Passing chips at the table

Unknown

And I don't mean potato chips.  I know how to do that.

I was playing in a NL cash game.  It wasn't in a casino... it was in a home game, but it was a raked home game, so it was kinda like a casino.  Friendly, but not TOO friendly.

At one point, my friend busted out.  I knew he didn't have any more cash on him, I knew he wanted to play some more, and I knew he'd pay me back right after the game via a stop at a bank machine.  I had about $350 or so in front of me (playing $2/$4 blinds).  I slid him over $100 from my stack. 

The dealer mentioned that the host of the game might not appreciate that.  We took a quick survey of the table, nobody minded, and we continued to play.  Later on, I was getting shortstacked and my friend had been doing well, so he slid the $100 in chips back to me.

I guess my question is: how serious a transgression is this?  I'll be honest, I don't play many NL hold'em cash games.  As a matter of fact, I pretty much never do... just limit cash and NL sit and go's and tournaments.  So I was trying to figure out what the difference is between sliding my buddy $100 from my stack, and pulling $100 in cash from my pocket and giving that to him.  I guess it's not so much about how he gets the $100 in chips as it is about the fact that I am LOSING $100 in chips from my stack.

That being said, I was down from my original $400 buy-in.  So it's not like I was taking MONEY THAT I'D WON out of play.  Is this still a transgression, and if so, is it a serious one?  Would you let this fly?

compuease

Definitely a No No in a Casino environment. You are altering the dynamics of the table. It would have been fine for you to take cash from your pocket to loan him but you not from the table.. Same for him to come back to you.

SocietyRed

I would mind that in a home game, even less if its a limit game. At a casino you could have $5000 stack in front of you playing 10/20 LHE and they wont let you pass any to anyone else, but they do let you pay for drinks out of you stack, makes no sense to me. I watched a guy at Casino Windsor take $50 and pay for several drinks that were on his tab and no one said anything to him.

13CARDS

The core of the situation is that by removing $100 from your stack and lending it to your buddy, that money is now no longer "at risk". If you move all in the next hand and lose, you know you are getting that $100 back from your friend, which actually would have been part of your all in lose.

The term for this is TABLE STAKES. It means that whatever chips you have in play must stay in play until you are finished playing at that table. You cannot go into your pocket once involved in a hand and you cannot put winnings (or your original buy-in!...or ANY* money for that matter) into your pocket.

Lending a friend money OUT OF YOUR POCKET would be 100% acceptable. It leaves all of your stack in play and adds another player (and more importantly MORE MONEY!) to the game.

And Limit or No Limit, makes no difference if it is table stakes.


* Tips for drinks can come out of your stack, Paying for drinks/food/whatever really should come from your wallet.

ScottyZ

In general, this is unacceptable. While the merits of the "no taking chips off the table" rule may be open to theoretical debate, there is no doubt that this is a long-standing poker rule in a practical sense, both in formal casinos and home games alike.1

The dealer mentioned that the host of the game might not appreciate that.

At this point, I think you should have either checked with the host of the game (and not the other players), or, if the host was not available, taken the dealer's hint that passing chips to your friend was not kosher.

It is up the host of the game to either make this decision, or, if the host decides to do so, defer to the players at the table.

ScottyZ

1However, few online poker rooms (though some do) enforce a version of this rule.

moose

Yes by loaning your buddy your chips you are not changing the amount of money in play and you are making it more difficult for the other players to win that money.

AcidJoe

To me that would be a big NO NO. I remember one day at Rama, some kid had used his whole stash for the buy in and wanted to take $10 off the table for dinner. Rama strictly enforced the fact that he couldn't. He bought in for $400 and had maybe $350 in front of him. He complained that others had been buying drinks etc from their stack and he didn't see the difference. They wouldn't let him do it. I think he cut a deal with a waitress tho, cuz he tipped her $25 then left next hand for dinner. Where there's a will there's a way.

Hork42

I don't think this should be done in a typical game, though it may be acceptable where everyone knows each other, but not in a casino or 'raked-homegame'

In one of the High Stakes Poker episodes, Jerry Buss busts out and turns to Negreanu and asks to borrow $50,000. Negreanu passes it over instantly and none of the other players had any problem with it. Now, Daniel did have everyone else outstacked by about $800K (He bought in for 1mil while, everyone else was about 100k) so it didn't really impact the dynamics of the table.

roketinpoket

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it unless the friend cashed out without giving the money back. As long as it's still on the table the money is at risk, whether it's at your risk or someone elses doesn't matter to me. I would have more of a problem with people paying for drinks (including tips, not sure why that makes a difference to some people) since the moneys not at risk anymore.

CoolHandWray

In a home game, raked or non raked. If the players at the table all agree, then it should be allowed.

I would prefer that a player who busted out be allowed to "borrow" another buyin from a friend at the table, as it keeps the game full.

It always seems that if the busted player has a buddy and they arent allowed to lend another buyin to eachother, they both will leave the game.

I would rather a full table, where one player is lent his buyin, than a short handed table.

This obviously isnt allowed at a casino, but the OP stated this was a Cash Home Game. Had the Operator of the game elected not to allow this, then the players must go by the "house
rules". But IMO, most Home Game Operators prefer to see a full table.