I mean... If you can always top off when it is advantageous mid-hand, why not just sit all the time with only ~8BB in your stack?
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Cash Game How do I explain going south or ratholing to my home-game players? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter rainy_trails
- Start date
I mean... If you can always top off when it is advantageous mid-hand, why not just sit all the time with only ~8BB in your stack?
OfficerLovejoy
Full House
Lol, wtf.
They didn't get much of poker etiquette right in casino royale (I assume it's casino quarter pounder with cheese in the US?).
But even they explained table stakes.
louBdub
4 of a Kind
Don’t get me started on this…. I’ve tried to explain this until blue in the face. If you feel bullied at a cash table, your in over your head, go play different stakes.
This is actually old school Wild Wild West Cali Poker. Before NL Texas Holdem was invented, it was just No Limit, and if you can’t call, you fold. So people would make wild raises in hopes to get people out of the hand, except sometimes they weren’t prepared to lose…….
That’s when people got shot and rode off into the sunset in the mid west and Cali gold rush days.
I raise my horse outside….
I raise my grandpas pocket watch……
I’m raising the farm!!!!!
Lots of guns pointed at one another under the table
Bluegrass Poker
Flush
Your players all know they can play that way and accept it so it’s fine.
What happens if player A bets his stack that has $250 in it and player B has $150 in chips in front of him and $400 in cash in his pocket and raises to $550. But player A only has $200 in cash in his pocket so he can’t call the extra $300, according to the way I read your post Player A has to fold because he can’t call the raise of $300.
Yup. Put in or get out, or iou on paper worked too and happened a few times.
All the guys were good for it tho and paid within a few days.
Like I said earlier. Some of the guys got pretty loose drinking betting and losing guns as collateral more than a few times. Shortly after most of them wised up and implemented a limit on most games.
One such time was playing a game against the pot. High low I think it was called but if the second card was the same as first you paid the pot double.
A few times there was over a grand in the pot with people trying to get the game over and getting burned. One such time it went on for hours, people sick of losing and we just split the pot evenly between all the players then moved on to a different game. Some guys lost more than others in the end but it was the fairest way to end it vs leaving in there for a new game giving all to one person.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
You see, 'ratholing' wasn't a rule to not screw over other players at table. It came about as control for the casino. It is now so ingrained into culture everyone says NO, but they don't actually know why, or the impact on the game.
This is fascinating, I know a bit of poker history, but never heard this. This is the stuff I like to learn about. And it absolutely makes sense.
I do think there is a more practical reason to disallow going south. And it's also pretty pro-casino.To be more direct and answer the OP - Partial cash outs are called 'going south or ratholing' its considered extremely rude because 99% of the population that plays poker is ignorant to the reason the rule was in place and now the dogma prevents anyone from being flexable in this way. However, there are other things we can do that will help players be winning players. For starters, we don't take a rake - you're welcome'
I played in this crazy cash game in college. We played quarter ante hold 'em (no blinds) and a $15 max bet. And we played with cash and bills, no chips.
Well a player asked about pocketing winnings and the table captain wanted to oblige so we allowed it. Before too long, the situation devolved into everyone having to count how much they wanted "on the table" before every single deal, which grinds the game to a halt.
It's just better for game flow if players can only add chips and not remove them. Believe me, if rake free players in a game will get discouraged with slow pace, imagine how a casino trying to earn rake would feel about it?
Technically you pay $20 for your lunch or $100 for a massage at the table with chips, that's technically ratholing, but widely accepted because it's infrequent.
If you allow open ratholing every hand for any reason, you will kill the pace of your game.
This is the way, I have never been a fan of match the stack variable buy-ins. If the initial buy-in is 200bb I see no reason to change it because someone won (and someone lost) a big pot.
4SUMERZ
Flush
There are 3 things that can't be allowed, taking chips off the table if you are still playing, buying chips from anyone, it must be from the bank. #3 is you can only use chips that are in front of you at the start of that hand. If you want more chips, announce that you want chips, then buy them from the bank prior to a dealt hand.
The host of a home game must assure he has enough chips for any top up or any amount of rebuys, or use a paper drawn denom if needed.
The host of a home game must assure he has enough chips for any top up or any amount of rebuys, or use a paper drawn denom if needed.
#3 isn't really a hard and fast rule even at card rooms. Some places allow playing with money paid for chips that you haven't actually received yet. You just need to ensure the dealer has loudly announced it to the table. I certainly wouldn't encourage it for a home game though, it's fine for the table to wait 30 seconds for a player to be given chips from the bank.
As for the other two, I wouldn't say can't be allowed, just that it's very nonstandard and frowned upon in most places. But if a host and players decide they like being able to go south as a game rule, why not, its their game.
I agree though, hosts should make sure they have sufficient bank to cover the stakes of the game. One advantage of handling things in cash is that you can always throw some $20s to $100s on the table if you've somehow exhausted the bank.
Again, if I get invited to a game and my AA gets cracked by 7-2 off and they then proceed to take my money off the table, well, they're probably buying new tires so they can get home.
BirdCage
Flush
Went through the ratholing rat hole about a year ago. Thread is here -> https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...-a-rebuying-from-the-deep-stack-player.98209/
No bueno.
No bueno.
Are you sure these terms aren't some sort of double entendre for sexual positions?
I mean, it's kinda like having "the talk" - when two poker players love each other very much....
I mean, it's kinda like having "the talk" - when two poker players love each other very much....
JFG
Pair
You can make a house rule that if one wants to cash out and then buy back in, they have to sit out for 30 minutes, or an hour or one full round. This way you can explain it’s not a common rule. This also might be something that you put to a vote with the other players.
I don't believe there is a place for this in a game, especially a "friendly" game. It's really not much different from a "hit and run." This is on a more microscopic level, they hit you and then pocket that money so as not to be in play again. If hit and run is douchebag, then so is going south.
Nymor
3 of a Kind
In our games if a player cashes out and then later wants to rejoin then they have to buy in for the amount they cashed out for.
The only time we allow people to take money off the table is if they're buying a round of drinks or we're collecting for a couple of pizzas. Once in a blue moon a very big stack might be allowed to donate a buy in from their stack to a busted player. The whole table has to be ok with both of these.
The only time we allow people to take money off the table is if they're buying a round of drinks or we're collecting for a couple of pizzas. Once in a blue moon a very big stack might be allowed to donate a buy in from their stack to a busted player. The whole table has to be ok with both of these.
Surprised this is left mostly uncommented. Are you serious? That’s how you guys play?
Yeah, I wasn't even sure what to say. I guess just roll up with the entirety of your life savings in your pocket and take everyone else's money in every hand. There's a reason it's a bad stereotype and not how anyone actually plays the game.
GreekRedEye
Flush
As a casual player, this makes no sense to me. If I understand what @Sparkynutz said, the big stack could go all in on every decent hand and force everyone to fold or pull money out of their pockets. With a casual crowd, that would kill the game. It seems like patently unfair. I get side pot math sucks, but hey, so does cleaning the dishes up after everyone leaves. Part of the price of hosting. (by the way, anyone know of a good side pot calculator app or something?)
Ratholing also seems unfair. Putting half your chips in your pocket allows you to call an all-in with what remains on the table as if you are short-stacked. Ten to one the player who ratholed half their stack in their pocket pulls those chips back out after they lose whatever chips are on the table. My understanding has been that chips are always in play and so they must always be on the table. Putting some in your pocket is hiding chips and calling short-stacked when you are not is illegal play.
As for cashing some in, I think I will adopt the approach that a couple voiced in this thread: you must cash all and then you are done for the night. If someone wins a big stack and does not want to lose it, they need to learn to play with a bit more discipline.
Most of the games we played were more about chance and luck than skill.
Wild cards and all kinds of dumb games.
I can only talk from my experience but back then I typically brought $500-600 to poker night.
The very worst night I ever had I was down about $280.
If someone was down to their last $5 then they put in an IOU and kept playing hoping to come back or called it a night.
I kinda agree it was more fair that way.
Why should the guy with only $5 left be able to see my cards if I bet $100?
If people went above what they could afford it was their own damn fault.
Drinking was a factor, sometimes we would cut them off and someone drove them home vs letting them write more IOUs. Years later we as a group adopted limits for all the games and everything has been good since but still play the same way. Either call what's bet or fold. It doesn't matter where the money is, pocket, table, or at home. If you are still playing then it can be won back so ratholing isn't really a thing.
Can't afford to lose more, go home.
Don't want to lose your winnings, go home or just play tight.
I've gone home after bad beats before as have others. We were still happier to lose among friends than to a casino.
About 25 years ago we implement limits.
Now I typically bring $200-300. Last time we played I was up $83 at the end of the night.
Most games are 25c ante
25c bets. 3 raises max.
If a natural pair is shown its 50c
Last round of betting is $1 bet max with 3 raise max.
Some games like 6-1/2, 261/2 there's usually $60-100 in the pot, otherwise there's maybe $20 if that.
Dealer calls any limit changes when dealing. Don't like it, don't play the hand.
So if you can't call the few $ at the end you probably shoulda folded much earlier in the game.
The game actually runs pretty smooth and no time outs needed to get chips.
Just use some cash if you get a good hand and wanna bet. Make change out of the pot if needed.
Wild cards and all kinds of dumb games.
I can only talk from my experience but back then I typically brought $500-600 to poker night.
The very worst night I ever had I was down about $280.
If someone was down to their last $5 then they put in an IOU and kept playing hoping to come back or called it a night.
I kinda agree it was more fair that way.
Why should the guy with only $5 left be able to see my cards if I bet $100?
If people went above what they could afford it was their own damn fault.
Drinking was a factor, sometimes we would cut them off and someone drove them home vs letting them write more IOUs. Years later we as a group adopted limits for all the games and everything has been good since but still play the same way. Either call what's bet or fold. It doesn't matter where the money is, pocket, table, or at home. If you are still playing then it can be won back so ratholing isn't really a thing.
Can't afford to lose more, go home.
Don't want to lose your winnings, go home or just play tight.
I've gone home after bad beats before as have others. We were still happier to lose among friends than to a casino.
About 25 years ago we implement limits.
Now I typically bring $200-300. Last time we played I was up $83 at the end of the night.
Most games are 25c ante
25c bets. 3 raises max.
If a natural pair is shown its 50c
Last round of betting is $1 bet max with 3 raise max.
Some games like 6-1/2, 261/2 there's usually $60-100 in the pot, otherwise there's maybe $20 if that.
Dealer calls any limit changes when dealing. Don't like it, don't play the hand.
So if you can't call the few $ at the end you probably shoulda folded much earlier in the game.
The game actually runs pretty smooth and no time outs needed to get chips.
Just use some cash if you get a good hand and wanna bet. Make change out of the pot if needed.
4SUMERZ
Flush
The one that is hosting a home game can make any rules that he wants, but he better have buy in from the regulars or the game will soon be a bust.
Mandos
3 of a Kind
Yeah, it totally changes the game if your effective stack goes from $250 to $2000 when you hit the nut flush on the river lol. There's no way I would ever play at a table with those rules in place.
If someone bet like that chances are they aren't bluffing. Would you risk calling? I sure wouldn't.
I can't recall anyone betting more than $20-40 even with the nuts.
The time they bet crazy was playing against the pot on in High low or in between. If you're dealt an ace and call it low then get a king and call pot. There's hundreds in the pot. You get a damn king or ace as 3rd card and pay double.
The odds were highly in your favor but got unlucky. Current chip stack didn't matter and it is what it is. pay up.
Last edited:
Mandos
3 of a Kind
Sure, but there are nasty coolers where it's almost impossible to get away (quads over top boat for example). My bigger issue though is that if there's not table stakes then it's really a game of who has deeper pockets and that's just not a game i want to play.
It may seem like that but never played that way. We were all lucky or unlucky here or there and all there for the food and company more than feeding on poor fishes like I hear of many games.
It is one anecdotal theory from one unnamed guy, and that doesn’t seem like hardly enough to count as established fact.
Did the person who wrote this play poker before that time, say in 1950? Did he speak with older, experienced card players or card room managers from earlier times? Has he reviewed sources from the 19th and 20th century, such as old rule books?
Honestly it drives me nuts when casual theories are treated as fact because they “sound about right.”
So it just happens that I have a large-ish collection of different editions of Hoyle’s Rules of Games. (My road is called Hoyle so this is a goofy hobby of mine.)
I took one of the best-known editions off the shelf, Foster’s version from 1916.
Foster’s Hoyle spells out the rule of table stakes. While noting that different rooms allow different sizes of initial buy-ins, he specifically notes that:
Again, that’s from 1916.
I took one of the best-known editions off the shelf, Foster’s version from 1916.
Foster’s Hoyle spells out the rule of table stakes. While noting that different rooms allow different sizes of initial buy-ins, he specifically notes that:
“… The betting limit is always the amount that the player has in front of him; but no player is allowed either to increase or diminish that amount while he has any cards in front of him. Before the cards are dealt for any pool, he may announce that he wishes to buy counters… No player is allowed under any circumstances to borrow from another nor to be shy in any pot; that is to say, ‘I owe so many.’ If he has any counters in front of him, his bet is limited to what he has; if he has none, he is out of the game for that hand, at least. As a player cannot increase the amount he has in front of him during the play of hand, it his best to keep on the table at all times as much as one is likely to want to bet on any one hand.”
Again, that’s from 1916.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I know I looked back at @Machine having made other posts about this and I guess it comes from a book.
I'm not saying I know, but based on what I know about how regulations work and card rooms want to operate, it at least seems plausible.
That said, it's hardly a good enough argument to bring back ratholing at all times. I think I presented a good counter-argument as to other situations a poker room would want to avoid that would happen due to ratholing, even if the original reason is true and no longer relevant.
See my citation above. The standard poker rule book from 1916 specifically describes how you can’t go south (though Foster did not use that term, which must be more modern).
If necessary, I can look at earlier and later editions to see what they say, but it’s pretty clear that Malmuth was talking out his ass with his 1960s-70s claim.
P.S. It’s pretty funny how much poker terms have changed. In reading Foster’s entries, I noticed for example that UTG used to be called “the Age,” and calling an all-in bet light was “calling a sight.”
Last edited:
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
Actually it specifies you can’t go south during a hand, which sort of implies you can between hands. And it cautions that you should keep enough on the table between hands because you can’t go north in a hand either…also implying you have a decision how much you want to go to south between hands
I read it as implied that you can only go up between hands, since it does not even contemplate taking away chips.
The author assumes players want more, not less, in play.
I checked the versions of Hoyle from 1880 and 1953, and they are edited differently but make the same point.
The author assumes players want more, not less, in play.
I checked the versions of Hoyle from 1880 and 1953, and they are edited differently but make the same point.
Frogzilla
Straight Flush
“ it his best to keep on the table at all times as much as one is likely to want to bet on any one hand”
I read “keep” as “not remove” and if so, then it does contemplate removing chips. Basically it says don’t remove so much that you won’t be able to bet what you want to bet. That’s how I read it at least.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
