Thoughts on this type of player...? (1 Viewer)

[TheBigTater]

Do your players know this is the expected behavior at your game?

IMO cash game players, unless it's stated upfront, have the right to get up and leave at any time. Is it good etiquette, usually not. But your house you make the rules. Etiquette & rules are 2 different things. If you expect people to give advance notice when they are leaving then make it a rule. Just make sure it's known to players upfront. If someone constantly abuses the rule then don't invite them back. Same with leaving because of a short/bad losing streak, if a player is a constant winner in your game but leaves ever time after losing a small amount, once again no invite back. If you require that players have to play for a set amount of time then make it known upfront, don't just assume everyone will do it.

Most hit-and-run players & ratholers don't ever get invited back to many games anyway,

As stated above, if your game hinges on whether one player leaves then you need to expand or change your player pool.

I will almost always give a minimum 1-2 orbit warning when I'm going to leave a table especially when I'm up but just as a common courtesy (notwithstanding an emergency). And I'll usually state if have a hard cutoff time to begin with. But expecting people to play longer than they want to just because they are up or down is unreasonable IMO.

Friendly game or not, people tend to act accordingly when they know the rules/conditions from the start.

 

[Kain8]

Friendly game or not, people tend to act accordingly when they know the rules/conditions from the start.

This is probably the best thing to take away from all this. Have clear, concise rules (maybe make a poster and have it hanging on a wall or something to that effect) that essentially prevent or ameliorate the problems of ratholing, hit & running, etc. that you bring to everyone's attention. This in turn will remove undesirable behaviours / players guilty of those behaviours from your game at the very next session. This in turn sends the message of a friendly game, but don't treat my house or guests like you're just there to profit off of us.

 

[Milo013]

I see no problem here. If someone has a loss limit, fine. If he's sure it's not his night for whatever reason and wants to leave, that's fine too. It seems crazy to me to feel like someone owes it to the game to put in time when they are losing or not feeling it. Remember this is a competitive game. If I'm spewing chips and not feeling it I'd pack up too, and of course if I'm up and winning - yeah I'm going to stick around. Sounds like a shrewd player.

It's for you to decide if you like having this player in your game, and that's about it. What he does and how he manages his wins/losses when at your game is outside your circle of control and really not worth your energy thinking about.

This . . . sometimes a good player has a bad night. A good player will know this and act accordingly, that is WHY he is a good player. Is he supposed to keep bleeding cash just because he is a consistent winner? For myself, I would go three buy-ins deep before checking out, but still . . . this is the only part of the OP I disagree with.

 

[upNdown]

As a host or a guest, I’d have a bad feeling about rules saying how long you have to stay or how many buy-ins you’re required to play. I’d much prefer if everybody just acted appropriately on their own. I know that’s naive or wishy-washy. But once you post a rule saying “everybody must play until midnight” it feels much less like a fun social home game.

 

[upNdown]

This . . . sometimes a good player has a bad night. A good player will know this and act accordingly, that is WHY he is a good player. Is he supposed to keep bleeding cash just because he is a consistent winner? For myself, I would go three buy-ins deep before checking out, but still . . . this is the only part of the OP I disagree with.

Even if you’re a $1/$3 player at a home quarters game that you routinely demolish?

 

[Rhodeman77]

As a host or a guest, I’d have a bad feeling about rules saying how long you have to stay or how many buy-ins you’re required to play. I’d much prefer if everybody just acted appropriately on their own. I know that’s naive or wishy-washy. But once you post a rule saying “everybody must play until midnight” it feels much less like a fun social home game.

When money is involved though rules are needed. If you want just a fun social game night break out Risk and Monopoly.

The Thursday game I play in requires players to bring 2 buy-ins AND stay until midnight if they are winning. Losers can leave after losing the 2 buy-ins if they want. This is explained to every new player before they ever show up. It keeps the game full and there is a lot of money on the table.

Not having to worry about someone leaving after they won a 4 way all-in for $2k after the first hour also keeps the action loose. Players know they will have a chance to win their money back.

 

[Mojo1312]

He's really good with casino experience where he plays $1/$3. He plays until quitting time most nights. I've seen him win $200 which is huge for this game. I've seen him win $100+ 3 nights in a row and just demolish players. However, I saw him one night go through 2 buy ins ($80) and get frustrated. He made a comment that it wasn't his night, was tired of losing, and left... I was thinking to myself, if he was winning, he would sit here all night long and rape everyone...yet he goes through two buy ins and leaves hours early?

