POLL: playing out of racks VS not playing out of racks in LHE

[detroitplayer]

I find that on small denom chip games (many chips to a pot), casinos not letting people play out of racks slows the game down and is otherwise counterproductive. It is always taking forever for people to gather and stack their wins... chip stacks are forever falling all over the f_cking place...

In no limit, I can see why no racks should be allowed, but for any limit game, I just cannot see why it would be outlawed at most casinos.

You have your roll placed neatly in a rack or two and keep a stack of 10-15 chips out of the rack in front of you ready for betting. If you lose those chips, you take another stack out of your rack, and again, keep them in front of you ready for action. If you win a pot, it takes 1/4 the time to put those chips back into a rack rather than making a bunch of 20-high stacks while they fall all over the table. Not to mention the players who decide it's a good idea to have 15 different stacks of varying heights spread about before them.

[TheMetetron]

That's the whole fun of a low denom game. All of the chips all over the damn place. It just creates a fun atmosphere for the players to lose their money in.

[private joker]

Racks make the game go slower -- it's a lot easier to take chips off a felt stack than it is to dig into a rack and yank them out. I've logged many, many hours of B&M play and I can guarantee that no racks make the game faster.

Once you get so many chips that your stacks are too tall and plentiful, just color up.

[kross]

When people play out of racks, there are invariably some people who put ALL of their chips in the racks. Then, when they bet, they pull them out one at a time... after the action gets to them. Like they had no idea they would be needing some chips. And they won't verbalize their intentions so the rest of us can get on with it. They'll pull out 16 chips, one at a time, stacking them directly in front of them, and then finally push them out to raise.

OUTLAW RACKS AT THE TABLE!

[whiskeytown]

it invalidates jackpots at my card club...

and it would make me look like a clueless noob...

RB

[steamboatin]

Ditto from above, they count out their chips one at a time, then they have to stack them and do a little WSOP act and then they check.

In the unlikely event they win a pot, the next three hands are slower because they have to return the chips to the rack and can't seem to anticipate when they will need to look at the next pair of hole cards. The only thing that keeps my head from exploding (like the movie "Scanners") is it is usually an incredibly soft game.

If I sit at a table and most of the players are playing out of racks, it's just like going to Captain D's when they have all you can eat fish.

[Barry]

[ QUOTE ]
Once you get so many chips that your stacks are too tall and plentiful, just color up.


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing!

And what the others said. I've seen guys in a 4/8 chip structure call turn and river bets by pulling out chips from a rack 1 chip at a time. I have no problem so long as you have a working stack out. However, keeping chips in a rack is a sure tell of an anal retentive type.

[Nick-Zack]

[ QUOTE ]
it invalidates jackpots at my card club...



[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is an urban legend. I used to play at Greektown all the time and I heard about several things that invalidate jackpots:
- Racks on the Table
- Napkins on the Table
- Talking about the jackpot

I think that these things are just like the Neteller Giveaways - all a big story. Does anyone have first hand knowledge of a jackpot being not paid for any of these reasons?

NZ

PS - Sorry about hijacking the thread.

[youtalkfunny]

I was dealing, and management decreed, "Starting at midnight tonight, no more racks on the table."

I was told that this would speed up the game. I was very skeptical.

I was there that night. When the clock struck 12, all racks were removed.

The difference in game speed was STAGGERING. I was a huge skeptic going in, but the proof was right before your eyes--it had a HUGE impact. I couldn't believe the difference.

I can't make this point strongly enough--it was not a slight difference, or a tiny difference. It was a quantum leap.

[Andy B]

At Canterbury, because of the threat of blowing the jackpot, between the other players and the dealers, no one will let you keep your chips in the rack for very long. If you're racking up because you're going to leave soon, it is permissible to leave chips in a rack, as long as one end is propped up on the rail. If the button goes by you a second time, however, the dealer is going to ask you to take your chips out.

I have played in a home game where the chips don't stack worth a damn. Most of the crew plays out of a rack, and it does slow the game down.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I was dealing, and management decreed, "Starting at midnight tonight, no more racks on the table."

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you deal?

