Tourney Raise...by/to? (2 Viewers)

[Poker Zombie]

Sounds like a lazy dealer who isn't doing his job.

The only time it is acceptable is if a player bets/raises all-in, in which case the dealer may announce "bet/raise all-in" but wait until asked by another player on their action to specify/confirm the amount of the all-in wager. And other players at the table -- with live hands or not -- should remain silent regarding the bet size.

Wait... you mean to tell me the dealer in Casino Royale was doing it wrong?!? How has Hollywood failed me!

In all seriousness, I dont mind the dealer making the declaration in a home game where banter is more prevalent than cards. Mostly, because without the prompt, there will be a long pause with more banter followed by a "oh, I didn't know it was on me" statement. Agree that it's not best practice, but it can be in the best interest of the game to speed things along.

 

[Blind Joe]

The only time it is acceptable is if a player bets/raises all-in, in which case the dealer may announce "bet/raise all-in" but wait until asked by another player on their action to specify/confirm the amount of the all-in wager. And other players at the table -- with live hands or not -- should remain silent regarding the bet size.

You'd hate my home game

 

[BGinGA]

You'd hate my home game

I dislike any game where players are allowed to illegally influence game play.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I dislike any game where players are allowed to illegally influence game play.

Of course, if the players are all influenced by alcohol, table chatter may not be actually influencing game play.

 

[Blind Joe]

I dislike any game where players are allowed to illegally influence game play.

I'm sure I get a lot wrong as an inexperienced host but I was more referring to players remaining silent. The moment anyone goes all in at Blind Joe's there will be multiple people trying to count the stack and silence is the last thing you'll get. Not sure if that's illegal or if it influences play but if it's silence you want you'll be disappointed at the very least with my rowdy bunch.

That said, I just want to add that your posts on here have helped my home game probably more than any other, so whatever mistakes or faux pas I still make, it used to be much worse!

 

[ekricket]

Sounds like a lazy dealer who isn't doing his job.

The only time it is acceptable is if a player bets/raises all-in, in which case the dealer may announce "bet/raise all-in" but wait until asked by another player on their action to specify/confirm the amount of the all-in wager. And other players at the table -- with live hands or not -- should remain silent regarding the bet size.

you should only ask “how much is it” when it’s your turn. If you blurt it out before your action you can be indicating interest in the pot, which can influence subsequent action. It can basically have the same effect as folding out of turn or calling bets out of turn.
Poker is a game of turns, you can do anything legal when it’s your turn, but you should do nothing when it is not your turn.

 

[Blind Joe]

you should only ask “how much is it” when it’s your turn. If you blurt it out before your action you can be indicating interest in the pot, which can influence subsequent action. It can basically have the same effect as folding out of turn or calling bets out of turn.
Poker is a game of turns, you can do anything legal when it’s your turn, but you should do nothing when it is not your turn.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks.

 

[CrazyEddie]

If it's allowed by your house rules then it's not illegal.

If it's happening and you're allowing it then it's allowed by your house rules.

Make sure you know what your house rules are. Consider writing them down, and confirming that you and your players are happy with them.

 

[CrazyEddie]

you should only ask “how much is it” when it’s your turn. If you blurt it out before your action you can be indicating interest in the pot, which can influence subsequent action. It can basically have the same effect as folding out of turn or calling bets out of turn.

What's wrong with attempting to influence subsequent action? Isn't that an essential feature of poker - attempting to induce a mistake by your opponents? Poker is a game of lying and manipulation; why should those efforts be restricted to the mathematics of your plays rather than the entire panoply of psychological tools at your disposal - subject of course to basic sportsmanship constraints such as one-player-to-a-hand ?

I see taking action out of turn as a different concern; it has the tendency to disrupt the smooth flow of the game, preventing players from correctly understanding what the current action is and who it is upon. Saying "wow, that's a big pot, I sure want a piece of that" before the action comes to you doesn't have that problem and doesn't, IMHO, violate any fundamental principle of poker or sportsmanship.

 

[Poker Zombie]

What's wrong with attempting to influence subsequent action?

I seriously don't know where to start...

It's poor sportsmanship. It's angle-shooting. It's multiple players to a hand. It's just as wrong as string-betting. Sure, you may find it to be "banter", but any banter that influences a decision, like "I would call", is the same as "I mucked the Ace, so your King is mathematically good". Do it at any reasonable game, and you would get a warning or worse. If it's allowed, it should be stated before I waste gas money driving to he game, because I leave when the rules state "cheating and angle shooting" is "an essential feature of poker".

