Cash Game Robert's Rules of Poker no longer considered universal poker rules? (1 Viewer)

[Machine]

A good habit is to exchange your hole cards for chips. Don't toss your winning hand to the dealer until the dealer pushes you the pot.

I played Monday with a mid twenties guy that kept intentionally miss calling his hand. Flush then not even have a card of that suit when he showed his hand.
Keep your hand until there is evidence that you’ve lost

 

[PARADOX]

I played Monday with a mid twenties guy that kept intentionally miss calling his hand. Flush then not even have a card of that suit when he showed his hand.
Keep your hand until there is evidence that you’ve lost

There was a guy doing that at a casino I was at about five years ago. Dealer called floor over after second time and he was warned if he did it again he would be removed from the tournament.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I am going to pull out everyone's favourite wild card rule., The "Spirit of the Game". Player 2 is clearly conceding the pot. Push the chips to Player 1 and move on with your lives. While the rule states that that it takes two cards to win this is typically glossed over in this situation. Remember the two card rule is in place to prevent collusion, not to satisfy everyone's curiousity. Players asking to see the hole cards are looking for information that they didn't have the guts to pay for and are being rude (that's my own opinion there). If you suspect collusion/shenagigans by all means ask to see the cards.
Remaining silent here is more polite and respectful and speeds up the game.

In Cooke's rules he explains the Robert's Rule we are discussing is the standard, but offers an alternate rule. The alternate rule states that if you suspect collusion you must call the floor to have the cards turned over.

I've dealt poker for 12 years in a casino and I've only ever seen this rule applied to try and prevent collusion once.

"They didnt have the guts to pay for" but they raised and got called, theyre not folding to a bet? Just asking. I'm in agreeance with spirit of the game.

 

[Jdawg]

Chip dumping in tournaments definitely makes sense and I agree with you on that for sure. I should clarify I am specifically talking about cash home games and not tournaments. Sorry about that.

Hopefully that adds some better context.

I'm not really a room director per say. I was being hypothetical when I said that. I am getting ready to start my own home game and I'm kinda trying to do my due diligence in trying to provide a fun, fair, and well structured game for my players.

I thought that in order to claim any part of the pot, you must show, unless you are the only live hand. I also thought it was perfectly legal to concede the pot by mucking without showing at showdown. And that a caller could demand to see a hand at showdown since he essentially paid to do so.

I agree with the first 2 sentences. Regarding the 3rd...
In my humble opinion... No. (unless there's reasonable concern for collusion or cheating)
If a player concedes the pot to his opponent by mucking his cards, his hand effectively dead.
If I was the dealer, I would handle the situation like this: (Note: both players must agree)
If the hand is retrievable, The player can flip over his hand if he wants, but in doing so, the hand is now effectively live again, and the other player must show his hand too in order to claim the pot.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I am going to pull out everyone's favourite wild card rule., The "Spirit of the Game". Player 2 is clearly conceding the pot. Push the chips to Player 1 and move on with your lives. While the rule states that that it takes two cards to win this is typically glossed over in this situation. Remember the two card rule is in place to prevent collusion, not to satisfy everyone's curiousity. Players asking to see the hole cards are looking for information that they didn't have the guts to pay for and are being rude (that's my own opinion there). If you suspect collusion/shenagigans by all means ask to see the cards.
Remaining silent here is more polite and respectful and speeds up the game.

In Cooke's rules he explains the Robert's Rule we are discussing is the standard, but offers an alternate rule. The alternate rule states that if you suspect collusion you must call the floor to have the cards turned over.

I've dealt poker for 12 years in a casino and I've only ever seen this rule applied to try and prevent collusion once.

Appreciate your expertise. Did you often see pots taken without showing hands at showdown though? Dealt for a few years and saw many insta-mucks but always asked to see the winner and placed it next to the board, just good habit to get into before cleaning up.

I completely agree asking to see someone's holding once they mucked is very rude but legal, but I see taking the pot as different. Maybe its a logical fallacy for me: showdown is upon us, we need live face-up cards to put a cap on that hand and move on.

 

[MrCatPants]

I'm in the "verbal solves everything" crowd.

For all those talking about "release" - what actually is that? For instance...

1) A player picks up a barrel of chips and 'drips' chips one by one from his hand into an area across a betting line without a verbal. Is that a slow release? Or once the first chip is released it's a call or a min bet, otherwise it's a string bet?
2) A player picks up a barrel of chips and takes them across the betting line and uses that as their "work area" to cut out an amount of chips and pulls back the chips they did not intend to bet without a verbal. Was the whole barrel 'released'?