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
I was dealing, and management decreed, "Starting at midnight tonight, no more racks on the table."

I was told that this would speed up the game. I was very skeptical.

I was there that night. When the clock struck 12, all racks were removed.

The difference in game speed was STAGGERING. I was a huge skeptic going in, but the proof was right before your eyes--it had a HUGE impact. I couldn't believe the difference.

I can't make this point strongly enough--it was not a slight difference, or a tiny difference. It was a quantum leap.

[/ QUOTE ]

TYVM....as a dealer and a player I say the same. TOO FREAKING SLOW!! Rack'em up when you leave.

Hell I have been know to buy 1500 white chips in a 4-8 omaha/8 game to build castles with since I play fewer hand in Omaha/8 than in holdem and I could care less about watching clueless omaha players when I'm not involded. And I promise you I dont slow down the game when it's my turn to act.

[Tom Bayes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was dealing, and management decreed, "Starting at midnight tonight, no more racks on the table."

I was told that this would speed up the game. I was very skeptical.

I was there that night. When the clock struck 12, all racks were removed.

The difference in game speed was STAGGERING. I was a huge skeptic going in, but the proof was right before your eyes--it had a HUGE impact. I couldn't believe the difference.

I can't make this point strongly enough--it was not a slight difference, or a tiny difference. It was a quantum leap.

[/ QUOTE ]

TYVM....as a dealer and a player I say the same. TOO FREAKING SLOW!! Rack'em up when you leave.

Hell I have been know to buy 1500 white chips in a 4-8 omaha/8 game to build castles with since I play fewer hand in Omaha/8 than in holdem and I could care less about watching clueless omaha players when I'm not involded. And I promise you I dont slow down the game when it's my turn to act.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to the speed of play factor (which alone is enough reason to get the damn racks off the table), I was told by a dealer once the reason racks/packs of cigarettes/etc. aren't allowed on the table is because a cheater could hide a desirable card (say an ace) under the rack and switch it with one of his cards at the appropriate moment. I think this is why a bad beat jackpot could be invalidated if a rack is on the table.

Maybe this is BS, but it's what I heard.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that this is an urban legend. I used to play at Greektown all the time and I heard about several things that invalidate jackpots:
- Racks on the Table
- Napkins on the Table
- Talking about the jackpot

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking about the jackpot may invalidate jackpots most places. As far as the racks napkins etc, those will invalidate a jackpot if there is a card under them so the hand was dealt with only 51 cards. I think some places tell players it will invalidate a jackpot so they won't argue about taking stuff off the table.

RR

[Sponger15SB]

I thought playing out of racks was stupid until I saw a guy last night put his chips parallel to the felt in like 9 unorganized lines. Not only was it really hard for him to "stack" it, but he would only pick up like 2 at a time to throw out ($4/8 table).

It was horrible.

[KC50]

Well looks like you're out voted. And rightfully so.

Contrary to your belief, racks do slow the game down, period.

Even if players checks are in a disarray, any player (even a drunk) can play from a mucked pile of checks faster than playing from a rack.

Then counting the time it takes to put them in a rack after winning pots seems to distract them to the point they think their first priority is to rack them all before acting on the next hand.

I have played in card rooms that allow players to play from racks and it always slows the game down at some point.

Most card rooms today (including the one I floor at) do not allow playing from racks, which is nice.

Kind Regards,

KC

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
I say the same. TOO FREAKING SLOW!! Rack'em up when you leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

My general belief is small games should be no racks on the table. In 15-30 and above I think the players are aware enough of what is going on to be allowed to have racks on the tabel if they wish (the ones at that level that play out of a rack still keep some chips available to bet with and won't count them out one at a time).

RR

[Terry]

The games do go slower when people are playing out racks. You personally might play faster out of a rack, but the majority of people do not ... and it is not even close.

Some places will invalidate a jackpot if there were racks on the table – they make a perfect place to hide a held out card or two until just the right flop. Yes, it does happen. People holding out an Ace was probably the biggest factor in the disappearance of Razz from poker rooms, and a lot of those Aces were hidden under chip racks.

