I'm missing how this fits into this thread. It sounds like your group was unhappy because the new player wasn't willingly colluding...
Poker etiquette (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter joseywales
- Start date
I'm missing how this fits into this thread. It sounds like your group was unhappy because the new player wasn't willingly colluding...
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
Once you discuss "implied" collusion at the table, it ceases to remain "implied". The short stacks in the event have been damaged. I'd be hard pressed not to call it a minor form of cheating.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I'm going to pile on here. I understand the strategy behind checking it down at times (and without more detail I won't even say for certain the bet in this spot is incorrect. Checking it down is an overrated tactic IMO if the main pot is worth winning it is often worth betting for value/protection if you think you're usually ahead of an all in player.), but it's not an etiquette breech, nor a rule breech. It's a strategy discussion that is out of order during play.
I don't blame her for not coming back. I don't think I'd want to play with anybody that thinks this is something to be corrected.
Last edited:
1) The discussions didn’t take place during any hands, but after each was complete.
2) It’s not a rule, it’s a group custom, among players who have mostly played with each other for years, some for as long as a decade. We weren’t saying she couldn't bet it; just explaining that people in our game interpret a bet in that spot to mean “I’ve got this, the all-in guy is toast, continue at your own peril.” I suppose she could use that info to bluff people out of all-in pots if she liked.
3) It doesn't really have the effect of collusion when *everyone* knows and follows the same custom. Over time (~25 games per year) the practice equalizes out among the group, and mainly has the beneficial effect of moving each tournament session to completion a little faster.
4) As far as whether the tactic makes sense: I mentioned at the time that if the short stack were very small, the custom would be less likely to be observed, in that the other players would have good reason to want to build a bigger pot. i.e., in a chip-and-a-chair situation when even if the small stack triples up, they are still going to be at the brink of elimination. It would take a more comprehensive study with an ICM calculator, but apart from such situations I think it would be rare for the value of eliminating a player 1/2 spots away from the money to not exceed the value of the pot’s potential contribution to one’s chances of winning. (Presumably this has been studied ad nauseam elsewhere—link anyone?)
5) This player is a newbie in many other ways—not really that up on standard poker rules and etiquette. The very fact that she sized her bet that way with TP-middling-kicker is an indication. The group has been pretty patient in helping her get up to speed. Multiple people chiming in on this one was likely the culmination of all the prior sessions of hand-holding. Anyway, she is a friend of one of our longest-running regs, so there may be a chance to get her back.
If I was a newb, I definitely wouldn’t want the whole table telling me how to play. Pull me aside on a break and share your strategy thoughts with me if you want, great, thanks.
Gameface
Two Pair
She might just not be that into poker...
Steve Birrer
Two Pair
Totally fail to get this. The only time I ever seen anybody use the check down approach is online where its a double or nothing tourney. In that type of a game the size of your stack isn't as important as knocking a player out.
In a regular tournament that is not the case. You are ultimately playing to win and stack size matters. In this situation I would likely bet with top pair and I think it was fine for her to do so and wrong for her to be counseled on what she did against the customs of your group.
In a regular tournament that is not the case. You are ultimately playing to win and stack size matters. In this situation I would likely bet with top pair and I think it was fine for her to do so and wrong for her to be counseled on what she did against the customs of your group.
You
Disagree. The pot has to exceed the value of getting closer to the bubble when only 1/2 players away. You can always win (or lose!) another pot, but it isn't every hand that you can eliminate a player and get into the money (or one away from it). The ICM value of chips there is almost always less than losing a player IMHO. There are some sites out there which break this down... Will try to find a good link.
But looking at the bigger picture, if I were a new player in a long-running game, I would be far more pissed if the group of regs did not clue me in to such customs. Even if I disagree with their approach/philosophy/rules, being the only one not in the know would suck.
Disagree. The pot has to exceed the value of getting closer to the bubble when only 1/2 players away. You can always win (or lose!) another pot, but it isn't every hand that you can eliminate a player and get into the money (or one away from it). The ICM value of chips there is almost always less than losing a player IMHO. There are some sites out there which break this down... Will try to find a good link.
But looking at the bigger picture, if I were a new player in a long-running game, I would be far more pissed if the group of regs did not clue me in to such customs. Even if I disagree with their approach/philosophy/rules, being the only one not in the know would suck.
Every situation is different, but I think lecturing someone how to play is a much bigger breach of etiquette than "failing to check it down". Sure, if I'm playing in 2005, then yes imma check it down always, but in the modern game, no. Just no. Sometimes, not all the time or even most of the time. But the bigger point is, I don't have any cause to wag my finger at a player for simply firing a bet.
Also, if the player genuinely seems like they are new and inexperienced, I am never ever ever calling out their play in front of other people during a game, no matter how much it might rub me the wrong way. With players who know better, I also try very very hard to keep silent even if they make terrible calls or bets. If a new player actually does breach etiquette, I might offer a gentle correction, but only if it's a genuine disruption.
