Today this came up

cash game

full table, list is 1 call in and 1 waiting in room (call in is ahead on list)

we allow play overs if someone needs to run out or whatever (30 min max)

player busts and wants to run home before buying more chips, says 20 minutes.

We ask player waiting if he wants to play over, and say when org player returns he has to get up, and go back to place on list behind the call in

he says ok. sits. call in player arrives a few mins later.

now it wasnt an issue because org player returned in time, but what if he never came back and 30 mins pass? Should call in player be able to take seat over?

How does your room handle:
Aaron first on the list.
Barbara second.
Zeke third.
All are in the room.
Neither Aaron or Barbara wants to play over George.
Zeke does.
George doesn't come back in time.

Does your room give the seat to Aaron or to Zeke?

what is your room's rule on the amount of time a bust out can take? My room is 10 min.

The most important thing to me would be that Aaron and Barbara know what happens in case George doesn't come back in time. Pretty sure that influences their decision about playing over.

This is an 'each room' thing .. but ... IMO the player who takes the play-over keeps the seat at the end of the period, especially in DJunk's case where chips sales matter to the room. (Capped per day)

It's also more clear in DJunk's case since the seat 'opened' when the call-in wasn't in the room, so you roll back the 'open seat' time to when it actually did open. Obviously this conflicts with the other scenario .. don't really see a right/wrong either way. Totally agree that you need to communicate to prevent hurt feelings.

The 'trick' here is that if another seat opens up during the play-over, then you still go by the list for the players who are in the room ... not auto-handing it over to the player-over player. The play-over player assumes the 'risk' of only playing a few hands, but is (can be) rewarded if the time goes to long. Never understood someone turning down a play-over ..

As far as how much time is 'enough' time? That would have to be a location decision. Most casinos have gone to a 3 missed BB rule (and no dinner breaks but top of list treatment if you rack up), but I think 30 minutes is plenty but there are rooms that go with 20. 10 is ridiculous since you might not even be able to get in/out of the parking lot in 10 minutes. GL

Playing over should not give you the rights to the seat if it becomes open. You are simply playing over whoever that seat belongs to. If that seat becomes open while you are playing over, it now belongs to the next person on the list. You have to get up so they can take their seat. I'm sure not all rooms do it this way, but this is my opinion and the way I run playovers in my room.

When a player decides to play over I will always explain this to them in case it affects their decision and I don't want them to be all butt hurt when I tell them they need to get up.

If a player starts playing over when the only person ahead of them on the list is a call in, then I would let them keep the seat if the original player never returns to the game. Even if the call in shows up in the middle somewhere.

That is the 'classic' method for sure and probably the most fair, but I like to put the caveats in there ...

1) The play-over is typically doing the room a favor by keeping the seat/table full. Thus the 'reward' of taking the seat over if time expires.

2) As mentioned, capped chip sales are no fun and the last thing we want is chips in play for 17 minutes and then cashed out if they hit a few hands or decide they don't want to wait for their spot on the list to come up should it not be 'next'. (Suit, nor most of 'you', have any issues here)

3) Rooms with 10-15 minute grace time shouldn't be messing around with play-overs anyway. 30 minutes is a long time at a poker table .. let's fill the seat anyway we can.

4) IMO waving off a play-over seat is like waving off a seat/table change and still wanting to be at the top of the list (rolling?). Circumstances aren't exactly the same but they are close enough for me. I 'love' the table change guy who is just waiting for the whale to walk in and be next to get to whatever table he ends up at. (We also have fun with people putting themselves on the table change list even before they have a seat at all!!) GL

This. Judging by alot of your posts, I really wish you were the floor in my room.

I don't agree with the jumping. We do playovers all the time for lunch/dinner breaks, which we allow for 1 hour. We do not offer playovers. If someone is hanging around and asks for one, then we allow it. Doesn't have to go down the wait list. I don't think a playover should jump in priority because there are plenty of reasons why the #1 player on the list wouldn't want to play over. He doesn't want to rack up again right away when the guy comes back. Could be a karma thing. Maybe he wants to grab a bite or play craps while he's waiting. Or make a phone call. All this knowing he's next.

One thing we always have to reinforce to players in posting games is that when they do get their own seat and switch chairs from their playover, that they have to post as a new player or wait for the BB. Because technically that wasn't their seat they were playing in. Maybe that rule is different in other rooms.

I don't think a playover should ever be allowed when waiting for a busted player to return. I think most/all rooms will only give them 10-15 minutes max anyway. The playovers should be reserved for someone on dinner break or a table games degen. I give players 30 min away from the table and up to 1 hour if they notify the floor in advance that they are going for dinner. This is when we use playovers. For me the idea is to let someone play for a little bit that may otherwise wait for 1-2 hours for a seat.

I disagree with this. As Tom pointed out there may be many reasons not to take the playover. I'm not going to bump a guy down the list because he wants to play his favorite slot while he waits instead. Or grab a sandwich or play BJ or whatever. Some people just don't like to sit into a game where they will get moved in 30 min. That should not cost them their spot in line.

Let's mention what is the most common reason why the next player on the list doesn't want to play over: because he is already playing in the room at a different table.

Cheers

I would say the same thing about 30 minutes. to me 30 minutes is far to short a time to be worrying about playovers.

All good stuff ... And I agree 97% ... IF you are in a casino.

In my 'main' world (and DJunk's) most of those 'reasons' don't exist and players don't have the reload options that casinos offer. If the rooms have an ATM in them they have 'smartly' set the cash limit to $200 in order to collect max fees so players end up leaving the property to reload quite often.

I like all your answers/ideas/policies but I still defer to the specific situations that charity rooms deal with ... limited hours and limited chips.

It's pretty easy for 'us' to control 2-4 cash tables whereas trying to accommodate player-overs in 10-25 table room would require time and energy that I probably don't want my Floors to expend. GL

If you set your ATM's this way in order to generate max fees .... then it makes no sense to give them extra time to leave the property to use other machines. You should shorten the time to maximize the fees.

+1 ... But in all but one room the room doesn't operate/own the ATM. So the room offers a 'benefit' to the players in order to avoid the fees if they so choose.

Poker players .. willing to post blinds/buy the Button/play $50 showdowns after nitting it up all night but wont pay the ATM $3 in an effort to avoid missing 5-9 hands of poker!! GL

I presume that If the player who left, didn't say they were returning then the player present would have been seated, and call-in player would not have gotten that seat when they arrived.

If that's the case, I'm not giving the call-in player that seat over the player that was present and is currently playing.