I know many players are there for different reasons but it's tough for me to have tolerance for some players, especially like the last one. Am I justified here or is this perfectly acceptable? Do you have any similar experiences?

^^ Unusual choice of phrasing regarding a winning player.

No offense intended, your post reads like a tournament player whose cash game experience is limited.

If accurate, I wonder if the same is true among the rest of the players in your group. Do they primarily play cash games or tournaments?

How does the buy-in to your cash game compare with the buy-in to your tournament? (Buy-in amount and number of BB's for each)

 

[jja412]

I'm not a fan of legislating people's time at a poker table. Sometimes people shouldn't be there in the first place. Maybe something emotional happened in their life, and they just can't focus. You shouldn't punish them for realizing this. If you are playing a cash game, they have the right to leave right after a big win, or right after a big loss, or anytime in between. Is it good etiquette? Hell no.

If you are frustrated with his habits, you can certainly tell him so, preferably in private so that he doesn't feel he is being attacked by the group. But enforcing when they leave is a losing proposition long term. Explain to the group (sometime other than during the hit and run) what would be ideal for keeping the game going strong, but don't throw around ultimatums.

As a host or member of a regular game, you should always be recruiting new players. The idea is to get enough regs on your list that you can pick and choose who plays. When that happens, these things take care of themselves. Start inviting those that are consistently punctual, RSVP early, and stay the whole night.

Easier said than done, for sure. But that is the best deterrent to bad etiquette at the table: a long and healthy invite list.

(IMO, YMMV, get samples, not a guarantee, etc, etc, etc...)

 

[Mojo1312]

I know many players are there for different reasons but it's tough for me to have tolerance for some players, especially like the last one. Am I justified here or is this perfectly acceptable? Do you have any similar experiences?

What is the average number of buy-ins for your players? If it is less than two, your game is too big.

There are two approaches you can take regarding Mr. Casino. Adjust your game, or disinvite him.

Disinvite Mr. Casino if you want to keep the game "friendly" and the money and the associated risks involved to you and the other players low.

If Mr. Casino stays, he is going to force others to deepen their game.

You can level the playing field some by allowing players to buy in for $40 to $60 or up to half the big stack. This change allows other players to effectively go after the Mr. Casino in a meaningful way. (Or go broke trying.)

Fact of life: not all tournament players like to play cash. The converse is also true.

 

[manamongkids]

personal opinion is that it is about intent, my player pool has players who fall into this category, they win big and want to cash out (I cant stop them in the moment) but I can say that id prefer them to stay for the duration as its a private game and now we're going to have an empty seat for someone who would have come to play, if someone busts thats another open seat and so on.

if the player who wins a big pot and really wants to hit and run like it appears, just shut your mouth, play super duper tight and act as if you are staying the duration of the night, this is how you keep everyone happy. all you have to say is that I was card dead. it's a private game, no one is forced to allow you to play or continue these shenanigans.

 

[Milo013]

Even if you’re a $1/$3 player at a home quarters game that you routinely demolish?

Yes. Doing otherwise allows poor bankroll management to creep into your play, which could have implications for you elsewhere. Further, you do not know the circumstances of every player. Maybe he uses the small game to fund play in the bigger one. Maybe he uses his winnings in your game to take the family to dinner or movies as a way of smoothing over his playing in the $1/3. His actions are not for you to control. the only thing you CAN control is whether or not to invite him in the future.

 

[codeman00]

^^ Unusual choice of phrasing regarding a winning player.

No offense intended, your post reads like a tournament player whose cash game experience is limited.

If accurate, I wonder if the same is true among the rest of the players in your group. Do they primarily play cash games or tournaments?

How does the buy-in to your cash game compare with the buy-in to your tournament? (Buy-in amount and number of BB's for each)

No offense taken. That's an interesting comment because the guy does talk about playing tournaments a lot and that very well could be it. Maybe he's more accustomed to a set buy in instead of playing through a bit of run bad in cash? He's much better at both than most there though.

To answer your other questions...most of the group primarily plays cash and not in a casino. Most have only played in this "home cash game" and nothing else. There are only a handful of us that have played $1/3NL cash and tournaments at the casino. By the way, the buy in for the tournament is $20. The buyin for cash is $40 and is a $0.25/$0.50 NL game (80BB).