Poker etiquette (2 Viewers)

Taghkanic said:
Actually, I don’t know that. Because no one has specified anything which should have been done differently.
Click to expand...


ok then

this

There's a difference between being explained the rules, and being told how to play.

A key way to keep newbies from returning is to tell them they are doing it wrong, when they are following every single rule properly. This includes checking down an all-in, calling a bet that was obviously the nuts when you had middling pair, or any other bet/raise/call action. If it's in the rules, it should be allowed, 100% of the time.

Otherwise, you just kill off your fish.

this

I'm missing how this fits into this thread. It sounds like your group was unhappy because the new player wasn't willingly colluding...

this

If there were actual etiquette points to be corrected, that's very different than the point you chose to bring up here. This shouldn't even be on the list. That's what everyone is trying to tell you here.

this

But if i were that person and starting getting lectured by the table of players after not checking it down, i personally would say. "you play your cards how you want.. i'll play mine'



Depending how much i was pissed at being lectured, i may employ that strategy of "not checking it down" just to tilt the table..:)


so tag wookie defend away

Go!
 
All of your silly points have already been addressed, Mr. Outraged-But-Not-Reading.

For example, it’s already noted 3x that this newbie was not “lectured,“ and also has been very patiently helped along since she is very inexperienced (isn’t aware when it’s on her, doesn’t know you can’t bet less than the blind or raise less than the previous raise, etc). Moreover, she was not stopped or penalized for her play, including a second time later. Notably, she didn’t make the money but the short stack she helped survive did. Lesson learned... Maybe.

And you’ve now dodged the collusion charge you leveled so heatedly and switched back to manners. I asked specifically, twice, how the hand should have been handled, and you can’t answer.

(On that topic, it could even be argued that betting into a multiway all-in pot without good reason could sometimes be a collusion tactic, if two players had agreed to protect each others’ all-ins.)

Lastly... in thundering that this shouldn’t have been in this thread to begin with, you’ve made it almost the sole focus of the thread.

You must be a lot of fun at home games. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Taghkanic said:
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.
Click to expand...

It just all seems very subjective, and requires a lot of explaining.
 
It requires a lot of explaining... only if someone is conspiracy-minded, decides to make a ridiculous stink about non-existent collusion, and doesn’t want to engage with the facts.

As already stated, all such hands go down *exactly the same way* they would go down had the table not explained to her the group’s custom—which are entirely consistent with standard considerations players bring to bear as far as bubbling, ICM, etc. The only difference being that she got some free, friendly advice.
 
Were up to nearly 100 posts of this "derail".

At some point Tag, you gotta just fold this topic.
Taghkanic said:
Several people tried to explain—politely, I thought—our custom of checking in that situation unless you have the nuts or very close to it... That when nearing the bubble in a tourney its usually -EV to bet in that spot without a very strong hand. The first guy folded on the assumption she had to be betting at least a flopped set. Many in our game will not bet in that situation without the absolute nuts. Tacit collusion, arguably, but pretty standard.

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.
Click to expand...

You (probablly) lost a player. Your bubble (or close to it) lasted 25 minutes, which meant 25 minutes where she was expected to play with group-think, instead of just playing. Half an hour is quite a long time, and you have zero supporters for the players that "chided" (your word) her. You can continue to defend your actions, but I think there is little you can say that makes scolding a player (for playing for a half hour) acceptable to most people still following this thread.
 
FWIW, here’s an example of possible, real collusion which got two new players swiftly ejected from this game:

A couple of guys who were friends with one of our regs in another cash game were brought along as guests by the reg. I had played with them once myself at that game, but only briefly, and agreed to give them a tryout based on the reg’s recommendation.

One of them is a constant talker, and appears to be a knowledgeable, sharp player. The other acts very much as his sidekick: Doesn’t say much, doesn’t play many hands, and almost seems deferential to the constant talker.

After the first time they came to the game, I had several regs approach me and say that they believed these guys played as a team—some based on what they had seen at the game, and some based on other experiences with them.

While taking this seriously, they were allowed back for another session, as the reg felt the accusations were unfair. However, he did admit that he did not know them as well as I had assumed before agreeing. After the second tryout, they were disinvited.

Two main things people observed:

1) When at the same cash table, the “talker” had incredible runs of improbable hands (e.g. repeated suckouts with terrible starting hands which made a gutshot straight on the river, and which were far behind on every other street). This occurred especially when one of the pair was dealing.

