Another Rack Thread

[BoxTree]

I don't play in racks.

Why?

Because people said I shouldn't.

Why did they say that?

Because it slows down the game.

But what about keeping the bulk of your chips in racks and keeping no less than three stacks of 20 in front for quick and easy betting?

I'm finding it more and more of a pain in the ass to seat change when I have over two racks of chips. Hence, I'm tempted to start keeping my surplus chips in racks.

Convince me why I shouldn't and I won't. Otherwise, I guess I'm going to be part of the proverbial problem.

If you are playing limit, I see no problem with having more chips than you could possibly get into the pot in one hand on the table, and the rest of your surplus in racks in front of you.


If you keep a working stack large enough to do for the pot, it's a-ok with me.

[BoxTree]

Uh-oh. Someone agrees with me on this topic? Evan, Rick, and Randy aren't going to like this.

[Evan]

Even at the 9 handed Commerce tables it's tough to keep racks on the table and not get in the way of the guy next to you. I also think it's more fun to have big pyramids of chips.

As far as cahnging seats, I do think it's a good idea to have a few empty racks around each table. If you have a lot of chips you could rack them up to move them and unrack them when you get to your new seat.

[BoxTree]

[ QUOTE ]
Even at the 9 handed Commerce tables it's tough to keep racks on the table and not get in the way of the guy next to you. I also think it's more fun to have big pyramids of chips.

As far as cahnging seats, I do think it's a good idea to have a few empty racks around each table. If you have a lot of chips you could rack them up to move them and unrack them when you get to your new seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the racks are directly in front of you, they take up only slightly more width than stacks do.

Pyramids are much, much, much more fun.

I frequently keep two to four racks by my feet (and out of sight of the porters who love to take them away). Even so, racking up and unracking becomes really annoying when you do it every hour or so. Sometimes even more often.

[Klepton]

if i buy in for 2+ racks, i usually take out 3 twenty stacks and leave the rest in.

then i pretend to look bored for the rest of the session.

[BoxTree]

Wow. The last thing I would have expected was to find support on this issue.

I'll wait until tomorrow to see if Rick, Randy, or anyone else feels like defending racklessness.

[Myrtle]

I seem to remember that there are 2 reasons why some rooms do not allow playing out of racks:

#1 - It slows down the game, as many times cards end up sliding under the racks, and it's time consuming to get them out from under.

#2 - It has been known that some players would actually use the racks to purposely allow this to happen, and heaven forbid, they may actually attempt to 'hold out' a card!

I have seen both of these things happen......

Yes, it's really a pain in the ass to have to manage a big stack of chips. I usually manage to spill mine a few times during each session.

I know that when I play in a room where racks are allowed, I am extra vigilant to watch the deal, and where all the cards end up.

[onegymrat]

HI BoxTree,

You have WAY too much time on your hands to ponder whether to have a rack or not. Please start playing some poker.

It is utterly painful watching a player fumble through his half empty rack and count the number of chips needed to call my donk bet. I vote for no racks at all. Granted, there are several reasons for having them on the table (Rick N. mentioned NL games where a rack of yellow = $500, easier to move with seat changes, etc.), but certainly not many enough to warrant it as an option. Also, too many players puts their full racks to the SIDE of them instead of between their arms, thereby crowding me and my three small stacks of chips. Ban the racks!

[PokerCad]

Just buy-in one stack at a time, that way it is not so messyjavascript:void(0)
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]lol