Poker etiquette (2 Viewers)

[WedgeRock]

Terrible rule.

What if you misread your hand? What if you miscalculate what the nuts is? What if that nuts change? What if you have second nuts (holding 9s on a TsJsQsKsXx board)?

Too many problems with it, yet the natives get restless if you don't follow the rule to the letter (even tho you said you can exploit/bluff by choosing to bet something other than the nuts)...

 

[CHP TD]

Can i ask why you asked about this?

Bottom line the newbie did everything right according to the rules. let me say this again she did everything according to the rules. And you know it. You at least owe her an apology and deep down It just doesn't sit right with you.

You are free to do what you want. but this has already cost you a potential player, and that is really important cause the strength of your game is based on newbies.

but possibly the more important thing is your job as a tourney director is to hold up the integrity of the game - You have failed at that job, hurt others, and degraded the game.

What i see there is more damage being created by this "gentleman's agreement" than any good its doing.

just a bit sad to see...

 

[Trihonda]

The new-ish gal looked perplexed, but after some discussion seemed to get it.

About 25 minutes later, this happened again with her—and people again tried to explain it. I could see she was still confused and also embarrassed, though I thought people discussed it diplomatically.

Anyway, she hasn't been back for the past few games. Could be unrelated, but I suspect she won’t be back.

because it is essentially a gentleman’s agreement.

The prob is obv... she wasn’t required to follow this agreement, as she is NOT a gentleman (as evidenced above). Now you know why the lectures prob didn’t sit well.

/discussion.

 

[Taghkanic]

The prob is obv... she wasn’t required to follow this agreement, as she is NOT a gentleman (as evidenced above). Now you know why the lectures prob didn’t sit well.

/discussion.

LOL. But they weren’t lectures, they were calm and friendly explanations.

 

[Trihonda]

weren’t lectures....calm and friendly explanations.

Lol. Every time my wife discusses lowering the toilet seat, it is just a calm and friendly explanation (in her mind).

 

[Taghkanic]

let me say this again she did everything according to the rules. And you know it. You at least owe her an apology and deep down It just doesn't sit right with you.

You are free to do what you want. but this has already cost you a potential player, and that is really important cause the strength of your game is based on newbies.

What drama! It was nothing like you describe. And (for the seventeenth time) no one said she did anything against “the rules.” Rather, people explained—very nicely—a longstanding custom among this group of players. One which no one has ever objected to, though sometimes people disregard it. Which is their right. Still, she deserved to know what everyone else’s assumption are; to not tell her would be unfair.

And the strength of this game—which has been drawing two tables of players since 2008—is our regs. Newbies come and go; some of them stick, some don’t, for a variety of reasons. (The most common reason: The field is tough, and mediocre play won’t cut it.) We don’t usually bend over backward for new players, because the game has survived multiple venues across most of a decade.

Even so, people have gone to great lengths to help this player, whose skill level and knowledge of the game in general is well below our usual newbie. (See above: constantly needs help with what the blinds are, what a minimum bet/raise can be, etc.) She was only let in because her sponsor was one of our longest-standing regs.

but possibly the more important thing is your job as a tourney director is to hold up the integrity of the game - You have failed at that job, hurt others, and degraded the game.

Seriously, if this is what causes you to lament the state of the game, I have to say: Get over yourself.

 

[Trihonda]

people have gone to great lengths to help this player, whose skill level and knowledge of the game in general is well below our usual newbie. (See above: constantly needs help with what the blinds are, what a minimum bet/raise can be, etc.) She was only let in because her sponsor was one of our longest-standing regs.

If this is the case, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time lamenting over her not coming back. If it’s her thing, and she had fun, she’ll come back. If it’s not her thing, she won’t. I’m all for helping promote the game, and introducing new people... but sounds like she was more work than typical?

