How does leaving chips on the table as opposed to in your pocket make a difference? Peekercpa has stated explicitly his intention of NOT betting the money despite its presence on the table. If the player has no intention of using the chip, that’s pretty much it. You aren’t getting that money no matter where it is. If anything, by leaving money on the table that you have no intention of ever betting is more deceitful than informing the other players that these chips are not in play.
As for nuance, I can accept that it is an arbitrary custom, but functionally the dance is entirely for show.
It is against the rules because you are limiting your liability to me getting a big hand over you. It’s a corollary to the rule that you can’t pull out more money when you get a big hand over me. The idea is that going into every hand we should both know exactly how much money each of us is at stake to lose, because that is a factor in all decision-making (especially in no-limit). And the amount you have in front of you should only change by the amount you win or lose, until you leave the game.
As a silly example, I could keep adding money to the table when I’m on or near the button, and pull it off when I’m out of position, thus increasing my potential winnings in powerful situations and decreasing it in weak situations (almost equivalent to increasing my bet after seeing my first card in Blackjack, for example).
More realistically, you beat me with an Ace-high flush over my King-high, taking a few hundred off me. You then put that in your pocket. When I make a big hand against you, I should have an opportunity to win my money back, not be limited to putting you all-in for 50 bucks.
Maybe the key is that the “amount you are willing to lose” isn’t really your decision to make like it is in Blackjack. If I bet into you, you either have to call or fold. You can’t just say “let’s stop here, I don’t want to lose this other money”.
I must not understand poker.
Could you explain a situation to me where peekercpa would be required to bet his $100 chip?
And if the chip was in his pocket he would NOT need to bet his 100 bucks?
This is the part that is incorrect. If the chip is on the table, Peekercpa can’t just not play it without folding his hand (in which case I win the pot).
Especially in no-limit, this can be an important distinction. If I bet more than he is willing to lose, he has to fold. If I bet everything he has on the table (because he pulled some off and put it in his pocket), he can call for that smaller amount. This is a massive difference in the expected outcome, and is not fair.
In a table stakes game you must call an opponents bet to get to the “showdown” where the winner is determined. If at any time your opponent bets, you have enough chips to call, and you choose not to, you “fold” and forfeit your chance at the pot. However, if your opponent bets and you don’t have enough to call (are “All In”) you retain your chance to win the pot (however much you were able to call for).
By pulling a chip off, he is making it possible to go “all in” without risking that $100. If he kept it on the table he would not have that choice - if his opponent bet, he would have to call (risking money he didn’t want to lose) or fold (giving up the pot).
Well, not really… I mean you’re not keeping the money for yourself, you’re tipping it out. The key to ratholeing problem is that you’re taking money you won from other players and keeping it for yourself rather than giving them a fair chance at winning it back. Tips and rakes are just the “cost” of playing in a nice poker room.
I’m not sure I follow this - you kept your seat at the cash game or left the game? Obviously you take everything off the table when you leave the game, and AFAIK there is really no rule (written or otherwise) about how much you should bring back with you if you return to the game.
In the tipping example, dollars are leaving the table and the other players have no opportunity to win it back. Sure it is much less than “going south” with $100 but the concept is still the same. And I am not talking about the rake (or the BB Jackpot) I am talking about tips for the dealer, or even the cocktail waitress.
And by taking $70 dollars off the table to enter a game, the tournament might not start for an hour or so and the tournament staff was going around selling the entries.
and as a total aside talking about leaving the chips on the table. plenty of times i have “put it in my pocket” and then subsequently get a whopper. and then say, screw it this is bet the house time. a couple of minutes later i am sitting at the nickel slots.
The rake and tokes are a big reason dealers tend to play in bars and each others’ houses instead of casinos. In Louisiana (the birthplace of our beloved game), the best low-stakes action is in the bars.
Agreed, but it does of course depend on the relative stack size, how long the game has been going, whether you are a big winner at the time, etc. In this situation, I would ask all the other players at the table if they were happy with this before doing it.
sachertorte, in addition to Jas09’s excellent responses, this is another reason that taking money off the table is not allowed - if the money is off the table, you are actually not allowed to bet it, whereas if it is on the table, you are, no matter how much you have declared that you are not going to. This means that you might be tempted to bet it if you come across a big hand, for example (in Texas Holdem) a pair of Kings. You see the pair of Kings and think, “screw what I said earlier, I’m betting all my chips here”. You then have the opportunity to lose that money to another player’s pair of Aces.
I think tipping the dealer out of your stack is entirely expected. Tipping the waitstaff out of your stack is probably fine in most places as well, as it is such a small proportion of the money in front of you. But strictly speaking it is incorrect, unless the whole table gets a round of drinks and agrees to take the tip from the pot currently in play (which I have seen done routinely, when all the players agree).
ETA: to answer your question, the reason one is more acceptable than the other is that tipping the dealer is an integral part of poker, having drinks served to you is not, though you may think it is!