There was a little incident last Friday at the T&I Card Room and I wanted to post here to discuss.
First of all, the concurrent cash game/tourney play is a little new to me so I'm still learning. We have had plenty of nights with a cash game after a tournament but having both running simultaneously with the option of going back and forth is a rarity. Last time was the "all-in blind Steve night" and once again there was controversy.
Mistake number one for me was cashing people out of the ring game to play in the sit and go. That was intended to free up chips for any other players but in retrospect I should have just plaqued players up and set their stacks aside. This ended up being a minor issue since Chris cashed out for exactly (to the chip) a full buy-in. Tiffany cashed out short but bought back in full. I cashed out up about a rack but bought back in for the same amount. No harm, no foul.
So I thought I smartened up for the second sit and go and just set chips aside instead of cashing out. But by the time the second sit and go was wrapping up there was controversy on the cash table. One of the players wanted to take chips off the table. From what I understand, he was up some, went to the sit and go, busted out quickly, returned to the cash table, won some more, then wanted to sock away some winnings. For everyone's edification the rule as stated in Robert's Rules is: "7. If you return to the same game within one hour of cashing out, your buy-in must be equal to the amount removed when leaving that game." The rule is in place to allow people to win back their chips but it sounded like this wasn't even an issue since he came back with his original stack. But once he hit a big pot and tried to pull chips of the table, things got sideways quickly as a heated discussion broke out.
I wish I had come over from the other table earlier to try to resolve the situation since, as the default floor manager, I want things to run smoothly for everyone. I would have liked to explained the reasoning behind the rule about going south and offered the player the opportunity to replace all or some of his chips. If he didn't care to do so, I think a fair compromise under that situation would be that the WNP crew, as gracious guests, would allow the player who wasn't aware of the rule to take off all but roughly a buy-in. Yes, that would be bending the rules somewhat but I think it would have been better overall. Not only would it have helped keep the peace but if a player is concerned about locking in profits for the session then I don't think you're going to get much action anyway. By allowing him to move back down to a buy-in, I think there would be more chance to get a bunch of chips than forcing him to have his whole "vault" at risk. And by putting it to the player to play all or nothing, the option of nothing can and did happen as he cashed out and left which provided zero chance of getting any money back.
I'm not saying we should allow going south. I'm just saying that in that particular circumstance, I think it would have been better that we let it happen. And I realize that if a player is not listening then no amount of reasoning is going to do anything. But I also think that more could have been done to prevent the outcome that happened.