2) People also noted some verbal tics—that the constant talker would invariably make a comment on the flop like “Nice” or “Niiice” or even “or “Nice, nice.” This seemed just annoying at first (really shouldn’t be commenting on the flop like that in any case), almost like a Rain Man disorder... but in the context of the accusations, people found it suspicious.

3) They both had considerably less success when not sitting at the same table. They started at different tables during the second tournament, and both busted out very quickly, despite it being a one-rebuy tournament. They did, however, stick around for cash, which seemed to be their goal, and did extremely well.

Although the sample size was small, and all of the above might have been attributed to either variance or just personality quirks, the number of players who privately came to me with concerns was unheard of... Any newbie whose presence is disruptive to the health of the game is not being re-invited.

Moreover, the constant talker also proved to be a constant texter, barraging me with SMSes in the hours before both sessions, even asking to bring a guest of his own after playing just once here. (I said no.)

This is a sure way, etiquette-wise, to get disinvited to this game. If every one of my regs texted me 8-15 times before each session, I would stop hosting in short order.
 
Last edited:
Poker Zombie said:
... she was expected to play with group-think.
Click to expand...

Actually, per earlier posts, she *didn’t* play with “group-think.” The situation came up again, and she disregarded the suggestion. Either she rejected it—as was absolutely her right, as I have said—or, more likely, just didn’t understand the concepts involved.


Poker Zombie said:
You (probablly) lost a player.
Click to expand...

And if that happens, I’m cool with that, and either way stand by the group’s play, behavior and interpretation. No rules were broken, and this person was treated very sympathetically from the start. This particular topic might never have come up, as an articulated thing, because more experienced players just rarely continue in that situation with a weak hand or even bluff. It’s just not profitable, long-term.

If anything, as one of only two women in a large group of regs, people seemed way more eager to help her along than if, say, she were some grouchy 65 year old guy. (Note: I don’t think the word “chide” has as strong a connotation as you do, but maybe it was the wrong word.) We are always trying to get more women into the game, since poker is so lopsided that way.

Moreover, I’ll never mind losing a newbie who needs to be helped through the game at every step.

She might have become embarrassed after the countless times that people waited a polite amount of time, then finally (and kindly) said “It’s on you” or “The blinds are 300-600, you can’t come in for 100, it has to be at least six,” or the like. Even if she might be a solid donator to the game with her weak play. We’d rather retain good players who win than bad players who hold things up.

And, as stated, the longtime regs take much more abuse from each other than any newbie ever would. People who know each other from years of playing, observing each other’s habits and personalities, come in for lots of razzing. Isn’t that a big reason people host home games—for the cameraderie and competition? It seems like some kind of snowflake standard is expected here.

Truth is, this person probably never should have been invited in the first place, being so inexperienced. (I suspect the reg who invited her had... non-tournment interests in her.)
 
Last edited:
pedrofisk said:
In television production they would say this thread has "jumped the shark".
Click to expand...

Agreed. I would just like to helpfully suggest that some commentators might also really enjoy the Alex Jones show... Jones loves to pick up some trivial thing, misinterpret it, and then fulminate about it until he turns beet red and froths at the mouth. Very much in the spirit of some of the posts above.
 
Taghkanic said:
Agreed. I would just like to helpfully suggest that some commentators might also really enjoy the Alex Jones show... Jones loves to pick up some trivial thing, misinterpret it, and then fulminate about it until he turns beet red and froths at the mouth. Very much in the spirit of some of the posts above.
Click to expand...

which are all yours
 
you know this has been fun. In fact i haven't laughed this much for a long time.

your contradictions are numerous and your undying need to tell us how right you are is boundless.

You identified it in your first post "Tacit collusion, arguably," then go on to spend 4 pages trying to convince people it isn't collusion.

you either collude or you don't. additionally its not dependent on numbers. just because everyone colludes at your game doesn't suddenly make it not collusion. More over if youtell people about it does not change the collusion. Theres just one more person colluding to knock a player out when there is a multi-way all in.

i mean why deny something you put in writing?

So, in review you really try to use great english, and allot of it, but your understanding of the subject matter has left your arguments without substance.

Ps

You're use of the M rule is mostly correct Kudos for that.
 
Last edited:
Once again, point out what is *against any standard set of rules* here, and exactly what you would do differently:

1. Two away from the bubble, a short stack goes all-in, and is called by two people who cover him.

2. On the flop, one of the two bigger stacks bets with top pair/weak kicker.

3. The third person folds.

4. The short stack wins.

5. The third person would have knocked out the short stack.

6. People at the table after the hand gently point out to the person who bet, who is new to poker, why such move can be a bad idea in a tournament.

