Cash Game Partial Cash-Out (a.k.a. Rebuying from the Deep Stack Player) (1 Viewer)

This. I never allow players to exchange cash for chips with each other - only through the bank. Cash does not play in my game either, and these two rules make it much harder to go south.
This is how it has always been at my game. Must buy from the bank before the start of hand, and you can only play the chips in front of you (cash does not play).
 
When the big-stack was complaining about “losing” was that genuine or putting on a show? As presented it almost seems like he didn’t want to do it at first but went with it reluctantly and then potentially realized it was to his great benefit and allowed it to happen.
I maybe take poker rules and etiquette too seriously, but it just flat out makes me angry when somebody doesn’t know how to play poker and then is smug and showy about his ignorance.
 
But if they rathole back to starting stack and keep playing, you can win “your money” back, right? He stacked you, you stacked him back, now you’re even. Seems fair.

I also love limit, for most likely all the same reasons you do. I agree that it SHOULD be the preferred style of home game play. However, this is not limit, and therefore the niceties that go with limit do not apply. No limit by nature is cutthroat.

If later on in the night, I am up to 300 bb's and he SHOULD be up to 300 bb's, but has 200 in his pocket, we now are no longer playing deep, are we?

There is no card room I am aware of that would allow this (can't do it online, either). I am surprised you see no big deal in it.

Obviously, this happened from a player that doesnt realize it is at best unethical, and therefore should not be keelhauled for it. However, I would expect any decent host would correct this immediately, and let all players know under no uncertainty that this is not acceptable. If this did not happen, this is when I would check out of this game. Luckily, I have options.
 
There is no card room I am aware of that would allow this (can't do it online, either).
A “loophole” I’ve seen is to change stakes. Move to a different game and at many casinos you’d be allowed to buy in for the minimum at the new stakes, play for an hour and move back to the previous stakes and you might not be required to rebuy for how much you stood up with before.

I guess it’s not that different from standing up and leaving the casino for an hour to get some dinner and the going back and buying back in? How long until the previous stack rule expires at casinos?
 
After a bit of research, ratholing does appear to be largely banned in casinos and on-line. It is also frowned upon/banned at many home games. I've been thinking through examples on why it feels so ugly. Here's a scenario/reason I've come up with. Casinos and on-line don't permit cash-outs and lower rebuys without a waiting period (like an hour or so).

Playing poker isn't just one hand or hand-to-hand events, but a session. A session occurs over time. While a session could be as little as a hand, it is generally longer. Various players interleave their sessions together. So if a player removes chips/winnings/betting pool from a table during a session then they effectively limit their downside plus increase their ability/likelihood to go all-in when pushed in. If a deep stack player with all their chips on the table was pushed by another deep stack player, they'd have to more carefully consider responding to an all-in. Not having to fold with a questionable hand is an unfair advantage. This is one angle for the ratholer. And there are others, as well.
 
Re - Buying chips from the table players is wrong is so many ways.
1) The Banker is responsible for collecting the $$ and dispensing the chips on intial buy in and rebuys.
2) Prior to game time, starting chips should always be pre stacked for the initial buy-ins. Rebuys stacked in various denoms in chip tubes if available.
3) The only time money leaves the table is at cash out.
 
If later on in the night, I am up to 300 bb's and he SHOULD be up to 300 bb's, but has 200 in his pocket, we now are no longer playing deep, are we?

There is no card room I am aware of that would allow this (can't do it online, either). I am surprised you see no big deal in it.
it’s just a principle of home games shouldn’t have people uncomfortable with the stakes. Yes you are right that opponents uncomfortable with the stakes (wanting to risk 100bb but forced to make 300 bb deep decisions) can be profitable but home games maybe shouldn’t be about profit as much.

As to card rooms, you’re right…but they do let you rathole 300 out of 300bb at any time. A lot will let you change tables and go south in between. All will let you cash out, go south, and buy back in for less the next day sometimes even less time though
 
2) Prior to game time, starting chips should always be pre stacked for the initial buy-ins. Rebuys
Not sure I see the point of that for a cash game, where starting stacks will vary.
 
Recently this happened in my game where a player was felted and the guy next to him 'rebought' him back in with $100 off of his chipstack. Instantly 2 other players jumped on it and insisted new chips be brought in from the bank :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:. I was going to make that happen anyways but it was funny how quickly some of my players reacted.
 