 

[ekricket]

What's wrong with attempting to influence subsequent action? Isn't that an essential feature of poker - attempting to induce a mistake by your opponents? Poker is a game of lying and manipulation; why should those efforts be restricted to the mathematics of your plays rather than the entire panoply of psychological tools at your disposal - subject of course to basic sportsmanship constraints such as one-player-to-a-hand ?

I see taking action out of turn as a different concern; it has the tendency to disrupt the smooth flow of the game, preventing players from correctly understanding what the current action is and who it is upon. Saying "wow, that's a big pot, I sure want a piece of that" before the action comes to you doesn't have that problem and doesn't, IMHO, violate any fundamental principle of poker or sportsmanship.

Try it in a reputable casino with trained dealers is all I’m saying

 

[Taghkanic]

And here’s a wrinkle that threw me, when I first saw it. Old timers will sometimes say “raise,” put out the calling chips, then pause to think about how much they want to raise, then put out their raising chips.
First time a saw that, I thought it wasn’t right. Seemed like a string bet to me. But it’s not.

I can’t stand that. Lots of potential for angling.

 

[CrazyEddie]

It's just as wrong as string-betting.

It's a different kind of wrong as string-betting; string betting is an attempt at making an ambiguous action. Is it a call or is it a raise? Hah, clever me, I get to choose what it is after tricking you into thinking it's just a call. That's an obvious violation of the fundamentals of poker, namely that the action so far should be clear and unambiguous to every player.

There's nothing ambiguous about saying "wow, that's a big pot" - it's no kind of action, and cannot in any circumstance be reasonably interpreted as an action.

It's poor sportsmanship. It's angle-shooting.

I think you're simply begging the question here. What makes it poor sportsmanship? The psychological aspect? Can't be that, that's accepted as fair play during heads-up. How is it angle-shooting? Literal angle-shooting is looking at someone's cards surreptitiously, which is obviously against the fundamentals of poker. Figurative angle-shooting is likewise an attempt to circumvent the rules... Naturally, if the rules adopted by a casino or tournament or home game say "you must act, physically and verbally, as if the game does not exist when the action is not on you" then yes it's angle-shooting, but as I said that's just begging the question.

any banter that influences a decision, like "I would call", is the same as "I mucked the Ace, so your King is mathematically good"

I think there's a pretty significant difference between those two. The first is from a player with a live hand; the second is from a player with no involvement in the hand (any more). I think it's quite reasonable to restrict participation in a hand to those who are in fact still participating in the hand. So, no, I don't think those are the same.

It's multiple players to a hand.

I think this could be your strongest argument, but I'm not persuaded. If I'm saying something in an attempt to get other players at the table to misplay their hands to my benefit, how can it be said that I'm playing their hands with them?

 

[BGinGA]

It's a different kind of wrong as string-betting; string betting is an attempt at making an ambiguous action. Is it a call or is it a raise? Hah, clever me, I get to choose what it is after tricking you into thinking it's just a call. That's an obvious violation of the fundamentals of poker, namely that the action so far should be clear and unambiguous to every player.

There's nothing ambiguous about saying "wow, that's a big pot" - it's no kind of action, and cannot in any circumstance be reasonably interpreted as an action.


I think you're simply begging the question here. What makes it poor sportsmanship? The psychological aspect? Can't be that, that's accepted as fair play during heads-up. How is it angle-shooting? Literal angle-shooting is looking at someone's cards surreptitiously, which is obviously against the fundamentals of poker. Figurative angle-shooting is likewise an attempt to circumvent the rules... Naturally, if the rules adopted by a casino or tournament or home game say "you must act, physically and verbally, as if the game does not exist when the action is not on you" then yes it's angle-shooting, but as I said that's just begging the question.


I think there's a pretty significant difference between those two. The first is from a player with a live hand; the second is from a player with no involvement in the hand (any more). I think it's quite reasonable to restrict participation in a hand to those who are in fact still participating in the hand. So, no, I don't think those are the same.


I think this could be your strongest argument, but I'm not persuaded. If I'm saying something in an attempt to get other players at the table to misplay their hands to my benefit, how can it be said that I'm playing their hands with them?

You clearly just don't get it, and apparently no amount of explaining it is going to change that.