In games where money on the table plays, angle shooters will stash some cash under the rack and only bring it out if they have the nuts, otherwise they go “all-in” when the rack gets empty.

Hiding cards and/or cash under the rack is the reason for requiring one end of the rack to be propped up on the rail ... it is then possible to see underneath the rack.

Casinos don’t just make up procedures indiscriminately ... but they often don’t want to tell the customers (or the employees) exactly why those procedures exist.

[Tom Bayes]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought playing out of racks was stupid until I saw a guy last night put his chips parallel to the felt in like 9 unorganized lines. Not only was it really hard for him to "stack" it, but he would only pick up like 2 at a time to throw out ($4/8 table).

It was horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, some people will be annoying retards in any circumstance (racks/no racks/whatever). Let me guess, he was one of those geniuses that can't master how much he can bet at a fixed limit table-always throwing out $8 on the flop and $4 on the turn no matter how many dealers try to explain the structure.

The people I love the best are the ones who never know when the action is on them, finally the dealer says "$8 to you, sir" and the guy just throws in $8, oblivious to the idea that he could also FOLD or RAISE.

[Derek in NYC]

Racks are fine as long as the player maintans a working stack to keep the action going.

[detroitplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Racks are fine as long as the player maintans a working stack to keep the action going.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the point the people here are completely missing, and which I went at lengths to make it a point of in my post. AS LONG AS people have a stack of chips ( enough chips in front of them, on the felt, to complete a hand) there is no possible way it would slow the game down.

People taking chips out of a rack, one by one, every time action gets to them, yes, that would slow the game down, not to mention be absolutely retarded.

Again, I must reiterate, I am only talking about using the racks for your "reserves"... the chips you have that will not be needed for more than one hand. I can almost guarantee you that any person who drags a 50+ chip pot can clear the area in front of him FASTER by putting those chips into a rack rather than stacking them on the felt.

Once he racks his win (which should really take about 10 seconds), he again takes a small stack out, places it on the felt, and continues on with his bets in hand.

How about this as an ammendment to the "rack rule".

Racks can only be used as long as a player maintains a minimum of 20 chips "ready for play" directly in front of him, on the felt, at all times.

There is no possible scenario I can imagine under which if everyone at the table abided by that rule that it would slow the game down. We're almost getting down to physics here.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Racks can only be used as long as a player maintains a minimum of 20 chips "ready for play" directly in front of him, on the felt, at all times.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is they very people you don't want to have racks on the table won't understand this and will feel slighted that they can't have racks when other players have racks.

[detroitplayer]

Well, if the guy was playing directly out of the rack instead of having chips in hand ready for action, the dealer would just say "sir, you must take 20 chips out of your rack and have them ready for action at all times"

It may take some getting used to for some people, but then again, it takes some getting used to for basically every house rule.

[Photoc]

Why should a dealer have to be responsible for how someone keeps their chips in front of them? Dont they have enough to keep track of already? Either put them in the rack or take the F'in things out. It slows down the game with a rack and invites string raises all day long.

[detroitplayer]

The same reason why a dealer has to "keep track" of string raises.

Because it's a rule, genius.

I am not sure why this is so hard to follow. Some (or most) casinos outlaw racks on tables. If those casinos were to allow racks on tables as long as a player kept a stack of chips out of the rack, ready for action, it would speed up the game.

Just keep thinking about it until it makes sense.

[steamboatin]

It makes perfect sense but the fish won't remember to keep a stack on front of their rack, so the dealer will have to keep reminding them and that will slow the game down even more.

[AAquadsAA]

[ QUOTE ]
"sir, you must take 20 chips out of your rack and have them ready for action at all times"

It may take some getting used to for some people, but then again, it takes some getting used to for basically every house rule.

[/ QUOTE ]
thats the whole problem. the dealer having to tell the noob to pull checks out or not play from the rack. slows the game down tremendously. the only thing people should get used to is playing off the felt.if they dont know how to stack chips, the obviously arent winning.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If those casinos were to allow racks on tables as long as a player kept a stack of chips out of the rack, ready for action, it would speed up the game.