 

[Jambine]

And the strength of this game—which has been drawing two tables of players since 2008—is our regs

Just read through this thread again, and I really need to ask. What rules or regs are we referring to? To last 10 years there must be a specific codified set of rules in use

 

[Taghkanic]

Just read through this thread again, and I really need to ask. What rules or regs are we referring to? To last 10 years there must be a specific codified set of rules in use

The rules of this game are standard. Nothing that would surprise any experienced poker player. Some were circulated maybe five years ago; I would guess it was based either on WSOP or Roberts Rules. But we have not had to pull out any rules for a very long time. If there is a question or dispute, we discuss it. If someone has to referee a situation which can't be resolved by consensus, the host makes the decision. That might happen once every 18 months at most.

The custom which has gotten at least one PCF member’s panties in a bunch is that people almost always check it down on 3+ way all-in hands close to the bubble. This is not explicitly stated during the hand. It’s just what people in this game generally do, for the obvious reasons.

If someone makes a very strong hand, they generally bet. If they make the nuts, they always bet. But unless the short stack is very, very short, it is a general understanding that the hand will usually be checked down. (And it’s certainly not specific to any player; over time, the custom impacts everyone basically equally.)

But not a rule. Just a custom.

 

[Jambine]

The rules of this game are standard. Nothing that would surprise any experienced poker player. We have not had to pull out a rulebook for a very long time.

I'm not familiar with "standard" rules. For many years I've used Robert's Rules of Poker. Currently using version 11, as amended (TDA rules for tournament, subordinate to Robert's Rules).
Even with most of my regulars being casino dealers, we still go to the rulebook occasionally.

 

[Taghkanic]

I'm not familiar with "standard" rules. For many years I've used Robert's Rules of Poker. Currently using version 11, as amended (TDA rules for tournament, subordinate to Robert's Rules).
Even with most of my regulars being casino dealer, we still go to the rulebook occasionally.

Well... If you were invited to someone’s home tourney for the first time, what would you assume were the rules? Would there be topics you would feel the need to quiz the host about in advance, to make sure you were clear?

I wouldn’t need to ask. The slight differences between most sets of rules are pretty obscure and rarely come up, in my experience. I play in many different home/underground games, and have never felt the demanded to see which rules (TDA, Roberts, etc.) are in play.

If I encounter a game I think is badly run, I just don’t go back. That’s all.

One topic I have sometimes seen get contentious (not at my game, but others) is the handling of misdeals. In particular, if a turn card gets exposed prematurely, I have seen people get into arguments about how that should be handled. And hosts don’t always handle them “right” in my book. (I have also seen casino dealers botch rules.) But such arguments usually have less to do with real differences about rules than people getting bent out of shape because they wanted that card to play...

Another thing which tends to vary in home games, is the extent of speech play allowed, or (say) doing things like showing one card to induce/deter action, when heads-up on the river/all-in. Generally the better the players know each other, and like each other, the more antics seem to get allowed.

 

[Jambine]

Well... If you were invited to someone’s home tourney for the first time, what would you assume were the rules? Would there be topics you would feel the need to quiz the host about in advance, to make sure you were clear about?

No need to quiz anyone. I simply ask "what rules are you using"

 

[Taghkanic]

I simply ask "what rules are you using"

What differences in the most common sets of rules are you concerned about that would change how you play in that game?

And how often do you need to have ask to have those rules referenced specifically?

(My own answers are: Virtually none, and basically never. Could happen... But most games I find have enough communal poker knowledge to resolve things both correctly, and amicably. What matters most is that everyone feels things were handled fairly, and no one stomps off in a huff.)

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. The one question I do frequently hear asked at non-casino tournaments, since they often have a high hand jackpot, is what the house’s high hand rules are... (One card vs. two card, has to go to the river vs. any made hand, etc.)

 

[Jambine]

What differences in the most common sets of rules are you concerned about that would change how you play in that game?

And how often do you need to have ask to have those rules referenced specifically?

