Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
What's the rule in this example. Say someone bought in for \$500 at \$2\5 their stack dropped to say \$40. Are they allowed to add on \$100 to bring their stack up to \$140?

Big debate started on whats the rule if minimum buyin is \$200. If you got zero dollars you have to buyin \$200 minimum but does that mean add on also has to bring your stack up to \$200 minimum? Where as if you had \$300 you can add on \$100 without issue because stack size is above minimum. Does that mean if the player is forced to play just \$40 if that is his last \$100?

• RCP Coach Posts: 1,755 -
edited April 2016
In most rooms, if you have any chips at all, it is an add-on, no restrictions.
If you are out of chips, then it is a rebuy with minimum requirements
Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
Author Poker Plays You Can Use
Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
• Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
Doug Hull wrote: »
In most rooms, if you have any chips at all, it is an add-on, no restrictions.
If you are out of chips, then it is a rebuy with minimum requirements

Thank you that is what I thought. The floor management was saying we will allow it one time, but next time it has to be at least \$200. It didn't sound right to me because it wasn't an initial buyin or busto and rebuy, but simply an add on.

I'll be sure to run it by the casino as I am not sure they are aware of some of their own rules.
• Red Chipper Posts: 34 ✭✭
Several rooms I've been to will allow a single 'short buy' even in a 'busto' situation.
• Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
The argument continues even the floor disagrees with each other.

2\\3\5
*short buy only allowed once then next buyin assuming busto has to be minimum of \$200.

Here are the arguments:
We know what happens when you have zero chips but when you have chips on the table despite the amount is it called short buy or add on?

If min buyin is \$200 and you have \$50 on the table after losing big pot is it called add on if you add just \$100 or short buy?

Next argument:
Can you continue to add \$100 each time you get short (have chips on table) even though your below minimum?

I always thought definition of add on was your adding to chips on table and short buy was only if you have zero chips.
• Red Chipper Posts: 35 ✭✭
Austin wrote: »
The argument continues even the floor disagrees with each other.

2\\3\5
*short buy only allowed once then next buyin assuming busto has to be minimum of \$200.

Here are the arguments:
We know what happens when you have zero chips but when you have chips on the table despite the amount is it called short buy or add on?

If min buyin is \$200 and you have \$50 on the table after losing big pot is it called add on if you add just \$100 or short buy?

Next argument:
Can you continue to add \$100 each time you get short (have chips on table) even though your below minimum?

I always thought definition of add on was your adding to chips on table and short buy was only if you have zero chips.

Your thinking is spot on. It is only a rebuy if you get felted. However.................more and more lately the "floor" function at a lot of rooms I have played in seems like it has become an extra duty rotated amongst many personnel rather than a highly experienced person familiar with the rules. This results in some rather bizarre rulings at times. If I get involved in one of these off the wall decisions and I cannot get it fixed Ill usually just keep my mouth shut, make a note of it, and wait until someone who I know is on top of things (like one of the MAIN managers in the room) is around and tell them about it with a diplomatic suggestion that maybe the dealer or floor person who made the ruling needs some "education". If its REALLY bad and even the room honcho has it wrong, I have in one particular instance involving collusion (it was so ridiculous the whole table complained and was told if we didn't like it we could leave.) even filed a complaint with the gaming commission rep on site where I was playing. I got a nice steak dinner and room comp with an apology out of that one. lol. IF after floating your complaint through all channels you get nowhere.......just play somewhere else if its a serious enough detriment to your enjoyment or EV. Vote with your feet. There is one room in my area I no longer play at due to goofy rulings and lax enforcement.
• Red Chipper Posts: 5,483 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just wanted to make sure I was educated correctly on the matter as many players have disagreed with me and are only listening to a higher stake player. It doesn't effect me as i play \$1\2 and almost always full stack. It concerns me that the floor seems to be listening to the player as well. The player stated that when you add on say you have \$300 and you add on \$100, he is stating next time you add on it has to be to Max, and cannot add on any more money unless its to table max. "It's a short buy." if the floor listens to this i will have to bring it up with management.

I can understand if a player never goes all in and constantly saves \$5 then just keeps adding on \$100 that should not be allowed for abusing minimum buyin policy.
• Red Chipper Posts: 74 ✭✭
Doug Hull wrote: »
In most rooms, if you have any chips at all, it is an add-on, no restrictions.
If you are out of chips, then it is a rebuy with minimum requirements

Doug of course is correct.

Unless your room has some crazy rules, it sounds like the floor people there are inexperienced and uneducated. If you get felted, you must rebuy for at least the table minimum. (As someone else posted, some rooms I have played in allow a single short buy for less than the minimum. ) However, if you have at least 1 chip on the table, it is an add on, not a short buy. If not, I would be guilty of short buying excessively since I generally keep a stack of chips in my pocket and will regularly add on for as little as \$5, \$10 and \$20 to keep my stack topped off to the maximum buy- in level if I start getting blinded down a bit. Adding on like this in small increments is perfectly legal and if your stack has been beaten-down to a much smaller amount is no different.
• RCP Coach Posts: 1,755 -
The observation that the Floor is often inconsistent is very reasonable and happens for the reasons sited. They need to listen to my podcast on "The reason behind the rules" (http://redchippoker.com/why-poker-rules-exist-podcast/)

To some degree these kinds of rules are just not that important. No money is going to the wrong person, it does not effect the play of a given hand and is more about the ecoculture of the room.

We prefer more money on the table (and that is why the min-buy rule exists.) I just don't get involved in this kind of thing mostly unless some guy keeps putting minuscule amounts of money on the table nurturing a micro-stack when someone else could come in with some money. With abuse of the situation like that, the Floor can invoke the overarching rule "The best interest of the game."
Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
Author Poker Plays You Can Use
Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks