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

[Machine]

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.

Thanks for your opinion!

I wasn't struggling to find a counterpoint, it wasn't my original argument, also I did add it wasn't my baby.

I would hate to be thought of as a close-minded poker bigot, so I try to keep an open mind.

I hope you don't take offense to that, I'm trying to ruffle your feathers / tease you sarcastically, as you, at least on the forums come across as vehemently opposed to change, and a bit frugal.

I do agree, you are correct, in most cases it is bullshit.

 

[aggie]

House rules should never allow going south.

If it's truly a unique situation, then at a minimum have 100% buy-in from the table before allowing it.

 

[upNdown]

I hope you don't take offense to that, I'm trying to ruffle your feathers / tease you sarcastically, as you, at least on the forums come across as vehemently opposed to change, and a bit frugal.

 

[allforcharity]

All the cash that comes on to the table stays on the table. There should be equal opportunity for each chip to be won or lost as Nike's blessing waxes and wanes through the night's play.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

All the cash that comes on to the table stays on the table. There should be equal opportunity for each chip to be won or lost as Nike's blessing waxes and wanes through the night's play.

Most of my players wear Reeboks, but if the shoe fits, ya know....

 

[Bacon Dad]

As a noob playing organized poker with real rules, I find all the viewpoints and the back-n-forth worth every chip you offer. I personally won’t allow it at my house and it will definitely make my rules list.

 

[ChipFinderSK]

I’m 100% against ratholing, but there are 2 circumstances where I’ve seen it happen. In both scenarios, all players should/did agree to allow it.

-end of the night (only a few hands left). A player with a monster stack (covers everyone by 4x) will sell rebuys from his/her stack. The money should still stay on the table, but sometimes ratholing might be OK if there’s no risk the monster stack will have to dip into the cash before it’s time to cash out.

-Bank runs out of chips. This happened on the HCL stream with content creators (Mr. Beast, etc.), when a female player had all the chips. Hustler Casino had no more $5K chips available, so she was selling chips from her stack in exchange for IOUs. She later busted, but had already “banked” several buy-ins. Was not a fan of the ratholing, but when the bank was out of chips, there weren’t a lot of great options.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

-Bank runs out of chips. This happened on the HCL stream with content creators (Mr. Beast, etc.), when a female player had all the chips. Hustler Casino had no more $5K chips available, so she was selling chips from her stack in exchange for IOUs. She later busted, but had already “banked” several buy-ins. Was not a fan of the ratholing, but when the bank was out of chips, there weren’t a lot of great options.

Ill agree with that. You want to keep the stream going and you've got a bunch of nine-figure fish on your show? I dont care, grab some apples, each one represents 1 million. Lol

 

[thupkt]

The most important thing may be to get a consensus and roll with it. In my game, if I could I would require cash to stay on table in chip or cash form. However, some of the players who aren't as good need the security of ratholing here and there. They mostly only do it late in the session. Some of them would quit the game if they couldn't, and I'm hard up for replacement players. So with one group that I play with, we tolerate this. Any time I sell chips 100% of the cash stays with my stack on the table all night.

 

[lane_robert_s]

1. Yes or can buy from big stack as long as the amount whether chips or cash stays on the table.
2. Convert cash to chips is the way to go OR cash has to stay on the table and be in play. But much easier to convert to chips if you have enough chips.

I agree

 

[Taghkanic]

Totally inappropriate and against the basic rules of poker IMHO. You certainly couldn’t do it in a casino.

 

[allforcharity]

Most of my players wear Reeboks, but if the shoe fits, ya know....

I should have said Tyche's blessing

 

[merkong]

Bored.

Nobody goes south, ever, and no money goes east/west (buying chips off another player) irrespective of where the cash goes.

Full stop.

 

[Tarsus4]

This is a very interesting thread. I've had it in my head that you can't do that since Ed Norton tried to bum chips off of Matt Damon at the Taj but I'm not sure I fully understand why, at least in a way I can present to my table.

My reason is it's better for the table to have as much money on it as possible. It generates more action, which is potentially more fun for the players involved. But my players are also less familiar with poker and gambling generally than I am, and are likely that much more risk averse, and therefore an argument that says "you all should really be gambling more" is likely to be greeted with skepticism, or the very least be perceived as self-serving

You could say that we all agreed to come to the table with a certain amount of risk, and that it's not fair for one player alone to take his risk off the table. But the economist in me then says, "that player's large-stacked still, the chips in front of him belong to him and he therefore has among the largest risk at the table. It's only fair that he wants to bring his risk back DOWN to a level comparable with the other players." It also reduces his ability to bully the other players.

There's no argument based on collusion. If the cash stayed on the table it'd be fine, we all agree it's the rat-holing that's objectionable.

I'm really struggling to find an argument based on player fairness/equity, and not just "good for poker". I mean if that's what it comes down to, then that's what it is.

 

[merkong]

One of the driving forces for me and the East/West connection, is if player A won money off of me I shouldn’t have to go after it from player B. Then there is the collusion factor; maybe player B is going to tighten up and effectively protect those chips.

All of the arguments lay the foundation as to why the East/West connection doesn’t play in my games and why it’s a bad idea overall. I’d rather the player Venmo the house and I’ll go into my personal drawer for the float. ATM style.

 

[merkong]

There's no argument based on collusion. If the cash stayed on the table it'd be fine, we all agree it's the rat-holing that's objectionable.

Rat-holing stack-borrowed, East/West money is collusion.

 

[Tarsus4]

One of the driving forces for me and the East/West connection, is if player A won money off of me I shouldn’t have to go after it from player B. Then there is the collusion factor; maybe player B is going to tighten up and effectively protect those chips.

That's interesting that the East/West angle matters to you. I fully get it if the transfer was a gift, loan, or stake. Then player B has an interest in player A's success, even if indirect. But making change between players isn't collusion. If the cash played, an equal dollar cash-for-chips transaction would fully preserve the status quo. The problem comes when player B goes from $X cash + $Y chips to just $Y chips.

 

[ekricket]

Jumping in this old thread

Do you get to vote at a casino?

Actually yes, this has happened a few times in smaller casinos in Oklahoma. Weak floor in all cases, left it up to the table to decide which way to rule, asked for hands and went that way. Different casinos each time.

 

[merkong]

That's interesting that the East/West angle matters to you. I fully get it if the transfer was a gift, loan, or stake. Then player B has an interest in player A's success, even if indirect. But making change between players isn't collusion. If the cash played, an equal dollar cash-for-chips transaction would fully preserve the status quo. The problem comes when player B goes from $X cash + $Y chips to just $Y chips.

Making change? We make change all night. New players even get kinda curious when we just toss a $25 plaque to someone without saying a word.

I thought we were talking about taking chips off of somebody’s stack either paying them essentially cashing out the giving players chips or just gifting them on a loan or something.

Chips come out of the bank.

If this is about making change well obviously that’s allowed.

 

[merkong]

We don’t play cash as in cash dollars as in paper money. We did at the Frogtown Card Club, my old game, but we have plenty of chips. Buy them from the bank.

 

[BirdCage]

Three years later and I’m playing with the same guys. As the OP of this thread, I’m pleased to report that it hasn’t happened again. I made it very clear that it was called ratholing and not permitted.

All initial and re-buys come out of the bank and all chips remain on the table until cash-out. Everyone understands and complies.

 

[Jaxen]

Same boat as @BirdCage , playing with the same guys now who bring $50s for rebuys, they can buy off a big stack who keeps the cash in their stack as a $50 "chip" (our biggest is a $25). And of course the big stack starts playing tight because he sees his profit right in front of him.

 

[Tarsus4]

I thought we were talking about taking chips off of somebody’s stack either paying them essentially cashing out the giving players chips or [...]

Chips come out of the bank.

Right, that's what I understood the situation to be too. I was trying to detangle two aspects of the problem: the east/west movement (which seems to equate to change-making and isn't really part of the current debate) and the south movement (which we agree is wrong... but I don't particularly love the explanation I have for my players). We could simplify the situation removing the east/west question entirely by rephrasing it as the following:

Player A busts and wants to buy back in. Player B says "while you have the case open, can you (partially) cash out X for me?". This has the same net effects as buying from another player. I know I'm supposed to say "no rat-holing", but I'm not entirely clear on why.

The more I think through this the more I confuse myself, and I could really appreciate someone explaining the underlying principle. Take for example that we have a maximum buy-in. That's supposedly to protect the players at the table, we say that it's "not fair" if someone can buy in for $40 and another can buy in for $100 and have the benefits of a big stack. But then if someone accumulates $100 we now say it's unfair for them to want to pare back down to, say, $60. Doesn't making the table more level make the gameplay more fair? Especially if it had no net effect on the total money at the table (if it was a player buying off another player)?

The more I spend time on this the more I think it should be allowed, even though I've always played that it's not.

 

[merkong]

Here’s how it works in my game; maximum buy in initially is $40. After the first hand, any player can buy in or add on either way up to the big stack.

The main issue with somebody cashing out part of their stack before they leave is that I have no chance to win that money and maybe some of it was mine before it was theirs.

On top of that, it makes no sense. We cash out when we leave and not before then.. I guess the underlying principal to partially cashing out beforehand is why? Leave that money on the table so I can get it back. if they want to save and rat hole and play tight that’s one thing, partially frowned upon I’m sure in some circles, but that’s one alternative to them cashing out part of their stack.

When you cash out, it means you’re leaving end of story at the Godfather club.

 

[Baxit]

Letting people buy chips from other players is asking for trouble. Ratholing, but also trading: "Hey, I'm TheRealWorm from site xyz, lend me $200 in chips for my $40 and I repay you in two orbits, cash, chips and interest". Keep it simple, all cash and chips go through the bank. All chips on the table, no cash on the felt if you want to control rebuys.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The more I think through this the more I confuse myself, and I could really appreciate someone explaining the underlying principle. Take for example that we have a maximum buy-in. That's supposedly to protect the players at the table, we say that it's "not fair" if someone can buy in for $40 and another can buy in for $100 and have the benefits of a big stack. But then if someone accumulates $100 we now say it's unfair for them to want to pare back down to, say, $60. Doesn't making the table more level make the gameplay more fair? Especially if it had no net effect on the total money at the table (if it was a player buying off another player)?

Let us approach this from the aspect of "is it ethical?"

A litmus test to determine if something is ethical, is ask yourself; if everybody did it, would it break the system?

Look at a poker game where everybody took their profit off the table. Buy in for $50. First hand, win $10, take the $50 off the table, and play with just your winnings. Worst case, the night is break-even for you. Next hand, another player wins and does the same.

Quickly, you see that the night is short-stacked poker and increasingly not fun as everybody protects their winnings. Taking money off the table for one person is simply unethical, because if everybody did it, the game would be broken. Only the losing players cold keep the game alive, but at some point they are battling to see who can lose the least, because there is not enough money on the table that they could finish up for the night.

Imagine a poker game where, under no circumstances, you could win based on a bad first orbit or two.

Mind you, I did not know ratholing was bad when I first learned poker (online). Nobody would stop you online, and you could rathole your profits because you could just jump right back in at another table. I was befuddled to learn that it is not permissible, but I understand the reasoning now.

I hope this explanation helps.

 

[Tarsus4]

A litmus test to determine if something is ethical, is ask yourself; if everybody did it, would it break the system?

Look at a poker game where everybody took their profit off the table. Buy in for $50. First hand, win $10, take the $50 off the table, and play with just your winnings. Worst case, the night is break-even for you. Next hand, another player wins and does the same.

Quickly, you see that the night is short-stacked poker and increasingly not fun as everybody protects their winnings. Taking money off the table for one person is simply unethical, because if everybody did it, the game would be broken. Only the losing players cold keep the game alive, but at some point they are battling to see who can lose the least, because there is not enough money on the table that they could finish up for the night.

I can see that making the total chip count of the table go down is bad for the game. I'll concede this point right out. It lowers the average stack relative to the blinds, which at some point (eventually) makes it a battle of risky all-ins instead of a skill game. Not right away, but if you establish the precedent then you can get there from here.

What I'm having a harder time digesting is the situation where total chip count remains the same (buying from another player). Most of the folks in the thread before I entered agreed it's not a collusion issue; it's equivalent to a cash-out at the same time as a cash-in. If the net chip count change is 0, then why not? Because you're forgoing an opportunity to increase the chip count of the table, thus making the game better? I guess... but then we're back to "good for poker" and not ethics.

