Argueing with the floor about time collection

[zuluking]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally probably wouldn't say a word if this happened to me, but that the OP did in fact have a point, and I wouldn't blame him for speaking up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I also think the flaming of the OP was a bit too much. Another example of people saying things on the internet that they would never have the guts to say to someone's face.

I'm sure arguing the point would cost you more money than it would ever gain you.
If you succeed in having your time refunded, you gain 0.175 BB/hr for the coming hour. You will likely gain such an advantage (or even more) through at least one of the following:
a) being dealt cards instead of arguing the point;
b) paying attention to your game and your table; and
c) not having other players dislike you.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna give the must move cats the benefit of the doubt and not make a fuss about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have misunderstood my long, rambling post. It wasn't the must move guys. It was 2 guys I had been playing with for a couple of hours who figured it was okay to take this half hour off and let the others pay. And yeah, it's $14 an hr to play $20-40.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
You're being a bitter piece of [censored] if you cause a stink over this

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't get past there. Funny. Thanks.

[SA125]

Thanks Al. That response was a little better than me being a bitter piece of sh*t for contesting the matter.

[SA125]

I find it funny how many players say they don't care if they pay time and others don't. When you play a lot of live poker (4-5 times a week) paying time sucks. I guess it's me. Funny though. Some guys will play pots agianst you who intentionally haven't paid for their seat and you don't care that you have. Okay.

[andyfox]

The situation at Commerce was even worse before they went to a drop instead of a time collection. I paid at that table, I'm a new player, I came from a smaller stakes game, I'll pay that rate . . . It was amazing to me that guys could put $480 into a pot with garbage but then would do handstands to save a dollar in collection.

It was even better in the dark ages when we used to deal ourselves. Not being as upright then as I am now, if there was a short table, I would switch seats every half hour and tell the collection person I was a new player. She'd check her card and sure enough, that seat was empty a half hour ago.

Raking the pot works better as there are no such arguments.

I don't think the floor just simply decided to let 2 guys not pay the collection. By the time the floor got there he couldn't confirm who it was that was light. This is the dealer's fault, but this problem is also partially caused by players who for some stupid reason can't simply place there chips in a neat stack in front of them. Players start tossing chips around making their own change etc.

When the floor called surveillance do you really think surveillance told the floor that they could tell who was light and that then the floor after going through the trouble of calling surveillance simply said okay I'll them go this time. The truth is that surveillance either couldn't determine who it was or was to busy to look.

A lot of people think that surveillance can see everything that happens clearly. But this often isn't the case. Often times a call goes to surveillance and they are unable to determine exactly what happened.

Now your proposal is that anytime the collection is light and the house can't figure out who it was that was short, nobody pays any collection. Don't you think that will promote angle shooting, players tossing in chips mixing them with other players chips trying to get a freebie?

[somapopper]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the floor just simply decided to let 2 guys not pay the collection. By the time the floor got there he couldn't confirm who it was that was light. This is the dealer's fault, but this problem is also partially caused by players who for some stupid reason can't simply place there chips in a neat stack in front of them. Players start tossing chips around making their own change etc.

When the floor called surveillance do you really think surveillance told the floor that they could tell who was light and that then the floor after going through the trouble of calling surveillance simply said okay I'll them go this time. The truth is that surveillance either couldn't determine who it was or was to busy to look.

A lot of people think that surveillance can see everything that happens clearly. But this often isn't the case. Often times a call goes to surveillance and they are unable to determine exactly what happened.

Now your proposal is that anytime the collection is light and the house can't figure out who it was that was short, nobody pays any collection. Don't you think that will promote angle shooting, players tossing in chips mixing them with other players chips trying to get a freebie?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If you had evidence that they didn't pay, that's one thing, but it seems like you're just assuming these guys didn't pay, which I think you don't have any right to get up in arms about.

[SNOWBALL138]

I don't understand what your post is about at all. You play 20-40 and the best thing you can think to post about is a floor decision that is none of your business over a measly seven dollars?

Think about this. Lets say you are at the movie ticket line, and just before you pay for the ticket, you hear a patron next to you claim that he lost his ticket for the movie, and wants to get in because he already paid. The manager is brought over, and they agree that its ok for him to get in for free.
How do you respond? Do you explain to the manager that you are a much more loyal customer than the patron in question, or do you demand "equal treatment" and then proclaim that everyone should get in for free?

Or lets say that you are playing in a game and you are pretty sure than one of your opponents is a shill. Do you then demand that the house stake you, give you health care, and pay you a set hourly rate?