Buying in for more than the max - Fallsview NL
Was playing (badly) at the 5/10 NL game this Sunday afternoon at Fallsview. Normally, the buy-in ranges from $200 to $1k. However, the average stack on this table was around $1500 - $2000.
A player (not me) joined and put $1k on the table. One orbit later he asked if anyone minded if he put another $1000 in play (to make his stack ~$2k). No one objected (I was about to, but I figured that this would effectively disqualify me from ever pulling this move in the future) and he was allowed to "buy-in" for $2k.
Is this typical for the Fallsview game? I would imagine that 5/10 NL is an ideal candidate for buying in for more than the max, especially when it is the highest game running in the room...also, 1/2 the people at the table (incl. myself) were on the 10/20 NL list at the time...
What is very strange is that Wally, a high-stakes reg. at Fallsview, showed up later and only bought in for $1k. I would almost guarantee that if buying in for $2k was generally permitted, that he would have bought in for $2k.
Anyone have any comments?
A player (not me) joined and put $1k on the table. One orbit later he asked if anyone minded if he put another $1000 in play (to make his stack ~$2k). No one objected (I was about to, but I figured that this would effectively disqualify me from ever pulling this move in the future) and he was allowed to "buy-in" for $2k.
Is this typical for the Fallsview game? I would imagine that 5/10 NL is an ideal candidate for buying in for more than the max, especially when it is the highest game running in the room...also, 1/2 the people at the table (incl. myself) were on the 10/20 NL list at the time...
What is very strange is that Wally, a high-stakes reg. at Fallsview, showed up later and only bought in for $1k. I would almost guarantee that if buying in for $2k was generally permitted, that he would have bought in for $2k.
Anyone have any comments?
Comments
Everyone agrees: NP, 1 person squawks: 1k for you/he.
Can I post a tack-on question Overseer55? (if it bothers you I'll take it down and post it separately)
Under what circumstances would you say 'no' if someone requested this at your table?
If the person was a solid player and there was a fish with a bigger stack.
I don't want someone else able to take all of his $$
good point;
If you would like to have more money on the table, convince the players to bump up the game.
According to the OP, the table simply allowed the player to buy in for $2K.
Now that you've answered the when's..as in when you would say 'no' ...my second Q. is "Do you believe it is a serious ettiquette breach to say no"
Now, I'd like a larger game to run...but, the management there doesn't seem eager to open larger games on non-peak times. Personally, I'd love to tell them, "hey, this person & I want to play 25/50 NL heads-up, we'll each pay $15 per half-hour to do so (+ guarantee minimum play time of 2 hours). Let the dealer take $30/hr (probably well above his hourly wage) and the casino take $30/hr. How about it?"
I doubt this would fly right now even though 1) more than 1/2 the tables are empty, 2) there are a fistful of dealers more than happy to work overtime for $30/hr, and 3) there would be a virtual guarantee that the two of us would cause ZERO extra work for the floor.
Hmmm...next time I am there I am going to try this argument and see what they say.
No!
If the table is playing 5-10 NL and the players want more money on the table, convince ALL of the players to change the game, make it 10-20 NL or 10-25 NL or better yet 50-100 NL (which has no cap on the buyin!).
LOL
No, this would not fly. If you want a bigger game, convince ALL of the players to change the limits (not just the buy-ins).
Heads-up games are not financially feasible for B&M's. Your math is waaaaay off. If you want a 25-50 NL game, then we want $90/half hour in session. Why? Because that is what a full ring game would bring us. The casino does NOT like to run short games or have empty seats. If you want to play HU games, stick to online.
Next time you are in, make yourself known to the brush, the pit manager or a supervisor. Ask for me and I would be happy to address you personally.
I wasn't expecting you to agree, but I just HAAAAAD to ask.
Well, I don't like online as much as live...especially HU. I agree that the casino would like $180/hr per table if it were full (but, that's a big IF). However, I argue that if 1) there are idle dealers & tables (big IF, I know), 2) there are players on the waiting list that would love to sit at $5/10NL, and 3) there are some players at $5/10NL that would want to play higher...then, the poker room (in my limited opinion) would make more money in total if they opened a short table (6 players minimum) than if they didn't open the short table.
Of course, if I were to guess, the casino doesn't mind keeping the list "bearable" to entice the players to play at the craps & BJ tables so conveniently located near the poker room. God knows I've lost too much @ Fallsview in 2007...but, my New Year's resolution for 2008 was to stop playing table games...so far, I've managed to keep it.
If you tell me this is part of the reason, then I'll understand perfectly...I won't like it...but, I'll understand it. If not, I think there are meta-advantages of opening larger tables...but, I'll talk to you about that personally.
So, I just go up to them introduce myself, mention a bit about pokerforum.ca, and say "I'd like to speak to the Fallsview representative that posts there that goes by the alias 13CARDS"...all of them know you by that alias? Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to know your first name.
Enough of them know that I post on here (and other forums). Someone should know who/where I am...
You will when you meet me. Chances are you already know me. I prefer to keep my name private and used only in person.