +EV. But those seem speculative and hard to quantify whereas getting freerolled/robbed 1% of the time is concrete.

My inclination would be to opt out, but if consensus were that the resulting image is bad and the risk is really just 1%, I might reconsider.