As to card rooms, you’re right…but they do let you rathole 300 out of 300bb at any time. A lot will let you change tables and go south in between. All will let you cash out, go south, and buy back in for less the next day sometimes even less time though
That's not ratholing or going south, those are different sessions; rathole is by definition taking some and still playing, hoarding some cheese like a rat while fighting over the scraps still at play. Sorry, with some people learning the term for the first time I just want to be clear about what it means.
it’s just a principle of home games shouldn’t have people uncomfortable with the stakes. Yes you are right that opponents uncomfortable with the stakes (wanting to risk 100bb but forced to make 300 bb deep decisions) can be profitable but home games maybe shouldn’t be about profit as much.
As for being uncomfortable with the stakes, this is the best argument for ratholing, but they sat down with less than that amount and now have that amount due to the game we all agreed to play. If they can't afford to lose money they just won gambling, they should leave, etiquette be damned go pay the bookie or buy your daughter braces or whatever lol.

Some may not, but many casinos will stop you from going south between tables, or at least throws you back on a waiting list. Sure, changing stakes you can, but if nothing else its very bad etiquette. Personally I don't care much about casino etiquette, I'm a paying customer so I'll stick to talking about home games.

And this idea is back to hands vs sessions. Unless its a several day MTT, no one considers coming back the next day going south no matter the amount (unless some weird agreement's been made, IDK, caveats for everything). I guess we can toke up and consider life as one big session lol, but a "game" is usually one day or nights worth of play with similar people. I know you're trying to make a point but its not working with the terms.
 
This is a previous discussion that has a lot of good information.

To better understand why its consider 'bad' you should understand why it was implemented. It can be a good thing to allow players to take chips off the table.

rathole-jpg.910157
 
Not sure I see the point of that for a cash game, where starting stacks will vary.
All starting stacks, whether it's 20-30-40 etc can be pre stacked in tubes so little time is used for counting it out at the time of buy in or rebuy. The host of a regular home game generally knows who buys in for what amount. All I'm saying is be pro active for having stacks ready when needed.
 
This is a previous discussion that has a lot of good information.

To better understand why its consider 'bad' you should understand why it was implemented. It can be a good thing to allow players to take chips off the table.

rathole-jpg.910157
Interesting point, where is that highlighted section from? Just for my own thoughts, I like to find the source especially when a writer pitches "the real reason" as opposed to other reasons about some tradition.
 
I would have had no problem whatsoever, saying “ that money stays on the table” , “just put the cash under your chips there”

Or…

“Is everybody okay with this guy partially cashing out 150? Table rules”

When someone blatantly breaks poker etiquette, I’ll say something, firmly.

House rules is house rules, but table rules and votes are important too.

When you get 8 people agreeing in front of your face, there’s not really anything to do, but comply.
 
I would have had no problem whatsoever, saying “ that money stays on the table” , “just put the cash under your chips there”

Or…

“Is everybody okay with this guy partially cashing out 150? Table rules”

When someone blatantly breaks poker etiquette, I’ll say something, firmly.

House rules is house rules, but table rules and votes are important too.

When you get 8 people agreeing in front of your face, there’s not really anything to do, but comply.
Do you get to vote at a casino?

It's called house rules for a reason. The house makes the rules. The problem with leaving sticky situations up to a vote is you can get different results on different sessions and then you have no consistency. Following rules as best as possible makes the game run more smoothly and minimizes these and other difficult situations.
 
Do you get to vote at a casino?

It's called house rules for a reason. The house makes the rules. The problem with leaving sticky situations up to a vote is you can get different results on different sessions and then you have no consistency. Following rules as best as possible makes the game run more smoothly and minimizes these and other difficult situations.

yeah, chop-chop blinds is a vote, chopping/splitting/ending a tournament early is a vote, "check it down", that's a vote. "run it twice" that's a vote
There's plenty of occasions where a table/active players decides to make changes/rulings the game, happens less in casino's, but it happens there too.

i think ratholing in no limit is against the rules nearly universally, so this would be a vote for the table to let the guy rathole 150, and if everybody agreed then... go for it i guess. At least the players all had a say... if even one person objects..., then nope, either cash out completely or money stays at the table. and i personally would object 90% of the time

this type of ratholing would signify that the poker game is nearly over, or at least that's how i would perceive it. i would be pretty pissed, unless i was tired and ready to go, but i would perceive it that the meat of the game is over.

in a casino it comes up all the time, "are you guys ready to chop this tourney?" if one person objects then we keep playing.

nearly every time i get to the last 5 in a casino tourney, we literally start hammering out who gets what, table share... chip count blah blah, when everyone agrees, the table decides what happens. everyone is staring at the short stack, like, come on man.... take what you can.... its final table politics haha.

plenty of home games end with the last few players... "okay... lets all cash out $100 and play for the remaining $40" type of thing.
there's never any rules about that, but if a group decides on something, thems the rules.

its always unanimous and never majority to make impromptu rules at the poker table. of course the house could override something like this, but in my hosting experience, its always better to just bring any situation like this to the table, either, the ratholer will see that most of the people think its shady, and would probably have a change of heart, or maybe nobody actually does care at all and the game is winding down...

i also would have no problem whatsoever in saying "money stays at the table" end of story. it would just depend on how i read the players and where we are in the night.
 