 

[upNdown]

What's wrong with attempting to influence subsequent action? Isn't that an essential feature of poker - attempting to induce a mistake by your opponents? Poker is a game of lying and manipulation; why should those efforts be restricted to the mathematics of your plays rather than the entire panoply of psychological tools at your disposal - subject of course to basic sportsmanship constraints such as one-player-to-a-hand ?

I see taking action out of turn as a different concern; it has the tendency to disrupt the smooth flow of the game, preventing players from correctly understanding what the current action is and who it is upon. Saying "wow, that's a big pot, I sure want a piece of that" before the action comes to you doesn't have that problem and doesn't, IMHO, violate any fundamental principle of poker or sportsmanship.

There's just something sleazy about it. I've often thought that if I ever had a perceptive player on my right, and I caught premiums in late position, that if I held the cards between my two fingers like I was just waiting for my turn to fold them, that might induce a bet out of him - maybe even an all in at a final table.
But I've never done it, because something about it just feels sleazy.

 

[CrazyEddie]

You clearly just don't get it, and apparently no amount of explaining it is going to change that.

I prefer discussions to explanations, but that's okay.

 

[CrazyEddie]

There's just something sleazy about it. I've often thought that if I ever had a perceptive player on my right, and I caught premiums in late position, that if I held the cards between my two fingers like I was just waiting for my turn to fold them, that might induce a bet out of him - maybe even an all in at a final table.
But I've never done it, because something about it just feels sleazy.

Picking up tells is a legitimate part of the game, right?

And accordingly so is putting out false tells, right? If you notice that someone is sharp enough to pick up on your tells, and you've read Caro just like he has, it's completely fair game to use that against him, right? Take a long look at your cards when you have a monster, because you know that he knows that taking a long look at your cards means it's a weak hand... that kind of stuff is legit, right?

What makes that different from looking like you want to fold when you want him to bet?

 

[upNdown]

Picking up tells is a legitimate part of the game, right?

And accordingly so is putting out false tells, right? If you notice that someone is sharp enough to pick up on your tells, and you've read Caro just like he has, it's completely fair game to use that against him, right? Take a long look at your cards when you have a monster, because you know that he knows that taking a long look at your cards means it's a weak hand... that kind of stuff is legit, right?

What makes that different from looking like you want to fold when you want him to bet?

Fair question, and I can't give you a good answer. I just feel like you're crossing a line somewhere between those two fake tells.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Fair question, and I can't give you a good answer. I just feel like you're crossing a line somewhere between those two fake tells.

I feel the same way! I can't help but try to figure out what makes that line, though.

Casinos want to have a "clean" game, so have quite stringent rules about (for example) table talk. The fewer ambiguous situations, the better. Don't scare the fish and so forth. Doesn't mean everyone has to be equally as stringent.

I could imagine an Extreme Poker League, where such shenanigans are not only allowed but encouraged. Might make for great television. Like pro wrestling.

 

[trigs]

I could imagine an Extreme Poker League, where such shenanigans are not only allowed but encouraged. Might make for great television. Like pro wrestling.

I've actually suggested this before. I wouldn't want to play in it, but it would make for interesting TV to watch a bunch of a-hole pros go at each other using every angle possible (think Deeb, Tony G, Luke Schwartz, Matusow, etc.). I mean, as long as everyone going into the game was aware of the situation.

 

[ekricket]

It’s all fun and games till the table gets turned over.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I've actually suggested this before. I wouldn't want to play in it, but it would make for interesting TV to watch a bunch of a-hole pros go at each other using every angle possible (think Deeb, Tony G, Luke Schwartz, Matusow, etc.). I mean, as long as everyone going into the game was aware of the situation.

...with loads of slowrolling! Specifically Matusow is known for dealing well with slowrollers

 

[Poker Zombie]

What makes it poor sportsmanship?

Player A goes all in with the stone cold nuts, and needs someone to call. If Player C (still in the hand) says anything that convinces B to fold, it is taking money out of A's stack. That's poor sportsmanship.

Player A goes all-in, bluffing with air. Player B, a super-nit tanks, sitting on a strong, but not nutty hand. Player C (still in the hand) says anything to convince B to call, it is eliminating A, who may have otherwise pulled off the bluff.

Player A goes all-in in a tournament, with 3 players left. Player C says "we can chop 1st and second if we eliminate him here". B calls, and C calls, and they check it down. Yes, this happens all the time in poker, but discussing the chop during the hand is poor sportsmanship, as it is putting A at a disadvantage.

