Do all Poker rooms have the 'reducing' rule?

**FishFace5** · 11-17-09, 09:30 AM

STOP SHORT STACKING U BUM. The rule is there for a reason. Short stackers r scum. I've never heard of losing and not being able to reload though. You can lose 1 dollar or 100 dollars in a hand and top-off the very next hand.

**TheBeautifulGame** · 11-17-09, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by FishFace5

STOP SHORT STACKING U BUM. The rule is there for a reason. Short stackers r scum. I've never heard of losing and not being able to reload though. You can lose 1 dollar or 100 dollars in a hand and top-off the very next hand.

What the hell is wrong with it? You buy in with say $10. Win $10 and would like to 'bank' the $10 that you won and carry on with your original $10. Nothing wrong with it IMO.

You don't need to be such a prick.

**Barbarian** · 11-17-09, 10:09 AM

All poker rooms have this rule, only timeframe for it may differ. AFAIR the term is "chip collecting"

**FishFace5** · 11-17-09, 10:14 AM

I apologize. Hot button topic in poker world right now. Shouldn't have attacked u, guess you were just askin a legit question. Short stacking is viewed negatively because you are not actually playin poker. Your options are limited to the size of your stack, takin a lot of the strategy out of the game. Many players only shortstack now and at a full-ring table u often see 4 or 5 shortstacks. Most sites are now adopting min. buy-in tables. So if ur playing 1\2 no limit u have to sit down with at least 50 bb's.

**themajormt** · 11-17-09, 10:21 AM

TBG, you are kind of at an advantage when doing this because you are more prone to going all in with little at risk. I 110% believe this is a fair rule and justified. You shouldnt be able to WIN someones money and then not have to risk it the very next hand. That isnt poker pal...

**TheBeautifulGame** · 11-17-09, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by FishFace5

I apologize. Hot button topic in poker world right now. Shouldn't have attacked u, guess you were just askin a legit question. Short stacking is viewed negatively because you are not actually playin poker. Your options are limited to the size of your stack, takin a lot of the strategy out of the game. Many players only shortstack now and at a full-ring table u often see 4 or 5 shortstacks. Most sites are now adopting min. buy-in tables. So if ur playing 1\2 no limit u have to sit down with at least 50 bb's.

No worries, just having a bit of bad day myself. When I think about it, I guess it's cheating. I'm barely above a beginner myself. I say I'm above a beginner because some people that I play against just haven't a clue. Going all in with $30 on a pair of 2's. lol

**TheBeautifulGame** · 11-17-09, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by themajormt

TBG, you are kind of at an advantage when doing this because you are more prone to going all in with little at risk. I 110% believe this is a fair rule and justified. You shouldnt be able to WIN someones money and then not have to risk it the very next hand. That isnt poker pal...

When you put it that way, you're right. Initially I just thought it was a good way to keep control of my funds.

**Waiting4Godot** · 11-17-09, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by TheBeautifulGame

What the hell is wrong with it? You buy in with say $10. Win $10 and would like to 'bank' the $10 that you won and carry on with your original $10. Nothing wrong with it IMO.

You can't take money off the table at a brick/mortar casino, so why should you be able to online? I've never seen someone win money, leave a table and try to come back to that same table with less... so I don't know the rule there.

I'd hate to play at a table where everyone did this... 9 people all with $10 -- it would be pure gambling.. like how people play with play-money chips. Some % of the people would just go all in preflop and the winner removes the 'profit'... with the losers reupping to $10.

**FishFace5** · 11-17-09, 11:01 AM

As much as i disdain this style of play, it is a good strategy for beginners (pro's do it, so why shouldn't you). It is not cheating, the rules allow it. It is a good way to learn and keep your risk low. The more you play, you will learn to use your short stack to your advantage and also how the bigger stacks combat you. This being said, don't be surprised if you catch some flack for being a "short stacker".

**mtneer1212** · 11-17-09, 12:22 PM

Ratholing should be punishable by death.

**pokernut9999** · 11-17-09, 04:46 PM

No

**Igetp2s** · 11-17-09, 10:20 PM

How exactly is it an advantage to anyone. You risk less, but you can't win as much. Isn't that exactly the same scenario as when you decided how much to sit down at a table with? You could sit down with $10 or $100. Does the person who sat down with $10 have an advantage? That's complete nonsense.

There should be absolutely nothing wrong with taking chips off the table. How anyone thinks there's an advantage to doing that is beyond me.

Besides, you can just move to another table with the same stakes anyway, and play with as many chips as you want. What difference does it make?

**LVHerbie** · 11-17-09, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Igetp2s

How exactly is it an advantage to anyone. You risk less, but you can't win as much. Isn't that exactly the same scenario as when you decided how much to sit down at a table with? You could sit down with $10 or $100. Does the person who sat down with $10 have an advantage? That's complete nonsense.

There should be absolutely nothing wrong with taking chips off the table. How anyone thinks there's an advantage to doing that is beyond me.

Besides, you can just move to another table with the same stakes anyway, and play with as many chips as you want. What difference does it make?

Playing short greatly simplifies the game and when you are deep your mistakes get magnified... Alot of player will also change their game and style when they win and get deep (either tighten up or playing looser) which is beneficial to the other players...

I personally don't mind people playing short (very few do it good anyhow) but the rule about not being able to come back with less then you left with is good IMO...

Most of the people complaining don't adjust their game properly to the short stakes as well... Online there are enough games to choose from it shouldn't be that big of an issue anyhow as the short stakes and can find another table and those who have issues with short stakes can also move (fulltilt and pokerstars both offer deep tables now) if they think they are playing against too many short stakes...

**iwutitan** · 11-18-09, 12:05 AM

Any site i've played at has this rule

**Igetp2s** · 11-18-09, 11:11 PM

Can you imagine a sportsbook dictating how much you have to wager? Your $110 to win $100 wager yesterday wins, so now the sportsbook requires your next bet to be for $210. Or if you win a $10 hand in blackjack, the next hand you have to bet $20.
They'd be out of business pretty quickly because it's so absurd.

It's exactly the same scenario. In NL, all your chips on the table are potentially at risk on a single hand. It's idiotic to give people a choice in how much they sit down with, and how much to rebuy with if you lose all your chips, but not give people a choice in how much to keep on the table if you win some.

**FishFace5** · 11-19-09, 09:42 AM

You are not playing against the house. You are playing against others at the table. Why should you be able to win a hand against me and put the money in your pocket and continue to play (especially considering your short to begin with)? If you want to get up and walk away that's fine (*I will remember you are a hit and run player of course) but if you want to continue to play then my chips stay on the table.

**Waiting4Godot** · 11-19-09, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Igetp2s

Can you imagine a sportsbook dictating how much you have to wager? Your $110 to win $100 wager yesterday wins, so now the sportsbook requires your next bet to be for $210. Or if you win a $10 hand in blackjack, the next hand you have to bet $20.
They'd be out of business pretty quickly because it's so absurd.

It's exactly the same scenario. In NL, all your chips on the table are potentially at risk on a single hand. It's idiotic to give people a choice in how much they sit down with, and how much to rebuy with if you lose all your chips, but not give people a choice in how much to keep on the table if you win some.

This is one of the worst strawman (is that the right term??) arguments that I've ever seen.

**gman2114** · 11-19-09, 10:04 AM

short stackers dont last long. i find them super gamblers and easy pickins. they cant push you. they only rule against them is not to chase draws. make them chase you.