Also, if the player genuinely seems like they are new and inexperienced, I am never ever ever calling out their play in front of other people during a game, no matter how much it might rub me the wrong way. With players who know better, I also try very very hard to keep silent even if they make terrible calls or bets. If a new player actually does breach etiquette, I might offer a gentle correction, but only if it's a genuine disruption.
Last edited:
Steve Birrer
Two Pair
I don't really disagree with your perspective when close to the bubble. My point was pretty generic and there are lots of other factors that would have been knows if we were in the actual game. Stack size. Players stacks. How my stack compared to others. Blinds. Etc. But without having all that detailed information, I think betting is correct.All of the missing information may well have led me to a check conclusion.
But the point isn't really about this particular hand as much as the general approach of checking down when a player is all in. I just don't agree with their games' philosophy.
Frogzilla
4 of a Kind
To me...this is like complaining about the big blind raising after everyone limped. May not be the most fun for everybody, may be unusual for some groups who check in that spot 90-95%, but it's a legitimate strategy
The idea that players should always check it down, is a whole other thread by itself. I really disagree with this, but I love playing in games full of players who are working hard at min-cashing. 
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Well yeah, I should hope not, if you had done that I would be replying with all caps.
If you understand all of these factors matter in points #2 and #4, then you must concede that what you are trying to enforce in point #3 is no longer an etiquette point and is now squarely in the realm of a strategy point. The players in your game are out of line for complaining on this particular point. And you are basically admitting your game has a culture where it's okay to discuss strategy to the point of embarrassing new players.
Either way these actions are too far past the line of "one player per hand" for my taste.
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.
Hard to blame her.
Last edited:
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Maybe they've come to expect BB raises from me in cash.
My favorite is raising guy that groans about being re-raised.
I’d say that’s a distinction without a difference here. It becomes both an etiquette point and a strategy, because it is essentially a gentleman’s agreement. Otherwise, people would exploit the custom (bluffing at a flop knowing others will fold).
Here’s Robert Woolley, writing in Poker News:
In tournaments, particularly in the late stages... two players will often check down a hand when a third one is all in. There’s nothing wrong with this, as long as it isn’t being done by means of an explicit agreement between the players.
In a tournament, each player’s interest in moving up the pay scale and knocking somebody out of contention for the title may well be greater than the interest in winning a particular pot.
Therefore, in such a situation, each player is still acting in his own best interest by keeping as many opponents in the hand as possible. Put another way, it can be in the best interest of all of the other players that anybody wins the hand except for the guy who is all in.
In a tournament, each player’s interest in moving up the pay scale and knocking somebody out of contention for the title may well be greater than the interest in winning a particular pot.
Therefore, in such a situation, each player is still acting in his own best interest by keeping as many opponents in the hand as possible. Put another way, it can be in the best interest of all of the other players that anybody wins the hand except for the guy who is all in.
It’s analogous for me to the big and small blinds in a cash game agreeing to pull back their chips when it folds around to them preflop. I always agree to do so, if asked, even if I am looking down at AKs. In the long term, it’s beneficial to me (since I’m much more likely to look down at something like J6o)... or at least being amenable to the chop maintains a healthy sense of cameraderie at the table.
But this is a cash game play (I hope you don't do this in a tournament). The rules are (or should be) more stringent in a tournament where your behavior has more impact on all players vs just your own ROI.
Grant
^^ textbook definition of Phil Helmuth
The first sounds an awful lot like the second, especially if it prompted a discussion afterwards to 'educate' the new player.
Yes, of course cash. No one does that in tournaments. I was talking in terms of analogies. But the essential idea is the same in spirit: Some forms of implicit collusion are understood to be for the general good. And per my previous posts, it is precisely because the general good is consonant with your own that the checkdowns happen.
Not sure why this is so controversial here... I have encountered this in many home/underground tournaments.
Every private game has its quirks. In almost every home, social hall or underground game I’ve ever played, there are house rules or customs which differ from what I consider standard, or would do in my own game. Different rooms handle misdeals differently. Some games are more tolerant of accidental mucks than others. Some are less tolerant of running it out (in a dead hand) than others. And so on.
But it’s very rare for me that someone else’s practices are so non-standard or annoying that they become a deciding factor as to whether I’d play there again. How profitable the game is, how comfortable, how congenial the group seem much more crucial.
Certainly, when I joined this particular group nearly a decade ago (it had three previous hosts, before I took it over), I tried to keep my head down and my mouth shut, even when I might have had a strong opinion on a dispute. I was the new guy, and I wanted to be invited back. I really didn’t make any suggestions or question anything for at least a year. If someone criticized my play or made an observation like the above, I might shrug and say something like, “Good to know.”
If a newbie in any game is made so uncomfortable by players letting them know the room’s ropes that they don’t want to play again, that is probably a useful filter for both the player and that room.
