Replay only rule?

Translation
Why can not I leave the table to my bank chips and sit down again with what buy in I want? You can do it on any other free poker and real poker, but not here? What happens to it?

Great Point Im_a_dog… Love MTTs!!

Hi, returning to a table with less than you left with is a hot potato and I promise it is not a silly rule only enforced by Replay,. It is a player driven rule which causes huge debate in online forums and in live casinos. As mentioned here, many live players are angered when someone wins their cash and then quits, seeing it as hit-and-run. Insult is added to injury when the player sits down again with the minimum buy in a few hands later. The losing player expects the chance to win ‘their’ chips back. Sassy_Sarah is quite right, though, once the player has picked up their chip stack, no matter who they won from, it does not matter a jot whether it is their backside taking up the empty seat or that of a completely different player, either 5 minutes or 5 hours later. Replay is relatively small, so we don’t always have many empty seats available at games running in every stake, but have you tried sitting at an empty table? They normally fill up once two players start one off.

Chasetheriver, not only do I see this side of the debate… I can empathize with it. You mentioned also, that it is a debate ongoing elsewhere not just here. In the above quote, if there was a middleground where both sides win… wouldn’t you say that is the goal ? There is such a middleground, and it is the “holy grail” of many things … poker, blackjack, slots, even the stock market… and that is playing with OPM. ( other peoples money ). Again going back to that quote above… If I sit at a table with say 100k… I triple up to 312k… what part of that is the “table’s” money ? … 212k … if we then say that I cannot remove any of this to bank it, all I can do is get up and leave. We then say I can pick up " my 100k ", because its not the “table’s” money… How have I hurt the table ? Not only do they get to try for thier chips, I am more apt to stay at the table and give them more chances. None of the “table’s” chips have left the table.

I can tell you by experimentation, that prolly if I bounce around to enuff tables quickly and play a min # of hands @ each, that I will reset whatever counter the code is using as a dongle. I have not actively tried to userp the current rules nor do I intend to. But, if using exsisting rules ( legal ) to get around other exsisting rules, then isn’t it sorta pointless for such rules ?

Yes, I am minimizing my losses… Yes, I can’t “touch” as many chips by taking my “stake”… but when you say… player 1 can auto-top off @ 100k every hand while they are losing, but player 2 cannot auto/manual un-top-off @ 100k if they are winning… then that is hypocritical…… otherwise force that player that sits with 100k, to lose ALL 100k, before they can rebuy to stay @ the table.

On many levels this is the same as trying to control bullies/bingo players on a no-limit table… In the end you chg the rules and thus it becomes FL, PL, or ML… but its no longer NL.

Not only am I mainly a MTT player, but currently I am only trying for a badge in Ring games. When I play Ring games I trade the hand equity for max free looks @ my hole cards. So I will not sit at an empty table. I want to play 9 handed or as close to as possible, not play 5-35 hands 2-3-4-5 handed while the table builds up… and it does take a bit for a table to fill.

Whatever the rule is, or how it applies to me tho… is not my focus, its in the bigger debate over… is it a rule, why is it a rule, who does it help/hurt, is there a better way… but I must respect the Site/Staff on thier decisions, even if I disagree.

Chase, I gotta say… 1 of the only pleasures of Ring Games to me, is making someone rebuy back into the game with “my money” that they squirreled away 20 minutes earlier… So I can take it back from them. ( satisfaction )… Otherwise there is no appeal for Ring games to me because all they are , are … wait for the nuts and maximize your profit.

Because of the fact there will ALWAYS be players that play way below thier bankroll, that those players can rebuy even on a ring game table 100s of times in a row… I don’t see Replay protecting new players by telling players with 10 million in bankroll, sorry you can’t just go cheeze off 250k, on a 5/10 table… but have you ever see how disruptive that can get ? Therefore, bluffing in ring games is not only more dangerous, but its downright lethal at times.

This almost reminds me of the balance over… security / human rights. Didn’t 1 of the founding fathers ( usa ) say and I paraphrase…Those who trade thier rights for security, usually end up with neither. I think there are more constryctive ways to protect your newer players, and your older players… can’t they take care of themselves ?

Hi Thanks for the reply. I too agree that allowing chips to be taken from the table is a option which should be considered, but many players are against it (the removal of chips). As I said this is normally a player driven rule and much as we would like a middle ground solution, this rule is standard at nearly every venue where poker is played.

If you take 100k from your 312k, that scenario might work, but if you get to 120k after sitting with 100k and want to remove 100k, or each 20k as you win it, what then?

Replay has to look at it from a practical standpoint, but we are open to changing house rules to suit our players.

Allowing chips to come and go from the table between hands is a utopia, but in real terms, how would that affect the gameplay, with players playing cat and mouse with their chip stack sizes? We could do the development, but this game would be a travesty of poker. Developing rules regarding how much and how often would just cause confusion among many Replay players, because they are not familiar with poker nuances at this level.

For now at least, the rule stays as is. I would appreciate anyone Replying in this thread stating for or against change. Lets get an idea of the general split.

Thanks, Rob

I agree with the rule as it is, ratholing should not be allowed, the “cool down” should be at least 60 min before a player could change his stack.
Just my 2 € cents

Cheers

2 Likes

My post has nothing to do with ratholing.My question is how can the algo let me join another table w/ less than I left with from the last but then insist I join the next table with winnings from PREVIOUS tables before that.My problem is that there is no consistency Did anyone read my op???

1)left table 1 w/ 6xx chips.Took a break.
2)Later joined diff table(2) w/ 200 buy in(not the 6xx),left w/ 3xx chips because of all in maniac.
3)Then tried to join 3rd table but had to buy in with the 6xx chips from table 1,not w/ the 3xx chips from table 2

Fine,make me buy in from last table(2) at 3xx chips but to go back to table 1 with mandatory 6xx chips buy in is ridiculous and MAKES NO SENSE.

I can see you left The Duck Pond with 613 and played Brooklyn Bridge leaving with 344.

I am guessing you tried to rejoin The Duck Pond again? My admin does not show which tables you tried to join if you were unsuccessful.

Rat-holing and Banking chips are the same thing

Hi Fin,

Trying to get back into the same table(s) after banking a larger amount than the buy in is precisely ratholing and the software correctly posted the same amount that you previously played, won, and left with.

Scratch

Worth more than two cents. An hour is enough time.

Scratch.

1 Like

Related to ratholing more or less… if I have stacked another player and yet I already knew I was going to leave, as a courtesy I will announce “once around the table for me.” The reason I do that is because when a player bolts after stacking another player the victim may resent the “eat and go” act. By playing seven, eight, or nine more hands it is inferred that you are leaving the chips on the table to be taken back, AND, by announcing, should the victim try again to stack but instead loses another stack, at least I can leave with a clean conscience. I would also still be under the “ratholing” rule.

Scratch

1 Like

You still havn’t explained why I was able to join BB w/ 200 instead of 613 then left with 344(because of maniac).Why did I have to buy in w/ the 613 in a different Duck Pond game instead of the 344?Again,no consistency.NOT ratholing or banking,just getting away from a maniac.Or is that against the rules too?Make way,the all in maniacs have more rights than the rest of us.

Finn,

There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between the two kinds of games between the 100 buy-in and the 200 buy-in. You went from apples to oranges and back to apples again so to speak. You may have gone back to the exact table you were playing earlier or you may have gone back to the same grouping of tables but a different table. They all have the same blinds, same timing, same amount of seats, same clock, same this and same that. Banking and coming back is prohibited.

Scratch

Chasetheriver,. [quote=“Chasetheriver, post:30, topic:5159”]
If you take 100k from your 312k, that scenario might work, but if you get to 120k after sitting with 100k and want to remove 100k, or each 20k as you win it, what then?
[/quote]
as long as its my money, not the tables money, it shouldn’t matter… should it ?

You did not address the anti-banking part thats perfectly legal… Should you not eliminate both sides of the coin then? I’m just trying to be logical about this…

Lets say a new player sits with the max 250k and turns on auto-top off… no matter what is lost in any 1 given hand, between hands automatically this player remains at 250k. Instead of other players degrading thier stack so that a all-in won’t put them at risk of a all-in to call, you’re saying that this person can maintain his stack… anti-banking his chips for a very specific purpouse, that is to be able to “touch” the max of others’s chips as possible should this player catch the nuts and cannot lose a hand and pushes. This can be just as detrimental as your claim that banking (rathering) could be. Shouldn’t that player sit with 250k and play down to 0 before rebuying to stay on the table ?

So Chase, even if the rule stays, do you see flipside thats legal, makes the rule itself hypocritical ? Lets remember, I’m a MTT player not a ring game player, I’m there for badges… I’m kinda not affected , thus am trying to provide a voice to both sides.

My guess is part of the people will agree to keep the rule because either they are not skilled enough to combat a player that does this, thus wanting to keep thier advantage… or people that will love the anti-rathering strategy simply because it keeps money available to the sharks, should a donk try and play…

@Sassy_Sarah, The point I made was that having chips appearing and disappearing between hands will make the game unplayable for many people who want to just sit and play Do you see how that would disrupt games?

I asked two professional cash players about this yesterday and one was all for it because he would take all his chips off the table in blind and early positions and reload to the max in position on the Button. So, I agree with you. Sharks would plunder the lesser able players and I think you do competent players who want to keep the rule an injustice because they would feel obliged to fight fire with fire by adjusting their stack sizes depending on position too. That is a solid reason to keep this rule.

will you plz answer why you then allow anti-rathering ?

Having read the points for and against, I would say that I am for keeping this rule - for the simple reason of the likely disruption to the flow of the game with a number of players likely arsing around constantly reducing and then increasing their stack. Not saying anyone here in this discussion would do that, but there’s always those who will ignore the spirit of a rule and take advantage.

1 Like