7. Not long after, the same thing happens.

8. People at the table try to explain it again.

9. The person betting later gets knocked out by the first short stack she helped stay in the tournament, and misses the money.​

I say: Totally legal. Totally justifiable. And: Karma.

Your answer, since no rule was violated, apparently is that no one should have tried to explain to the newbie a common poker philosophy, because it might hurt someone’s fee-fees.

But then, you keep changing your mind whether the problem with this is etiquette, or rules.

Seriously. You are being ridiculous.
 
P.S. re: “Great English”: The use of a qualifier like “arguably” only signals that the speaker acknowledges that others may want to argue the point. It does not mean the speaker necessarily agrees with that point; usually, it’s just the opposite.
 
no one agrees with you, but sure if you think collusion is OK at your game knock yourself out.

BTW never changed my argument it was always about the rules and how you break them.

are you a lawer? cause your very good at trying to destroy my argument rather than address the issue.

which by the way is still not addressed by you.

soo yeah its been fun.
 
For the umpteenth time, you have yet to specify what rule was broken, or what in the sequence of events given above was wrong, or should have been done differently (besides not helping along a newbie with bubble considerations.

But look, I feel for ’ya. It’s hard to understand how a friendly home game works when you have no friends.
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with Taghkanic's game and the situation he described, while problematic, is pretty minor. I think he's been overly defensive about it and described it a way that doesn't make sense to me (custom?). I think after a hand explaining a fairly common tournament practice of checking it down with a multi-way all-in hand is fine. Making it sound like a rule or a "custom" is not as good, though. And making the player feel like they did something wrong and/or violated your game's custom is poor etiquette.

I see where the criticism is coming from but I think most of you are taking it a bit more seriously than the situation deserves. Calling it collusion? That's ridiculous, imho. I've seen people in home games and casinos suggest that it be checked down during the hand and in that situation, which is clearly not okay, they generally get told they can't say that and everyone moves on.

We're at a point now where people are insulting Tagkanic like he's running a bad game, a crooked game, even. I don't think that's called for at all.
 
Poker Zombie said:
...not a sandwich
Click to expand...
It’s been a sandwich since forever:
https://blog.retroplanet.com/vintage-finds-jiffy-hot-dog-machine/
41A4AC56-ACDA-427C-AF99-BDC1D64F4353.jpeg
 
Thanks, Gameface, for a more balanced perspective. Indeed, I am only giving it back to CHP here because I really resent being hyperbolically and sloppily accused of running a dirty game. Who would tolerate that? And seriously, how long does anyone think such a game could survive? If a game is rotten, players are going to catch on, and not go any more. This one is nearly a decade old, retaining most of our original cast, and attracts more interest from players who hear about it than can be absorbed. None of the players rely on it for income, or need to cheat to either win or enjoy themselves, and there is no rake.

(FWIW, I’m the fourth host of this game, as divorces, new jobs or and home sales inevitably have forced it to move around. I suspect in a couple of years I’ll hand it over to another reg and let them take a turn, because hosting can get to be a chore... Frankly I think it is one of the best in our region, as it has built a stable player base, steadily increased its stakes, and developed a strong culture. I say that not to boast, since most of that was built by others—but to point out that it clearly has staying power, which no “crooked” game could.)
 
Taghkanic said:
.... Indeed, I am only giving it back to CHP here because I really resent being hyperbolically and sloppily accused of running a dirty game....
Click to expand...

Your home game includes players who implicitly collude, based on best practices as described in many poker books and other sources. This is the same as any table in any casino. That is fine.

But as soon as any player makes this collusion explicit while at the table, whether verbally or by an expression of disgust directed at the supposedly offending player, your game *is* dirty. Simple. Those are the people you should have corrected, and with whom you should be upset.

Yeah, it's tough to accept, but it's one of the unstated realities of poker: While at the table, play your own cards, and shut up about the play of others.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Budha
Do you consider trapping bad etiquette?
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
chippitydoodah
chippitydoodah
J
JOINED TODAY
Replies
21
Views
662
JuniorBrown
J
MrCatPants
WHAT IS BEST WAY TO FUN POKER GAME NIGHT?
2 3
Replies
79
Views
2K
Taghkanic
Taghkanic
N
Not Mine Murdered/relabeled Havana themed Paulsons
Replies
9
Views
418
allforcharity
allforcharity
Goosefraba
Diaper Shower Poker Night
Replies
4
Views
142
potatolei
potatolei
Back
Top Bottom