Just keep thinking about it until it makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been thinking about it, and it still doesn't make sense. I can think of 100 ways that having racks on the table slows things down, and I can't think of once single way it speeds play up at all, even if you keep a working stack out of the rack.

The ONLY situation I can see that would go faster by having chips in racks on the table is when a player is ready to leave.

[Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
I can almost guarantee you that any person who drags a 50+ chip pot can clear the area in front of him FASTER by putting those chips into a rack rather than stacking them on the felt.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don’t bet on that. If players are going to be required to “learn” to handle chips, they should be required to learn to do it the right way, without a rack. It is faster and you are wrong. You are disagreeing here with people who have many years of experience – I myself spent 22 years in Vegas as both a player and as a dealer. I dealt Craps for many of those years and Roulette for a couple. If racking chips was faster than stacking them, you had better believe that is the way it would be done by the dealers.

Don’t take our word for it. Dump a couple of racks out on the table and time yourself both racking them and stacking them.

And you still haven’t addressed the facts that chip racks are perfect hiding places for cards and cash.

[The Goober]

[ QUOTE ]
I can almost guarantee you that any person who drags a 50+ chip pot can clear the area in front of him FASTER by putting those chips into a rack rather than stacking them on the felt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to belabor the point, but I can assure you that I can stack up a big pot much faster if I don't have racks on the table - and I play a lot of 4-8, where I've scooped pots that were nearly 200 chips. A big part of this is that I can temporarily pull the chips into a big pile, and then a bunch of irregular stacks, to get them off the playing area so the game can go on while I stack them.

As a side point, I also *hate* having anything on the felt except chips. The table is usually crowded enough without having extra junk on there. I was playing 4-8 at the bellagio one time and had my drink on a napkin on the table (the way it was served to me). When I finished the drink a little while later, there was a card underneath it. No one knew how long it had been there and everyone felt really uneasy about the situation (it was something insignificant like the 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, and I certainly hadn't been cheating, but still...). Why can't more poker rooms just invest in some damned sidetables instead of making us put drinks on the felt?

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't more poker rooms just invest in some damned sidetables instead of making us put drinks on the felt?

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer side tables, but some casinos believe there is a danger of someone tripping over a side table.

[mtdoak]

Racks would not speed up the game, IMHO. Stacking the chips in most limit games, even with the noobs, only takes a hand at most. Besides, you can tell alot about a player by how he or she stacks their chips, espically in the hand afterward.

[smoore]

Racks slow down the game, take up too much space on the table and violate the "nothing bigger than a card on the table" rule.

[Photoc]

[ QUOTE ]
The same reason why a dealer has to "keep track" of string raises.

Because it's a rule, genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually son, it's not a rule that the dealer has to tell you how to stack your chips that are on the table. I know this for a fact as I am a dealer. I have no problems telling people how much the bet is to them, that is a rule...but to tell someone..."excuse me, can you put 23 white chips next to your tray, oh wait, almost, ok, you got it". Come on...give me a break...a rule? Find that in a rule book.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on...give me a break...a rule? Find that in a rule book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ease up there, tiger. You didn't read his thread properly. He is suggesting that this *should* be a rule. And if it were made a rule, then dealers would enforce it.

But anyway, it would be a stupid rule and I've made my case why. Racks are lame; they are for carrying chips. Once the chips are at their destination (the table or the cage), lose them.

Why in the world is this poll so close? Who are these people voting for racks on the felt?

[Photoc]

Private, he replied to me and says that it's for the same reason that string raises are not allowed, because it's a rule. So he's saying that a dealer making sure the players keep their chips stacked properly and having to keep on them in a rule just like string raises.

And yes, you can have racks on the table, you cannot play out of them though. I see people all the time with 3 or 4 racks of chips, but they are smart enough to keep another rack worth of them in stacks on the table. With the exception of NL tables. I see people bet a rack at a time.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Private, he replied to me and says that it's for the same reason that string raises are not allowed, because it's a rule. So he's saying that a dealer making sure the players keep their chips stacked properly and having to keep on them in a rule just like string raises.



