Wynn Floor/Shift Decision

any2cards · #1 07-12-2005, 05:43 PM

I am looking for input from all of you who may play many hours at live B&M locations. I play for more than 2,000 hours a year at various card rooms, and I had a decision made at the Wynn the other day that really bothers me. I want to point out that I have known both the floor and the shift manager in this story for about 5 years. They are both players themselves.

After reading the issue and the decision, please let me know your thoughts/experiences, even if you disagree with my position. The only thing I ask is that you provide reasons for your thoughts/disagreement.

I was involved in a $15-$30 game at the Wynn, where the following occurred. There was a very weak, poor player (WPP) who was spewing chips faster than I could count. For the most part, he was the action in the game.

Near dinner time, he decided to take a break. At the moment he made this decision, he had $887 in chips in front of him. I know this because he made a very public scene of counting them out loud. He then proceeded to rack up $800 dollars of the chips, take them off of the table (leaving $87), and stated that he would return.

I immediately objected, stating that he couldn't take any money off of the table if he was intending on returning to the game. A very heated discussion occurred between WPP and another player who started to chime in. The action ceased at the table.

At that point, rather than get WPP all riled up, I asked the dealer to call the floor for a decision. The floor came, but appeared unwilling to make a decision that would clearly leave someone unhappy (mistake one). That floor then had the shift come over, explained the situation, and the shift made the following decision.

He stated that WPP could remove the chips from the table, so long as he bought back in for at least $800 more when he returned. At this point, WPP bolted, not to be seen from again.

Rather than disagree at the table, and cause more of a disruption, I decided to discuss this issue with the shift manager on the side.

The points of objection I made to him were two fold. First, it is well known that the Wynn provides between $1 to $1.50 per hour played of comps depending on the limits played. Many people leave for dinner, take the hour and 15 minutes (or so) that they are alloted, and then return to rack up and leave. Thus, we have had an empty spot at the table for at least an hour that could have been filled by someone else, potentially someone making the game better (or not). In fact, I stated that based on his decision, I could leave $1 on the table, and then decide whether or not I even wanted to bother to return. I could just consider the $1 a tip, and forget it, as I would not be bothered by its loss. While this is an extreme case, the shift manager did agree that I could do this based on his ruling.

I further stated that the game could degenerate and affect their rake if multiple people did this at the same time. While the Wynn technically has a third man walking rule, it is not enforced due to the fact that they do not have third man walking markers, and thus do not want to put additional burden on the dealers for making those decisions (an issue for another time).

The second reason I objected to his decision, and the more important one to me, is that players could leave the table with their $800 and go and lose it at some table game like Blackjack, Craps, etc. If that is all of their money, then what? The shift stated that they would not be allowed to return to the game without buying back in for at least the amount they took off of the table. I explained to him that while that sounds reasonable, in reality it is not. It means that WPP has now lost $800 to the casino that he was a virtual certainty to lose at my game (not necessarily to me).

This is in fact what happened. The player returned having lost all of his money at Craps, and was unable to buy back into the game.

I now have lost a player at my game for 1.5 hours, and lost the ability to win the $800 that he subsequently lost to the casino.

I hate this decision, and think it should be changed. I would like to know what others think.

baronzeus · #2 07-12-2005, 05:49 PM

The problem here is that you think the casino cares if you win or not. As long as the casino is getting some of the shitty player's money, they can care less how he/she loses it. Plus, since most places have no minumum buy in (or a very low buy in, like 5BBs) it seems unfair to force this player to buy in for $800 later when he only has $300 left. If he wants to buy in for $300, let him, and take his $300 and be happy.

stabn · #3 07-12-2005, 05:50 PM

Of course if you weren't such a nit he might have come back to your game with some money. Instead you made him very aware that you thought he'd lose it all to you so he said [censored] it, did whatever he was going to do and racked out when he was done. Don't be such a dick.

Randy_Refeld · #4 07-12-2005, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It means that WPP has now lost $800 to the casino that he was a virtual certainty to lose at my game (not necessarily to me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally the poker supervisors report to a poker room manger who reports to a casino person (director of table games or whatever). Do you believe the Wynn would encourage rulings that discourages people from playing craps or blakcjack so they can get more rake in the poker room? The players that are willing to play in the pit are exactly who the casino wants to cater to. Without their pit/slot play there would be no poker rooms in Vegas.

any2cards · #5 07-12-2005, 05:52 PM

I actually disagree. If the decision is made to allow the player to remove money from the game while he is gone, then at the very least, that player should have to rebuy back into the game when he returns for at least as much as he took off the table.

There is no casino that I know of that allows you to just arbitrarily remove money while you are at the table (aside for a buck here or there for tips, etc.).

That is why the game is tables stakes, and why you just can't decide to add more money to the table when you happen to be in the middle of a hand where you have the nuts.

any2cards · #6 07-12-2005, 05:55 PM

This seems to be a very specious and self-serving argument. I understand the point in general, but it certainly doesn't address the appropriateness of someone removing moeny from the game in the middle of the game.

Given your logic, they should then be willing to allow me to remove money from the table in the middle of a hand that it looks like I am going to lose. After all, I may go lose it to the casino instead.

NickPoker · #7 07-12-2005, 05:56 PM

I think the decision was fair. Here is why:

1. Regarding leaving the table and not coming back, he could just as easily leave and comeback and rack up his chips and leave.
2. The spirit of the rule IMO is not to help you make more money, but to insure a player does not take money off that he won in the game. If he continues to play he has to put it back on the table, so the spirt of the rule is still intact.

Why would you take a chance of pissing this player off?

NickPoker · #8 07-12-2005, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I actually disagree. If the decision is made to allow the player to remove money from the game while he is gone, then at the very least, that player should have to rebuy back into the game when he returns for at least as much as he took off the table.

There is no casino that I know of that allows you to just arbitrarily remove money while you are at the table (aside for a buck here or there for tips, etc.).

That is why the game is tables stakes, and why you just can't decide to add more money to the table when you happen to be in the middle of a hand where you have the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were going to make him buy back in right? So what's the point?

Randy_Refeld · #9 07-12-2005, 06:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Given your logic, they should then be willing to allow me to remove money from the table in the middle of a hand that it looks like I am going to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

No but it would lead that you can take some money off your stack toplay Keno. Or maybe if you were playign at Holywood Park let you take some money from your stack to bet on a horse. I wonder if they allow those.

Derek in NYC · #10 07-12-2005, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I immediately objected, stating that he couldn't take any money off of the table.

[floor called and decision against player was made]

At this point, WPP bolted, not to be seen from again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You deserve this for being a dickhead. I was playing over 4th of July weekend at a club in Texas when one of the idiot action players who had a deep stack proceeded to take a few hundred off the table, presumably to "lock in" his profit. Other players immediately complained. I pointed out that it was a limit game, and it didn't really matter so long as he maintained an adequate working stack. The idiot action player got agitated. The floor was called. Idiot action player was told to put all his chips back up in play. At which point, he racked up all his chips and took a dime out of circulation.

Nice going, nit.