(My own answers are: Virtually none, and basically never. Could happen... But most games I find have enough communal poker knowledge to resolve things both correctly, and amicably.)

I suppose my answers would be pretty much the same. However, we did have a minor blow up a few weeks ago about a really strange irregularity in a 7S hi-lo game. Even with several casino dealers in the game we had to check the rules (I was wrong BTW).
Usually the binder cover addresses any questions without opening the book. Here is the cover:


THIS IS THE OFFICIAL RULEBOOK FOR OUR CARDROOM

Robert's Rules of Poker Version 11, as amended.

TDA rules for tournament (subordinate to Robert's Rules)

Welcome to our cardroom. Your presence here means that you agree to abide by our rules. Here are a few items of note:

1. Decisions of the host are final.
2. Cards and chips ONLY are allowed on the table. Please use side tables for anything else.
3. You will not be dealt a hand if you are eating, using a phone, or distracted by any other activity. You are REQUIRED to wash your hands after eating. If you begin such activity during a hand, your hand is dead.
4. Fixed Limit games are restricted to three raises per betting round. No restrictions when heads-up
5. Straddle bets must be approved by everyone in the game
6. Check-Raise is allowed in all games
7. Collusion with another player or any other form of cheating will result in immediate expulsion from the game, possible corporal punishment, cruel and unusual methods of torture, and forfeiture of all profits.

 

[Steve Birrer]

The rules of this game are standard. Nothing that would surprise any experienced poker player. Some were circulated maybe five years ago; I would guess it was based either on WSOP or Roberts Rules. But we have not had to pull out any rules for a very long time. If there is a question or dispute, we discuss it. If someone has to referee a situation which can't be resolved by consensus, the host makes the decision. That might happen once every 18 months at most.

The custom which has gotten at least one PCF member’s panties in a bunch is that people almost always check it down on 3+ way all-in hands close to the bubble. This is not explicitly stated during the hand. It’s just what people in this game generally do, for the obvious reasons.

If someone makes a very strong hand, they generally bet. If they make the nuts, they always bet. But unless the short stack is very, very short, it is a general understanding that the hand will usually be checked down. (And it’s certainly not specific to any player; over time, the custom impacts everyone basically equally.)

But not a rule. Just a custom.

And here is where it goes to shit. What does almost always mean and what is close to the bubble? This is so nebulous that I can't believe anybody is ok with this. How the heck do I know if this particular hand is one of the times its ok to not check it down. How the heck do I know if we are close enough to the bubble for this custom to be in play or not.

 

[BGinGA]

They just KNOW. No rules necessary.

 

[CHP TD]

What drama! It was nothing like you describe. And (for the seventeenth time) no one said she did anything against “the rules.” Rather, people explained—very nicely—a longstanding custom among this group of players. One which no one has ever objected to, though sometimes people disregard it. Which is their right. Still, she deserved to know what everyone else’s assumption are; to not tell her would be unfair.

And the strength of this game—which has been drawing two tables of players since 2008—is our regs. Newbies come and go; some of them stick, some don’t, for a variety of reasons. (The most common reason: The field is tough, and mediocre play won’t cut it.) We don’t usually bend over backward for new players, because the game has survived multiple venues across most of a decade.

Even so, people have gone to great lengths to help this player, whose skill level and knowledge of the game in general is well below our usual newbie. (See above: constantly needs help with what the blinds are, what a minimum bet/raise can be, etc.) She was only let in because her sponsor was one of our longest-standing regs.



Seriously, if this is what causes you to lament the state of the game, I have to say: Get over yourself.

LOL you know that no one agrees with you right? so yep do what u want and remember, listening is not one of your super powers.

Justification IS one of your super powers...

i mean ill ask again why ask if your just going to justify what you do? everyone reckons the gentleman's agreement/rule or whatever you justify it as is a load of crap.

so we are all wrong and you're right?

well played sir!

