Log-in members only
Perry FriedmanThis is a discussion thread · 8 replies Rich: Hi Perry,I generally see you chime in on the threads about Full Tilt and you've done a great job of helping players here. I didn't see a reply from you or anyone else related to the site in the thread I started about ratholing at the NL tables, though. It's called "Full Tilt: Stop the Ratholing." It would be nice to hear from someone associated with the site about whether this is something that's going to be fixed or not, and when. I have yet to see a reply to the email about it that I sent to the support staff on Saturday. Rich Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Perry Friedman: I know that they are aware of the issue, it is on the plate to be dealt with, but it is a relatively low priority I think, because of reasons people have brought up.Personally, if it were up to me, I'd let people rathole without even getting up from the table. At the Tiltboys home game, we have a "line" that you can put money in front of, or pull back behind, befoer the start of any hand. Only the money in front of the line plays for that hand. We used to have some limits as to how much you could bring up, or how much you had to leave if you pulled back, but the first half was removed  I think ratholing does help protect the weaker players, but over the long haul, doing so is in the best interest of everyone (the card room, the player himself, and the other players). You don't want a player losing their whole bankroll in one session and never coming back and you don't want them to have an unpleasant exeperience. And even a good player could have a great session and lose one humongous pot and go broke. I'd rather have people be allowed to play at a certain comfort level than just pull money off from time to time, than have them have to get up, leave, and then sit out for 10 or 15 minutes before they can come back and play with less money. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on what camp you are in), I don't get to make the decisions about ratholing :-) Perry
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Rich: [nq:1]I know that they are aware of the issue, it is on the plate to be dealt with, but it is a relatively low priority I think, because of reasons people have brought up.[/nq]Ok, thanks. [nq:1]I think ratholing does help protect the weaker players, but over the long haul, doing so is in the best interest of everyone (the card room, the player himself, and the other players).[/nq] I don't think it's in the best interest of the other players at all. As I mentioned in my other post, after one player did it then someone else liked the idea and did it as well. Between them they took 150x the big blind off the table. Was that good for the other 7 players at the table? Some of the players had lost that money, I'm sure they would have liked a chance to win it back rather than have it taken out of play. [nq:1]You don't want a player losing their whole bankroll in one session and never coming back and you don't want them to have an unpleasant exeperience. And even a good player could have a great session and lose one humongous pot and go broke.[/nq] I don't agree with your arguments there at all. We're talking about taking money off of the table that someone won, not someone protecting their previous bankroll. Also, they would only lose their entire bankroll in one hand if they bought in for their entire bankroll. I think most people, even bad players, are going to be smart enough not to do that. [nq:1]I'd rather have people be allowed to play at a certain comfort level than just pull money off from time ... leave, and then sit out for 10 or 15 minutes before they can come back and play with less money.[/nq] They don't necessarily have to sit out for 10 or 15 minutes, they just can't rejoin that specific table for 10 or 15 minutes. [nq:1]Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on what camp you are in), I don't get to make the decisions about ratholing :-)[/nq] Ok. Rich Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
A. Prock: According to Rich (Email Removed):[nq:1]I don't think it's in the best interest of the other players at all. As I mentioned in my other ... I'm sure they would have liked a chance to win it back rather than have it taken out of play.[/nq] This is such BS. Anti-ratholing rules are there to help the good players clean out the bad players more quickly. Any cardroom with any sense of priorities would cater to the bad players, making them happy and long term customers. Keeping the pros happy is the least of their worries. - Andrew http://www.pokerstove.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Marcstar: It seems like you are the only one that has a problem with it Rich. I play on FT as well and could care less and agree with the reasons others have posted. Obviously everyone can think how they want on this issue and I don't see a clear right or wrong eithicly with either side.Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Anonymous: [nq:2]I think ratholing does help protect the weaker players, but ... (the card room, the player himself, and the other players).[/nq][nq:1]I don't think it's in the best interest of the other players at all. As I mentioned in my other ... I'm sure they would have liked a chance to win it back rather than have it taken out of play.[/nq] I think there are reasons for and against allowing "rat-holing" and I think it is to the on-line poker world's benefit to have some sites that allow it and some sites that don't so that everyone has a place where they can feel comfortable.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Linda K Sherman: [nq:1]I think ratholing does help protect the weaker players, but over the long haul, doing so is in the best ... unpleasant exeperience. And even a good player could have a great session and lose one humongous pot and go broke.[/nq]I agree, as long as the minimum they have to keep on the table is reasonable. It's especially illogical in a restricted buy-in game to not allow people to rathole any amount they have above the maximum buy-in. You're basically forcing them to play with an advantage while preventing everyone else from doing so. In online play, the would-be ratholers (who are often the biggest fish) just jump to another table if they want to pocket their winnings. I'd rather let them take some of it off and keep them there.People just get stupid about this whole idea of keeping money on the table. In a 4/8 game in Tunica a couple years ago, a fishie newbie type went on a rush until he had over six racks worth of chips stacked up in front of him. His wife comes in and he gives her one of the racks, which she takes off with. Naturally, the local table cops start making a stink about this. I mean, come on people, the guy still has over $500 in front of him in a 4/8 game. The dealer wouldn't have done anything, but since a couple of players protested, the player wound up having to go get his wife and get the chips back, so now we were 9-handed for an orbit. Then he came back, played for about fifteen minutes, and cashed out. Lin Linda K. Sherman linsherman (atsign) tampabay (stop) rr (stop) com John Kerry for President.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
John Forsberg: [nq:1]It's especially illogical in a restricted buy-in game to not allow people to rathole any amount they have above the maximum buy-in. You're basically forcing them to play with an advantage while preventing everyone else from doing so.[/nq]Surely they have no advantage when playing the shorter stacks? The only advantage I can see is if you are better than the other players with bigger-than-maximum-stacks. For a lot of sucky players there must be a pretty big disadvantage to be playing with a big stack if they are up against one or two good players who also happen to have big stacks. Or am I missing anything? In online play, the would-be ratholers [nq:1](who are often the biggest fish) just jump to another table if they want to pocket their winnings. I'd rather let them take some of it off and keep them there.[/nq] Indeedely, that's what I did when learning omaha, and I'm pretty sure that some players would have liked more table time with me.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Rich: [nq:1]It seems like you are the only one that has a problem with it Rich.[/nq]That may not be the case at all. Just because I'm the only person who mentioned it here doesn't mean other people aren't bothered by it. Perry did say the Full Tilt people were aware of it. [nq:1]I play on FT as well and could care less and agree with the reasons others have posted. Obviously everyone can think how they want on this issue and I don't see a clear right or wrong eithicly with either side.[/nq] We'll see what happens. I was just surprised to see a cardroom with so many big name players associated with it allow something like this, when I can't remember a single other online cardroom I've played at that does. Perhaps they are just doing it to generate more rake. If the policy doesn't change I can always vote with my feet. Rich Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
| Have a question? People are waiting to help. Interesting stuff |
All RSS Feeds