Something like "Wow, thats a big pot" doesn't bother me. Something that influences the action does. TDA rules strictly prohibit discussing your own hand, for that reason. It influences later action.

 

[CrazyEddie]

All good points. I think the issue is exacerbated in tournaments, though. I think the concept could survive in a cash game; it wouldn't be to everyone's tastes, but I don't think it's fundamentally unsporting there, where every hand is a new game.

I'm inclined to allow someone with an interest in the hand to say or do anything to improve their profitability (besides cheating, of course), even if it affects someone else's profitability. I think you have a sportsmanship issue only when it becomes a kingmaking situation, where (for example) someone who's going to fold anyway tells someone else they should fold (or stay in!).

As a practical matter, drawing such fine distinctions is probably impossible, hence the "reasonable" rule prohibiting it.

 

[JScott]

I prefer discussions to explanations, but that's okay.

As much as I appreciate the insight many can offer here, I completely agree with you wanting to discuss this.

I think your questions are valid, I think the problem is because poker has so much grey area, everyone tries to have rules to cover these areas, but the lines get even more blurred when it comes to angle shooting/table banter etc. Not all angle shooting is against the rules, it's obviously not right to do, and that's why it's an evolving sport.

I'd hate to play in some of these guys' games because it would be almost no fun at all, and I like playing proper rules. But yeah, if someone goes all in at my home game, someone else is going to count it.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Regarding other players counting all-ins, I pulled of a desperate bluff which would not have worked if the table had started counting.

It's on the river against a very inexperienced but aggressive woman. She bets the river against my busted draw and I suspect she's weak but I don't have that much left so a bluff is out of the question. But I realize I can play on her inexperience, so I say "All in" without moving my chips. She's like "wow, all in? Omg, what do you have??" and ponders and ponders. I realize that at any second someone is gonna start asking the bet size and I realize the flaw in my plan. But finally, she folds!

I tell her how little I had left and she was like "you bastard! I would have called if I had known!" and shows a pair.

So please don't count, or ask for counts, or get involved in any way in other players' pots!

 

[Poker Zombie]

So please don't count, or ask for counts, or get involved in any way in other players' pots!

I agree - mostly - with your concern, but a player contemplating a call is permitted to ask what the bet size is. It should not be given by other players freely, but in a self-dealt game the dealer may not be in the best position to take a count. The dealer may also be the all-in player. So if the player contemplating calling asks, "Omg, what do you have?" someone at the table should give the answer. Preferably the dealer, but there are reasons the dealer may not want or be able to answer.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I agree - mostly - with your concern, but a player contemplating a call is permitted to ask what the bet size is. It should not be given by other players freely, but in a self-dealt game the dealer may not be in the best position to take a count. The dealer may also be the all-in player. So if the player contemplating calling asks, "Omg, what do you have?" someone at the table should give the answer. Preferably the dealer, but there are reasons the dealer may not want or be able to answer.

Yes, of course! I totally agree! Had she asked I would have shamefully answered. And had I not answered, I would have totally expected (and agreed with) that the dealer or any player close to me would have counted.

My point was that she didn't ask, so everyone else needs to shut up. Thankfully, they did! But with this particular crowd, that was a long shot that I didn't include in my calculations.

 

[BGinGA]

I agree - mostly - with your concern, but a player contemplating a call is permitted to ask what the bet size is. It should not be given by other players freely, but in a self-dealt game the dealer may not be in the best position to take a count. The dealer may also be the all-in player. So if the player contemplating calling asks, "Omg, what do you have?" someone at the table should give the answer. Preferably the dealer, but there are reasons the dealer may not want or be able to answer.

I think her "omg what do you have?" question was in reference to his cards, not his chip count. Unless she specifically asks for a count, players should remain silent on the matter..... although it's preferable that they do so anyway, since it's the dealer's (or floor/TD) responsibility to provide an accurate and unbiased count.

Last thing I want/need is extra commentary ("it's only xx more", "it's xx which is more/less than you have", etc.) which can influence decisions -- intended or not. Even another player simply asking her if she WANTS a count can ultimately influence the action.... which is why it's wrong and against the rules.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Like it wouldn't have been a total surprise if I said All In and she said OMG and then someone else who's not in the hand asked for a count, triggering her to ask for a count.

I think her "omg what do you have?" question was in reference to his cards, not his chip count

Spot on. I've been unclear in several posts tonight!