 

[CHP TD]

(My own answers are: Virtually none, and basically never. Could happen... But most games I find have enough communal poker knowledge to resolve things both correctly, and amicably. What matters most is that everyone feels things were handled fairly, and no one stomps off in a huff.)

except for the check down rule. LOL

whats even funnier is someone liked that!!!! absolute gold.

anyway question still remains what rules you use? how do you know they are correctly done? like the check down rule not correctly done and thats the only post about rules you have and you're 100%wrong about that sooo what makes you think anything else you know about "the Rules" is right?

i mean so far all the rules you have quoted are wrong.

Just saying it might be worth taking that cotton wool out of your ears and stick it in your mouth...

 

[CHP TD]

God i love this thread!!!

 

[Taghkanic]

How the heck do I know if we are close enough to the bubble for this custom to be in play or not.

You don’t have to know exactly, because it is a custom, not a rule. You can act any way you want... just with the knowledge that other people probably going to look askance at you, give you some grief, feel free to bluff you out of a future multiway all-in, or otherwise give you less benefit of the doubt if a dispute arises. It’s a group of friends playing together for nearly a decade, not the WSOP.

But in practice, to answer your particular question (however off-point), is that people generally follow this practice within 1-2 players of the money in a two-table tournament which started with 14-18 players. Especially if there is a rebuy (which lately we have been phasing out) before the final table, it is considered irrelevant.

 

[Taghkanic]

LOL you know that no one agrees with you right?

Actually, I don’t know that. Because no one has specified anything which should have been done differently.

So, let me get this straight. On a multiway all-in hand near the bubble in a tournament, you would have the host:

1) Compel players to bet at least one street, even when they don’t have the nuts?

2) Penalize players who choose to check, as allowed by all tournament rules, as long as they don’t verbalize their intention during the hand?

3) Force all-in players with chips left behind to play differently than they think their hand or the situation warrants?

Let’s review:

No one said anything in the hand—ergo, no violation of any rule.

The player got to do what she wanted to do—strategically, a mistake—twice.

Rather, all that happened was that people explained a common poker custom, one which is applied without favor as a custom, not as a rule, but a wise practice except in unusual situations (short stack is unusually small, bigger stack flops a very strong hand).

Apparently, your answer is to perpetually keep a newbie player in the dark about things she has never considered, such as bubbling, stack sizes, ICM, etc., and just exploit her ignorance.

I say: Try not to be such a spaz. This is a home game among friends who are not only playing fairly, but as they want to play.

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. If you are ever in the Hudson Valley, you are more than welcome to sit in on our game. Just give me enough notice so that I can obtain smelling salts and install a fainting couch behind your seat.

 

[Jambine]

I guess all these questions and answers depend on the rules. The single best way to keep a friendly game friendly is to have rules.

 

[upNdown]

or otherwise give you less benefit of the doubt if a dispute arises

I'm not trying to pile on, but the more you respond, the more concern I have about this situation.
If you try to bet somebody out of a pot in a situation like this, people will view it as some kind of violation of trust? This is weird, at the very least.

 

[Gunnar]

All I want to do is join your game and bet you out of a multiway all-in pots

rules and customs are great but if they alter play then they doing more harm than good

 

[CHP TD]

Actually, I don’t know that. Because no one has specified anything which should have been done differently.

So, let me get this straight. On a multiway all-in hand near the bubble in a tournament, you would have the host:

1) Compel players to bet at least one street, even when they don’t have the nuts? Woha cowboy your game is bent enough, might want to hold up on making it more messed up.

2) Penalize players who choose to check, as allowed by all tournament rules, as long as they don’t verbalize their intention during the hand? Ahhh so if it in the hand its not ok but if everyone gets together and agrees on a plan of play before the hand its OK?

3) Force all-in players with chips left behind to play differently than they think their hand or the situation warrants?

Let’s review:

No one said anything in the hand—ergo, no violation of any rule. No not qiute... it was discussed and agreed Much earlier that that so much so that its now a gentleman's agreement.