Let's flip your "if everybody did it" around: instead of everybody pocketing their profit, what if everyone topped back up to the max after each hand? Buy in for $50, lose $10, put $10 back on the table. Players would accumulate enormous stacks that you would never allow them to start the night with. I think that's what makes this a more convincing case for me. If something is bad for the game in one situation, it's highly suspicious in the others too.

I recognize that I'm being difficult, and it's not because I'm trying to convince anyone or even change how I play in my own home game (yet). If me persisting is too irritating, I'll drop it. But I really want to understand the "why" and not just "we've always done it this way". If I can't teach it, then I don't truly understand it.

 

[upNdown]

Players would accumulate enormous stacks

That’s exactly what we all want. I want an enormous stack, so I can go home at the end of the night with lots of money. And I want you to have an enormous stack so I can win it all from you, and go home with lots of money.

 

[JustinInMN]

Bored.

Nobody goes south, ever, and no money goes east/west (buying chips off another player) irrespective of where the cash goes.

Full stop.

Whenever I see a post at the top of a forum from a long time ago, I always scout to see who brought it back from the dead.

In this case, IT'S YOU!!!!!! #HiNeighbor

Now since this has been brought back from the dead...

The one-offs probably don't hurt the game a ton, but if you take ratholing to it's logical extension where anyone can remove any amount from the table (even if restricted to keeping some minimum) it will shorten the length of play as players engaging in this behavior are probably reluctant to put cash back in play if they get low. That's bad for home games (and also bad for cardroom rake, but we don't care as much about that I suppose.)

I was in a game where we (accidentally) experimented with this once and I don't mind telling you it was an unmitigated disaster.

(Background on the game, was probably 20 years ago, a friend from work and a bunch of his friends, I'd probably played a couple times a month for about 6 months at this point, game was 25¢ ante, NLHE usually 6-7 handed, and we actually played with the cash, quarters and all.)

Someone wanted to take some money off the table (and we literally were playing with cash mind you) and the host granted it without an issue. Then after the next pot it happened again. Pretty soon, we were going to have to poll every player before every deal about "how much is in play." It became a logistic nightmare.

(And again, i was a semi-regular and this was generally a good game, so I didn't feel a need to rage-quit over this. Maybe it was just curiosity as much as anything, so I went with the flow at first.)

After a few hands of this, I pretty much drew the line on how ridiculous this was and wanted to come up with another answer. We did settle on a raise limit in lieu of allowing money to be taken from the table. This would be the same as what we would call a "spread-limit" game today instead of "no-limit." (We set it at $15, IIRC.)

Bottom line, even if the anti-cheating provision is no longer relevant, there are good logistical reasons to disallow rat-holing. Mainly if you have say 2000BB on the table and a couple players that win big pots start staking 200BB off the table with no intention of coming back into play, the game will get smaller, quicker, and break sooner.

And from the side of the actor, ratholing is just bad poker in most NLHE cases, unless you are playing scared money. But if you have an advantage, you reap the full benefit of that advantage when you have enough chips to cover everyone.

 

[ekricket]

I can see that making the total chip count of the table go down is bad for the game. I'll concede this point right out. It lowers the average stack relative to the blinds, which at some point (eventually) makes it a battle of risky all-ins instead of a skill game. Not right away, but if you establish the precedent then you can get there from here.

What I'm having a harder time digesting is the situation where total chip count remains the same (buying from another player). Most of the folks in the thread before I entered agreed it's not a collusion issue; it's equivalent to a cash-out at the same time as a cash-in. If the net chip count change is 0, then why not? Because you're forgoing an opportunity to increase the chip count of the table, thus making the game better? I guess... but then we're back to "good for poker" and not ethics.

Let's flip your "if everybody did it" around: instead of everybody pocketing their profit, what if everyone topped back up to the max after each hand? Buy in for $50, lose $10, put $10 back on the table. Players would accumulate enormous stacks that you would never allow them to start the night with. I think that's what makes this a more convincing case for me. If something is bad for the game in one situation, it's highly suspicious in the others too.

I recognize that I'm being difficult, and it's not because I'm trying to convince anyone or even change how I play in my own home game (yet). If me persisting is too irritating, I'll drop it. But I really want to understand the "why" and not just "we've always done it this way". If I can't teach it, then I don't truly understand it.

Just let everybody go south a few times, then record the result, and let us know what you learn. It’s easy enough to do without arguing imaginary cases.