Last edited:
This shouldn't even be a discussion. Ratholing is against the rules of poker. Anyone who doesn't agree with universally accepted poker rules is free to start a movement to change them.

Why did the short-stack players rebuy from the big-stack winner of this hand? Short answer: it was the quickest way to re-chip plus we've done this to lesser degree in the past (while keeping the cash in play). Longer answer: short answer plus this is the first time the bank player was the bank as I just sold him one of my chip sets a week ago - so he was very slow at counting out chips plus he had closed the chip case and put it on a side table. Basically, expediency prevailed.
Don't rush the host. Urgency isn't important. Purchased chips, even if they have not arrived yet, may play at the start of the next hand. If the players who need chips really really want to use their new chips, borrow $10-$20 from a bigger stack until the host find time to bring in new chips.


When the big-stack was complaining about “losing” was that genuine or putting on a show? As presented it almost seems like he didn’t want to do it at first but went with it reluctantly and then potentially realized it was to his great benefit and allowed it to happen. Answer: Well, feigning losing is what made the player next to me turn to me with raised eyebrow, we quietly chatted about requiring bank re-buys at future games. He couldn't possibly think anyone believed him but he did repeat it several times. It was a bit grating to me and at least the guy next to me. I also agree that he may not have had that intent and he never did this in the past, but once $150 made it into his pocket...
This is called upstuck. He's down on money from his high.
 
All right thinking games are table stakes, chips bought from the bank, cash does not play.

For people here anything that keeps more chips from the table should be a mortal sin.
 
This is called upstuck. He's down on money from his high.
[/QUOTE]

@ArielVer18
I love how there’s a poker term for almost everything. Is there an unofficial official poker dictionary - A Pokerictionary if you will???
 
Under no circumstances can players sell chips to another player. Why would someone want to lose chips to player A and have them wind up in player B’s stack.

That’s what large denominations are for. Sell them a couple of 20’s and they can make change.
 
Do you get to vote at a casino?

It's called house rules for a reason. The house makes the rules. The problem with leaving sticky situations up to a vote is you can get different results on different sessions and then you have no consistency. Following rules as best as possible makes the game run more smoothly and minimizes these and other difficult situations.

My game is a monarchy not a democracy.
 
Under no circumstances can players sell chips to another player. Why would someone want to lose chips to player A and have them wind up in player B’s stack.

That’s what large denominations are for. Sell them a couple of 20’s and they can make change.

Under plenty of circumstances is this totally normal and ok. As long as that money stays on the table, it's just fine. I mean, we are still playing for money, correct? I don't get to take the poker chips home with me at the end of the night.
 
Find me a player that wouldn’t be pissed as hell about losing a big hand to a guy and having the guy take those chips off the table and keep playing and I’ll find you a dickhead and a guy that doesn’t play poker. Pretty easy to figure out who’s which.

I’d rack up and leave a home game (never to return) that allowed players to go south. It’s one of the unbreakable rules in poker IMO - table stakes means the chips on the table.
 
Seriously if you’re going to allow ratholing, just allow players to exchange cards whenever they want. You’ve already broken a cardinal rule, you might as break them all.
 
It’s one of the unbreakable rules in poker IMO
The previous thread we explored other ideals without Slut Shaming!

Due to the nature of the rule and its original purpose, there are other viewpoints that should at least be considered.

The pros is that it is used to help new players stay in the game, and allows players that would get up stay in the game with less risk. It is likely if someone takes chips out of play, if they get stacked they would likely buy back in.

I'm not making the argument; I'm just pointing it out that there are other aspects worthy of consideration.

This is one of the reasons I miss @CrazyEddie
 
The previous thread we explored other ideals without Slut Shaming!

Due to the nature of the rule and its original purpose, there are other viewpoints that should at least be considered.

The pros is that it is used to help new players stay in the game, and allows players that would get up stay in the game with less risk. It is likely if someone takes chips out of play, if they get stacked they would likely buy back in.

I'm not making the argument; I'm just pointing it out that there are other aspects worthy of consideration.
As long as we all get opinions, here’s mine. That’s the kind of bullshit made up by somebody who’s struggling to find a counterpoint. But it is indeed bullshit. If we were that worried about noobs, we could also offer them a 33% rebate on every pot they lose. But nobody is doing that either, because it’s bullshit.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom