Is Ratholing Something That is Common in Online Home Poker? (2 Viewers)

[Marc Hedrick]

100% BS in any home/private/social game of any sort.

That being said, there are tons of online players who only know how to play 100BB deep who will cash out and move tables instantly if they have a 200+BB stack. When on ACR, Stars, etc, it is super common and can't blame them.

 

[Welshman]

I’ve played in a small stakes cash game for almost 20 years. I was a green horn when I started playing in it. Ratholing or going south was the first thing I was told was a no go in this game. Try it and you’d be asked to leave and not invited back. We’ve had new players win a big pot and want to cash most of it in and keep playing with their original buy in. Not allowed in this game.
Also not allowed to sell chips to another player. They have to be bought from the bank. I imagine everyone has different rules.

 

[allforcharity]

There is only one bank. Everybody's chips are live and in play until the end of the night. Don't like it? Play better poker. (That last bit is an admonition to MYSELF.)

 

[Geremie]

Maybe try tournaments and allow unlimited ratholing

 

[Frogzilla]

Ratholing occurs, mentioned as commonplace for short deck on the high stakes Triton cash stream from Cyprus (aired yesterday)

I still maintain its a good home game rule. Don’t force your friends to play deeper than comfortable

 

[upNdown]

Just don’t accuse Freddie Deeb of doing it.

 

[BearMetal]

Ratholing occurs, mentioned as commonplace for short deck on the high stakes Triton cash stream from Cyprus (aired yesterday)

I still maintain its a good home game rule. Don’t force your friends to play deeper than comfortable

Short Deck? WTF is this madness ... 36 cards!? OK, well, sure, if you're not using all of the cards, then I guess you can make up whatever rules you want!

But I like your statement of "Don’t force your friends to play deeper than comfortable". I get that, I do. Then again, either they a) won it and it's all surplus anyway or b) they lost that much and had to win it back, so just stop after some point where your losses would be too risky to play with if re-won.

... but yeah, I still get it - for some types of home games, it could make sense. I didn't think I'd ever see the other side logically, but I do. For my group though, it's not the right fit.

 

[Highli99]

I dunno if you caught any of the recent YouTube personality hustler stream, but botez was ratholing a lot there, it’s normal in some games

That was a little different. The Casino was literally out of chips so the bank was empty. I think Garret or somebody had all the $5ks locked up in a box or something and they don’t have $25ks. So the players had to borrow from botez or be out of action.

I still maintain its a good home game rule. Don’t force your friends to play deeper than comfortable

If players need to rathole after doubling up, then I would say the stakes are probably too high for the group. It might be better to lower the stakes to a comfortable level rather than allow ratholing. I aim my game for stakes where virtually all players will max buy in at least 3 times and not be too upset at losing.

 

[CrazyEddie]

OK, well, sure, if you're not using all of the cards, then I guess you can make up whatever rules you want!

psst

you can always make up whatever rules you want

 

[upNdown]

Yeah, I guess it’s worth posting.
I don’t know what they do in 2022 in short deck, but this video will give you an idea of what the top pros thought about ratholing, what, 20 years ago?

 

[CrazyEddie]

Ratholing occurs, mentioned as commonplace for short deck on the high stakes Triton cash stream from Cyprus (aired yesterday)

Interesting! I wonder why that is...

As mentioned, I'm a big fan of allowing ratholing but I'm not particularly in favor of anyone actually doing it. I don't expect most people would even if they could, other than absolute noobs who might get super-excited about a big score and want to "bank" it like on a gameshow. I think most people sit down with money so they can play and win, and you can't win what you don't put into play.

Is there something in particular about short deck that would make players want to keep their stacks small even when they win big? Or is it just cultural, where folks in the Mediterranean never picked up an aversion to ratholing because they have their own gambling customs?

 

[Mandos]

Is there something in particular about short deck that would make players want to keep their stacks small even when they win big? Or is it just cultural, where folks in the Mediterranean never picked up an aversion to ratholing because they have their own gambling customs?

I would guess, and this is just a guess, that it might be related to hands running so much closer in equity. I could see it being a game that doesn't lend itself well to playing for stacks super deep.
Or it could be history-related - wasn't the game basically invented in the high stakes cash rooms in Macau? I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of concession to the businessmen-fish who funded the game, but who knows.

Either way it is certainly the case that several online sites that run short deck officially allow going south once you have more than the table max buyin.

 

[upNdown]

I would guess, and this is just a guess, that it might be related to hands running so much closer in equity. I could see it being a game that doesn't lend itself well to playing for stacks super deep.
Or it could be history-related - wasn't the game basically invented in the high stakes cash rooms in Macau? I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of concession to the businessmen-fish who funded the game, but who knows.

Either way it is certainly the case that several online sites that run short deck officially allow going south once you have more than the table max buyin.

Right. Don’t most shortdeck tournaments start with each player having a couple I don’t know what they call them, but they’re essentially prepaid rebuy chips? And you can trade them in for chips whenever you want, but they’re not in play until you do? Because apparently losing your stack is a really big part of that game?

 

[Machine]

Alright I wasn't going to post this, I did share with CrazyAwesomeEddie,

Mason Malmuth has a book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and how to make them better...

He talks about how it came about and why, here you go

 

[upNdown]

Alright I wasn't going to post this, I did share with CrazyAwesomeEddie,

Mason Malmuth has a book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and how to make them better...

He talks about how it came about and why, here you go

View attachment 910157

Do he make a case that ratholing should be allowed? I’ve heard of his book, I think the book is a great idea, and I’ve seen him talk about it on 2+2. What is his position on this topic, aside from that interesting origin story?

 

[Coyote]

I 'm sure that in countries like China or Turkey (Russia is a shit ton more liberal) rat-holers might receive 10 years in prison, and after that, depending on their conduct, either be executed or be banned from poker for life.

 

[Machine]

Do he make a case that ratholing should be allowed? I’ve heard of his book, I think the book is a great idea, and I’ve seen him talk about it on 2+2. What is his position on this topic, aside from that interesting origin story?

Well he says ...

The book is how to improve card rooms, he is a bad writer and its rough at times but I find his points to be insightful, valid, and worth wading through.

Spoiler: Going South

He is talking about underlying rules, that promote the game in the right way. His premise is that the game needs fish, and fish should win ~25% of the time; To do that you have to have the right setup, stakes, rake, and flow for their ebb, if you will.

As a direct answer - he says the reason given for not allowing 'ratholing' or taking chips off the table, he considers, is one of the silliest things done in the poker room.
I infer he is in favor of allowing it, earlier in the book he addresses Stronger players would never take chips off the table, and allowing higher buy ins favors stronger players. He then discusses tiers of games and how, who and why people move up in stakes and how casinos should stage / offer games.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I said:

The practice of banning ratholing favors casinos and favors strong players at the expense of weak players.

Seems like Malmuth agrees about the favoring strong players part. Re the casinos, I guess Malmuth would say that casinos think that it favors them but that it's actually a short-sighted practice, leading to skinning the fish and drying up the games in the long run.

 

[upNdown]

I’m always interested to hear what people think is good for the health of the game. But I haven’t been convinced by any pro-ratholing arguments. I think forcing people to keep their money on the table can only be good for the game. Because who wants to sit down at a table where everybody is constantly hoovering their profits off the felt?

 

[MrCatPants]

I’m always interested to hear what people think is good for the health of the game. But I haven’t been convinced by any pro-ratholing arguments. I think forcing people to keep their money on the table can only be good for the game. Because who wants to sit down at a table where everybody is constantly hoovering their profits off the felt?

Fish play long enough sessions, they are always going to lose. (I think this is the pro ratholing argument)

That said, if someone is winning money and then taking those chips out of play, its the equivalent of a hit and run, which we all agree is home game bad, right? I think we should look at these two practices similarly.

 

[BearMetal]

In my case, the new player who was rat holing is new and really doesn't know 95% of the group. He was losing money pretty consistently the longer he played, most likely because he doesn't know how to read people well enough.

So I truly believe that him taking money off the table was to limit his losses.

 

[upNdown]

Oh the other hand, unless they have one of these bad boys, that money is probably finding it’s way back onto the table eventually.
(Is this a pro-ratholing argument, or anti? I’ve lost track.)

https://www.amazon.com/Gambling-Personal-Gamblers-Blackjack-Machines/dp/B00E3WLA1Y

 

[BearMetal]

So here's an example where it's really bad for a game. Some of you might recall a previous thread of mine where I basically bitched about the broken ATM that plays at my game. Yes, sometimes his bullshit cards do get me, but over the life of him playing he has vomited plenty of cash onto the table.

If he sees that new player winning a pot against him and then just trying to remove the money, he'll stop playing. And if the broken ATM stops playing, then the rest of the players might stop playing

 

[Frogzilla]

Oh the other hand, unless they have one of these bad boys, that money is probably finding it’s way back onto the table eventually.
(Is this a pro-ratholing argument, or anti? I’ve lost track.)
View attachment 910229

https://www.amazon.com/Gambling-Personal-Gamblers-Blackjack-Machines/dp/B00E3WLA1Y

My wife does this for me at the pits. If she sees I’m up, she’ll grab a couple hundred and cash it out for me. And while she is at the cashier I top off for another couple hundred. A weird little money cycling thing, completely inefficient, but the dealers nod understandingly

 

[CrazyEddie]

hit and run, which we all agree is home game bad, right?

Would it surprise you if I said no?

 

[Highli99]

Oh the other hand, unless they have one of these bad boys, that money is probably finding it’s way back onto the table eventually.
(Is this a pro-ratholing argument, or anti? I’ve lost track.)
View attachment 910229

https://www.amazon.com/Gambling-Personal-Gamblers-Blackjack-Machines/dp/B00E3WLA1Y

The fact that this exists is hysterical. One of my fondest degenerate college memories was a overnight trip to Atlantic City where me and 8 buddies played some roulette and blackjack. A friend who was in med school at the time used loan money to gambol and ended up betting $1k on hand of black jack and hitting black jack. He gave the winnings to my trustworthy best friend with strict instructions not to give it back to him that night no matter how persuasively he demanded it later on. Later that night I hear shouting and demanding for the money and my best friend steadfastly refused to give in. Words are exchanged and med student storms off into the night. I go to my friend and say “I can’t believe you didn’t give in”.

He goes “it was easy not to give in because I lost all the money in roulette about half an hour ago. I can’t give it back until the bank opens tomorrow”

 

[MrCatPants]

Would it surprise you if I said no?

After your other comments no, but I bet you if a new player in a game with a random host on here did it, like 95% chance they wouldn't be getting invited back.

 

[CrazyEddie]

After your other comments no, but I bet you if a new player in a game with a random host on here did it, like 95% chance they wouldn't be getting invited back.

More like 99.3% !

 

[Machine]

hit and run takes a player out of the game, and just because someone takes chips off the table, doesn't mean you can't get at them; just means you can't get all of the chips back in one bet.
There really are a lot of pros to allowing people to take cash off the table, there are contras as well, and I'm not sure how I would handle it if it were allowed. I think the important thing is being open minded, and to the OP maybe limit the total amount of chips a player can take off the table per session.

Likely to keep a player at the table, rather than an all or nothing situation.
Likely to keep the game going longer, if the player takes money off the table, loses his stack, likely to buy back in and game keeps going.
Allows new / weaker players a comfort layer to learn or be open to playing the game.
I've seen players win large pots, then just fold every hand for an hour and then leave. This is bad as no action in the seat and takes money and a player out of the game.