CCC-No table stake rule

I played pot-limit today, badly I might add, and a new player sat in on a two-handed game with about $200. He busts both of us and is winning about $500 and quits.


Oh, well, that's poker.


The player returns and puts $189 on the table. This, oh course, results in a little bit of a debate about the difference between "live" and online games.


Now, setting aside my twin mistakes of going all-in on a draw and playing with the french, should I be this upset about this or should I adopt this in my own PLH strategy, assuming I have one?


MS Sunshine

I vote for upset...suggest you contact them and point out unfair situation...possibly they can change


BUT, if no change, then you may want to fall back on that old saying "if you can't beat them, then join them"

it is annoying when someone does this, no matter what form of betting is being used. Unfortunately, when it happens like this it also tends to piss off the live ones, and they may quit. But I think there really is nothing that can be done, same as though really nothing can be done by cardrooms to stop completely players berating other players for fishy play. "hit and run" will always be a part of playing poker and poker "strategy", especially when you can play anonymously.


Incidently, if the game had been filled, and there was a long waiting list to get in, then this player probably'd be less inclined to do this (because he doesn't want to wait), and the environment would be more enjoyable.


As for incorporating this tactic into your own PL strategy, M S I imagine a player of your caliber would have more of an advantage with a lot of money on the table anyway. And so what if this guy hit and runs? Assuming you're getting the best of him, you'll either get his money now, or you'll get it later next time he "pops in."


Regards, sucker

The way it is now, it keeps those players with the giant stacks from bullying everyone who doesn't have a grand or two at the table. Personally, I think having the biggest stack in an internet pot-limt game is terrible, and I will occasionally take advantage of this rule. Why? simple. I am in college. I am not as well off as some of the other players seem to be! Leaving and returning with a shorter stack has its disadvantages- when you win a monster pot and double through, it is no where near as big as when the larger stacks do the same- so there are trade-offs. I agree that it seems unfair, but there really isn't much that can be done. If anything, it keeps the game a little more civil for players like me who can't sit with 2gs at the table. When players are short-stacked, they become vulnerable in many situations, too, so I really don't think it is that unfair. Besides, it all evens out in the end. If bad players are hitting and running, you'll get their money all the same, and if good players are doing it, they won't be able to take as much out of the game in a given hand.

In pot-limit, the game changes with the changes in EACH player's stack size. Having an aggressive player double thru a couple of times, changes not only how you will play one hand, but your whole mix of hands you will offer.


Allowing players to keep a fixed amount on the table keeps them in their comfort zone. It allows them, once they figure out how to play that stack size against a few different types of table make-ups, to coast along like they are playing limit poker.


In limit poker, the size of the blinds vs the betting limit, determines the "size" of the game. In PL, although blind size is important, the amount of money on the table lets you know how big the game is.


Most people play PL for the action. Players have turned minimum buy-ins into thousands of dollars. The allowing of winning players to reduce their risk after every hand changes the game.


What if a player reduced his stake to the least amount when he was about to be in bad position, say the blinds and a couple of seats in front? Then after the small blind raises their stake to the amount to cover anyone at the table for their button and the cut-off. Then wins a hand from a large stack who is in the blind. When his blind comes around reduces his stake again. The other player says "wait, that's not fair, I had to play my blind when our stacks were equal" Of course, everyone would be allowed to play like this, but is this the type of angle shooting game pot-limit players are looking for?


The game I'm looking to play in is, buy-in for $300, win two hands and have over $1200. Now, if at this point, be it a few minutes or a few hours, I want to quit, fine. On the other hand, if I want to continue to play that night, in that game, I must be willing to risk my winnings.


MS Sunshine

The next to last paragraph is completely in error. Sorry, short sleep.


MS Sunshine

I'm confused here.


WHY should bigger stacks be restricted from quitting the game and rejoining later (say five minutes) with a minimum rebuy?


- Andrew

andrew, it is because you no longer have a chance to win the $$$ that was removed from the table

IME, players who use hit and run quite often end up short changing themselves. Imagine, quitting with 500 and coming back with 200. Then, hitting a set of aces on the flop against a set of kings against one opponent who has $300. The most you can win in this situation is $200 whereas surely you would have gotten the whole $300. There are a number of situations like this that happen regularly. It has always been my policy to maintain a stack of at least the median on the table. I believe that not doing so will cost a lot of value in the game. If suddenly I am unable to keep a stack of the median, it's time to wait for a new day. I acknowledge that there are situations where going all in can be to a players advantage, I just think that they are insufficient when compared to what can be lost by being short stacked IMO. I say, let'em hit and let'em run. They can't hide for long.


Cheers

Larry

MS- excellent points, and I have to say, were I funded like many of the players on CCCpoker, I'd certainly want to have a stack that would maximize my value on strong hands. On the other hand, losing 400 in a hand does not appeal to me at all, and I have seen it happen many times on this site. You are right about this not really being fair, but it kind of equals things between the players who could be playing 10-20 blind pot-limit, and those who can really only afford 1-2.

so...?


Do you think you are entitled to that money?


- Andrew

This is a standard rule in poker. Taking money off the table violates all kinds of principles.


For one, it is considered, whether correctly or not, to be unfair for a player to remove chips from the game while remaining in the game. This rule is followed even at limit poker tables. In no limit games (and pot limit too), it is simply obscenely rude to win a monster pot and then try to remove all those winnings from in front of you to reduce your exposure.


I get your point about believing that you are entitled to the money. However, I believe the integrity of the game is preserved by not allowing players to remove money from the table until they get up and leave. Although this can be almost irrelevant in limit games, it still applies, and I believe the rule is CRUCIAL to the way a big bet game is played. It practically drives the game.


And easy solution for CCCPoker to implement would be to keep track of how much a player had in front of him, and change the minimum buy-in for him if he tries to sit down within 45 minutes of getting up.


natedogg

Its called "table stakes"

Natedog explained it very well. When you have played more P/L games you will better understand the depth of the meaning behibnd this.


I have never played ANYWHERE that this rule was not in effect.

which states that if you are rejoining the game within 45 min. you have to sit down with at least the stakes you´ve left the table beforehand.

I´ve checked this right now on their homepage and it sounds OK to me.