The player got to do what she wanted to do —strategically, a mistake—twice. Ohhh Finally i get it you think your rule is about doing the right thing. You're helping her...to stop her doing strategic mistakes. you get the idea that the fundamental basis of a winning player is one who can leverage mistakes against their opponent.

Rather, all that happened was that people explained a common poker custom, (which clearly breakes the one hand per player and disadvantages the all in player) one which is applied without favor as a custom, not as a rule, but a wise practice (for who? certainly NOT the all in player who is clearly disadvantaged! who will never have less that 2 players trying to knock them out) except in unusual situations (short stack is unusually small, bigger stack flops a very strong hand).

Apparently, your answer is to perpetually keep a newbie player in the dark about things she has never considered, such as bubbling, stack sizes, ICM, etc., and just exploit her ignorance. You still believe you did the right thing.... Like you really do???? the power of your wookie defence is boundless!

I say: Try not to be such a spaz. This is a home game among friends who are not only playing fairly (fairly?!?! you still believe this?!?!), but as they want to play.

Hahahaha "Spaz" I love this guy! that's the best you got?

Look mate your defence so far has been to call names, use the wookie defence, and not listen.

you've tried to convince everyone here your helping the newbie , but your not.

Youre trying to convince us your game does not include collusion - and it does

And worst still is your trying to convince people your right - and your not.

 

[CHP TD]

I guess all these questions and answers depend on the rules. The single best way to keep a friendly game friendly is to have rules.

so true mine are on the wall. the most unread document ever... Until something happens.

 

[CHP TD]

P.S. If you are ever in the Hudson Valley, you are more than welcome to sit in on our game. Just give me enough notice so that I can obtain smelling salts and install a fainting couch behind your seat.

never happen... im not into playing crooked games.

 

[Taghkanic]

Yeah, CHP TD, I see you that you could not answer those questions and explain your hyperventilating outrage logically.

There’s nothing crooked about this game—it includes many excellent players, as well as some fish, and even a judge. The players trust each other, and the house. The few bad eggs who tried to get into the game over the years have always been weeded out within a very few sessions. You just wouldn’t have a couple dozen regulars playing cards for nearly 10 years if the game weren’t 100% straight.

For those with reasonable, rational minds... At the risk of repeating myself: I’ll again raise the analogy of people chopping blinds in a cash game, because to me that is a very close analogy to the check down question.

At 90% of home games I play in, and 99% of casino games, chopping the blinds when it is folded around preflop is the standard practice of virtually all players, except those ignorant of the practice. Sometimes it is explicitly allowed by that game’s rules, if any are actually posted; sometimes it is just tolerated.

Most everyone agree to it, to be a sport. Everyone in the long run benefits equally, because it is done regardless of your holdings, and regardless of who is sitting to your left/right.

If someone doesn’t go along, that is their right. But people are going to like that player a little less, and be less indulgent of them if some sticky situation comes up.

The practice is not collusion, even though two players are making an agreement which solely benefits them. If all you look at is one specific hand (say the small blind has AKs and big blind has rags), you might look at it that way. But in the bigger picture it is hardly collusion. That’s because it’s done without favor to any particular player or situation. And it’s just a good etiquette to keep games friendly.

Same with someone asking if you’ll run it twice. You don’t have to agree… but if you want to be invited back to that cash game, you probably should, IMHO. Someone not in the hand might have an interest in the two of you not reducing each other’s variance. But would you call it collusion?

But I suppose someone could get on their high horse and object to either custom… if they cared more about their own narrow interpretation of how things should be done than keeping a game friendly, and behaving like a sensible adult.

Lastly... If a newbie doesn’t even *know* what running it twice or chopping the blinds means, it should hardly be offensive to them if people take the time to explain it. Someone explained these things to each of us at some point, unless we learned poker solely by reading.