guy not playing fair tablestakes - report him?

Guy has ~2 buy-ins, leaves the table for one hand, sits down in the same spot with only one buy-in.

I thought you weren't allowed to that. Should I report him to PP?

I don't think that is against the rules. Its poor etiquette but I don't think its illegal.

The software lets him do that? I know at PokerStars you have to come back with what you left with if it has been less than X minutes.

Originally Posted by lonnie

The software lets him do that? I know at PokerStars you have to come back with what you left with if it has been less than X minutes.

I know. That's partially why I was so surprised.

maybe I should just send an email anyways, just in case. The guy was a complete asshat in just about every respect.

I never understand why anyone would not want to play with a big stack. I guess if you're not very good...

Originally Posted by koolmoe

I never understand why anyone would not want to play with a big stack. I guess if you're not very good...

He wasn't. All-in maniac was he.

Originally Posted by Les_worm

I don't think that is against the rules. Its poor etiquette but I don't think its illegal.

So I got a reply back from PP. They said it's permissible online, though it usually isn't in actual cardrooms.

Originally Posted by stuck

Guy has ~2 buy-ins, leaves the table for one hand, sits down in the same spot with only one buy-in.

I thought you weren't allowed to that. Should I report him to PP?

As it relates to you sitting at a poker table, what he did was no different than one person leaving with 2 buy ins, and a completely different person replacing them with 1 buy in. Point being it has nothing to do with you. It's his money to do with what he pleases. It's his right to bank it or play with it. Don't be petty. It screams of control issues.

It has everything to do with him. The money stays on the table in cash games, thats why most website have some sort of feature to prevent this usually. Imagine you're sitting down and some guy buyins for half the max, and triples up on one hand, then he says "ok, I'm only playing with my original buyin now, I'm keeping the profit I made on that hand, so the most you can bet against me is still only ____"
Its bullshit, it makes the competition unfair... Its like using the allin protect multiple times per game.

In limit games on Stars, you can stand up and come into the exact same seat with any amount of chips. Not so with NL, but there is the timer

Doesnt really matter in Limit since tha max you can bet in a hand is 12BB if its capped on all streets and preflop (unless there's no cap when its heads up).

Where I play, if you leave a table with more than the max buy-in the software keeps a record of that amount for some time (quite a lot of time actually) and if you sit again at the same sit only allows you to buy-in for that exact amount.

But cause it last long I dont think its fair. I've sat down at this NL $50 table yesterday and did really well, then left to play a couple of SnGs. Then I went back to a waiting line for a couple of tables and when a spot was open (was at the same table) although there were new players at the table (essentially a new table its was like 2 hours after I left) it only allowed me to buy-in with $211.23 which was the amount I had when I left. Unfair... to the others :P

Originally Posted by RHCNNN

Imagine you're sitting down and some guy buyins for half the max, and triples up on one hand, then he says "ok, I'm only playing with my original buyin now, I'm keeping the profit I made on that hand, so the most you can bet against me is still only ____"
Its bullshit, it makes the competition unfair... Its like using the allin protect multiple times per game.

I'll just say this... the reason there is nothing wrong with someone "banking" a large increase in their buy in and then starting over at the same table is the same reason you or any site can't figure out how long that person should be banned from the table minus their full winnings when they do so.

Think of the logic. Should it be 15 minutes? Should it be 45? Should they be banned from that table for 2 days minus the full winnings? Should they never be allowed to sit on that table again if they don't have 3x buy in? What if that person wins 3x their buy in, leaves to sit at another table, and loses all but 1x buy in back to your table. Should they not be allowed to sit at the original table simply because all the money they have to their name is 1x buy in after their losses on that other table. What if the only action on the whole site at that moment is the original table he's not qualified to sit at?

There are a million and one holes in the logical reasoning. That's why it's incorrect to penalize the activity. You tell me how long they should be banned from the table and why that long? If you don't have an exact answer to that question that makes sense, then I'm afraid the argument stands invalid.

should be banned from that table until the blind comes back across where they were sitting.

Originally Posted by Element187

should be banned from that table until the blind comes back across where they were sitting.

Fair enough. Either that or post an extra blind immediately.

At pokerroom you don't even have to leave the table to do it. You can just sit out a hand and buy right back in the next hand for whatever you want.

I think the bottom line is it will never be enforced because it's a disadvantage to reduce your stack size. It's a substitution of leverage for caution. It's the antithesis of buying in 2x or 3x and using a high stack against the table. You should thank a person for "banking" their leverage against you.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

I think the bottom line is it will never be enforced because it's a disadvantage to reduce your stack size. It's a substitution of leverage for caution. It's the antithesis of buying in 2x or 3x and using a high stack against the table. You should thank a person for "banking" their leverage against you.

i agree 100% .. i rather play on a much larger stack.. i make people make a decision for all their chips more often.

At the homegames I usually play at you can't cashout winnings and remain in the game. Usually we play until someone busts out a few times and they rebuy (using spare chips). Once a few rebuys have occurred and there are enough chips on the table, only then can people "cashout" profits by selling chips to another player. If you want to take chips off the table, it means your done for the night. You can cashout for the night or play with whats in front of you (or buy chips off of the bigstack).

And partially I was annoyed with the guy because he *wasn't* the big stack at the table and he had no leverage over me. I was sitting with over 8 buyins at the table. If he's not comfortable playing there -- he shouldn't. There are plenty of other tables to play at. If I'm playing at a table like that (well, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even sit down at that table, especially online where there are so many more options) and I double up and I don't feel like letting it ride, I leave. I don't take half of it off and continue playing. You'd never get away with that at a B&M, which is partially why I was mad about it. (Plus the fact that the guy was a complete jackass, but that's another story).

With regards to the home game, I'm not a big fan of buying chips from the big stack because it essentially taking money away from the table. The $X buy in is no longer a factor in the game which may or may not affect how the big stack plays. The only time I feel that this is necessary is when every single chip is on the table in your set.

This is also unfair to those losing. They deserve a fair chance to win back what they lost before the game ends.

Originally Posted by outphase

The only time I feel that this is necessary is when every single chip is on the table in your set.

Yeah, that's basically when it happens. The set we use isn't so big that someone can end up with a 10x buy-in unless they win lots and lots, and after awhile people can buy-in double if they want.

I'd almost say it's more fair for people to be able to buy from the big-stacks - it takes leverage away from the big-stacks and gives the small stacks an opportunity to recuperate. And it's a friendly game at least, so no big stack is going to get up and say "that's it" unless they've been playing a really long time and everyone's about ready to quit anyways.