[/ QUOTE ]

No. Sorry, but I think his line is pretty clear. He is proposing a rule, and then outlining what the dealer enforcement procedures would be if such a rule existed. His response that "it's a rule" is a hypothetical of why a dealer would enforce the rack-chips thing IF his rule were enacted. Just read:

[ QUOTE ]
How about this as an ammendment to the "rack rule".

Racks can only be used as long as a player maintains a minimum of 20 chips "ready for play" directly in front of him, on the felt, at all times.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if the guy was playing directly out of the rack instead of having chips in hand ready for action, the dealer would just say "sir, you must take 20 chips out of your rack and have them ready for action at all times"

It may take some getting used to for some people, but then again, it takes some getting used to for basically every house rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see how you're misunderstanding? I don't know why I'm defending this guy; his rule proposal is silly.

[detroitplayer]

Thank you for explaining it for me. I was in no way saying that it's already a standard rule. There are many house rules that change from casino to casino, room to room. And in those different casinos and rooms, dealers enforce whichever rules that apply.

If anyone thought I was under any impression that playing out of a rack as long as 20 chips were on the felt was already in fact a rule... then ask yourself this question... what'd be the point of even making this poll? Just keep thinking about it until it makes sense.

Right now the poll results are about 60/40, so I know I'm not totally out of line here. I am just frustrated by playing in games where there's chips flying all over the f_cking place and it takes time for people to get their [censored] together. This probably isn't a problem at 20/40 and above, but I don't play that high.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

A bit of a lopsided poll, don't you think? Any results from a poll worded like that one should be considered far less than significant. Why didn't you just put yes for both answers?

The reason chip racks should NOT be used has nothing to do with stacking pots, messy stacks, etc. It's because players COUNT CHIPS OUT OF RACKS MUCH SLOWER THAN IF THEY WERE STACKED UP.

I deal, and I've played for many years, and it's a FACT that players count chips MUCH more slowly out of racks than they do if they're stacked.

Should I say it again? Maybe I should make a stacked poll with "hell friggin' no" as the only choice.

al

[bunky9590]

Racks suck and Dave is right again. What else is new. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The "working stack rule" has been tried and abandoned in a couple casinos here in las vegas. The rulemaker had good intentions, but it's simply impractical - it's so ambiguous that the average poker playing dullard simply cannot fathom it in a billion years.

no racks.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
People taking chips out of a rack, one by one, every time action gets to them, yes, that would slow the game down, not to mention be absolutely retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how much you play in live cardrooms, but in the typical vegas 2-4 game this would be like half the players, every single time.

Clearing the pot is not necessary for the next hand to be played, and typically clearing the pot doesn't slow the game down very much. Heck, half the 2-4 players don't clear their pots for 4-5 hands, whether they have a rack or not.

The working stack rule sucks, see my earlier post on the matter in this thread.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Asking the dealers to keep track of player's stacks and enforce the "working stack rule" would be terrible because:

1. the dealers have enough to worry about already, particularly the new dealers.

2. the dullards at the tables don't and won't understand the working stack rule.

3. the dealers would have to explain to each and every individual dullard a billion times the supposed "logic" of the rule, which would again slow down the game, distract the dealer, get the players pissed off, reduce dealer tips, etc etc ad nauseum.

al

[DeuceKicker]

Another NO here. As has already been stated, the delay comes not in stacking the chips (though it's still faster to stack with no rack) but in counting them out to bet. Even if stacking with a rack were faster, every pot would have 3-8 people slowly counting out chips out of a rack, and usually only one stacking them back in.

I think the fact that the rack option requires players to have a stack out of the rack for play, and that so far every long-time player/dealer has unequivocally been in favor of no rack is pretty tellling.

Also, if you're interested in accurate poll results rather than lobbying for your viewpoint, a more unbiased wording of the questions would help.

[detroitplayer]

The only reason I worded the poll like that was to make clear that the only way I would be in favor of racks was ONLY IF players also kept a stack of chips on the table ready for action at all times.

That is why I worded the poll like that because I know simply playing directly out of racks would be just as much of a cluster f_ck.

Anyway, everyone's made good points. I made this poll in a moment of semi-frustration, and I've pretty much lost interest in the subject altogether. This thread can die now as far as I'm concerned.

G'day!