Frogzilla
4 of a Kind
It's controversial because your house rule is directly contrary to the more common rules of poker. In a casino, you would get in serious trouble, anywhere from stern warning to killed hand and a couple rounds of penalty. I've personally seen it enforced at Choctaw for exactly this situation.
Also, it's not helping that you put this in the thread about what's ok and not ok to say when you want to bet the size of someone else's stack. It implies that you consider these to be related/equivalent
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I think even Ace Rothstein would think "killed" is extreme. But if he asks you what hands you use use to shuffle checks, lookout.
(Edit, oh you said "killed hand", meaning actual cards, nm)
This sounds like the perfect rule of thumb.
(1) This is a home game, not a casino. Lots of things are different in the two, even if the underlying rules are mostly the same.
(2) But in fact, it is *not* a violation in a casino unless the players explicitly, verbally agree to check it down during the hand. If they both just check down, saying nothing, without stating their intentions (let alone a reason for doing so), there is no violation.
And that is exactly what happens in this game, unless someone thinks they have the effective nuts.
Even so, I can think of one case where someone bluffed at a three-way all-in post flop with just middle pair. People were not pleased, but it was what it was. The guy learned his lesson when the short stack who survived thanks to this move later took him out.
I would just add to the comment above about min-cashing... It really depends on the game. In a small tourney like this, with two or three tables, where I’m the host and most everyone knows each other well, my approach basically has become “just try to get in the money with whatever size stack, and then just see what happens.”
If I min-cash, it’s a freeroll. (Also, I hate watching other people play poker in my own home when I’m out!) Once I’m in the money, I can adjust my style and get more aggressive. So generally, I’m playing tighter early and looser later. Generally the final five consists of three of the better players, one average player, and one of the weaker guys on a heater.
Over 40 sessions of hosting, I’ve been in the money exactly 50% of the time, with my cashes roughly evenly distributed between “got my buy-in back” and “took down 1st.” This means I am well ahead. Maybe I could approach it differently and get a higher return; but there is only one regular who has gotten ITM more frequently... And if I were winning my own game any more often, it might become hard to retain players. :^)
If I min-cash, it’s a freeroll. (Also, I hate watching other people play poker in my own home when I’m out!) Once I’m in the money, I can adjust my style and get more aggressive. So generally, I’m playing tighter early and looser later. Generally the final five consists of three of the better players, one average player, and one of the weaker guys on a heater.
Over 40 sessions of hosting, I’ve been in the money exactly 50% of the time, with my cashes roughly evenly distributed between “got my buy-in back” and “took down 1st.” This means I am well ahead. Maybe I could approach it differently and get a higher return; but there is only one regular who has gotten ITM more frequently... And if I were winning my own game any more often, it might become hard to retain players. :^)
Im glad you posted this. it explains exactly why its a problem.
umm you have a gentleman's agreement right then robert says There’s nothing wrong with this, as long as it isn’t being done by means of an explicit agreement between the players.
a gentleman's agreement is pretty explicit - you all know it - you all do it - and you frown on it if its broken. so youu all agree on how to play a certain situation.
that is the definition of collusion. you all know what your going to do through a gentleman's agreement.
you might want to have a good look at that.
Honestly, I am amazed/amused by the degree of high dudgeon here. It can hardly be collusion when *everyone is in on something,* and the custom is applied universally over multiple hands and dozens of games, no matter who is involved.
The keyword in your except above is “all.” Over time, this affects everyone equally. It’s just a custom of this particular game. Not clueing in a newbie would be collusion, though, because then they would be at a disadvantage.
Collusion implies something which is advantageous to a small subset of players, not a condition common to everyone.
If everyone knows and agrees, and the identical behavior is applied without favor across all similar situations, that is hardly nefarious. It’s just a feature of that landscape.
Maybe taking it out of the realm of this particular rule/custom would clarify my perspective on this...
Say there were a home game where players have a mutual agreement that they will shout “Dilly dilly!” whenever they are dealt pocket queens or better. It would be stupid and annoying, no doubt. But if everyone were in on it and that was how people wanted to play, it would not be “illegal.” [Note: I hate that commercial and hate myself for referencing it.]
By your standard, most any shared assumption could be viewed as collusion. (“OMG, everyone in this game raises with strong hands on the button! They are colluding against me in the big blind!”)
Last edited:
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
It's a violation of the rules, and it scared off a player. That player may never play poker again, because their first outing left a bad taste in their mouth.
That said, your game is probably fine. Breaking rules in home games is pretty common. I think I've seen more games where rabbit hunting was permitted than not. I think the only reason that people are resentful is because you have a rule that you must break the rule, and cost the poker community a player trying to enforce your rule.
That said, your game is probably fine. Breaking rules in home games is pretty common. I think I've seen more games where rabbit hunting was permitted than not. I think the only reason that people are resentful is because you have a rule that you must break the rule, and cost the poker community a player trying to enforce your rule.
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!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