We address it as, cut out your chips behind the line, and release them into the pot in one action without a verbal, or verbally state your bet/amount and then you have more leeway into how you put that in the pot. Curious how others look at the two situations above.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I played Monday with a mid twenties guy that kept intentionally miss calling his hand. Flush then not even have a card of that suit when he showed his hand.
Keep your hand until there is evidence that you’ve lost

Very frustrating and wouldn't fly at my game, too many new people learning the game. This is a big reason why I want winners always shown at my game, too mant angles.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I'm in the "verbal solves everything" crowd.

For all those talking about "release" - what actually is that? For instance...

1) A player picks up a barrel of chips and 'drips' chips one by one from his hand into an area across a betting line without a verbal. Is that a slow release? Or once the first chip is released it's a call or a min bet, otherwise it's a string bet?
2) A player picks up a barrel of chips and takes them across the betting line and uses that as their "work area" to cut out an amount of chips and pulls back the chips they did not intend to bet without a verbal. Was the whole barrel 'released'?

We address it as, cut out your chips behind the line, and release them into the pot in one action without a verbal, or verbally state your bet/amount and then you have more leeway into how you put that in the pot. Curious how others look at the two situations above.

In the 3 rooms Ive worked in:
1, first chip to fall plays (or however many to call). Thats a release. String bet if he can pick and choose when to stop releasing chips.


2, depends on who it is. New player, inexperienced? Id explain what the betting line is and warn them next time all those chips are fair game. If its a regular, they know better, barrel plays.

Im also a huge fan of verbal. My players know when its ambiguous I fall back to the rules.

 

[Bunny]

I thought that in order to claim any part of the pot, you must show, unless you are the only live hand. I also thought it was perfectly legal to concede the pot by mucking without showing at showdown. And that a caller could demand to see a hand at showdown since he essentially paid to do so.

Any one who was dealt into the hand at the beginning can demand to see the cards when a bet is called at showdown. The question is should you? It's my opinion that in the overwhelming majority of hands it is better not to. Why embarrass an opponent when you catch him bluffing? The pot/chips should be enough without rubbing someone's nose in their mistake. An embarrassed player may leave the game instead of continuing to play, Also, asking to see mucked cards doesn't always start a confrontation but it always slows down the game. Let your curiosity go unsatisfied, it will make you a more pleasant player and keep the game friendlier.

 

[allforcharity]

Any one who was dealt into the hand at the beginning can demand to see the cards when a bet is called at showdown. The question is should you? It's my opinion that in the overwhelming majority of hands it is better not to. Why embarrass an opponent when you catch him bluffing? The pot/chips should be enough without rubbing someone's nose in their mistake. An embarrassed player may leave the game instead of continuing to play, Also, asking to see mucked cards doesn't always start a confrontation but it always slows down the game. Let your curiosity go unsatisfied, it will make you a more pleasant player and keep the game friendlier.

Individual etiquette is a choice. If one is going to bluff, you must be prepared to have your bluff called. I'm interested in what is consistent with the rules, because it's hard to police behaviour. If I have paid for the right to see a hand, can I not exercise it to see if my instinct was correct? What if he mucked the winning hand?

 

[BGinGA]

If one is going to bluff, you must be prepared to have your bluff called.

Absolutely, and having your bluff called simply means losing the pot, but not necessarily showing your hand.

If I have paid for the right to see a hand, can I not exercise it to see if my instinct was correct?

You haven't actually "paid for the right to see a hand" -- you paid for the right to WIN a POT (if holding the best hand), nothing more.

 

[Mr Winberg]

You can also no longer say "raise," then pause to look around before completing your statement.

I didn't know this. May I pause after saying raise (I see this all the time: "Raise...to 400"), or is it the looking around that's forbidden?

And how is it enforced? Is it ruled a min raise?

I guess my question is: What's the exact rule?

 

[Machine]

Any one who was dealt into the hand at the beginning can demand to see the cards when a bet is called at showdown.

This is actually changing; I've seen this in print - it talks about 2 variants of this.

Only those involved in the hand post Turn, and the other variant is those post flop. Specifically moving away from anyone dealt in.

We had a conversation in a previous thread, talking about the history of this rule comes from 'The Showdown' where everyone presented their hand regardless of position or aggression.

The rule is there to prevent collusion and many casinos won't honor your request if it's not a concern for cheating.

 

[ArielVer18]

I didn't know this. May I pause after saying raise (I see this all the time: "Raise...to 400"), or is it the looking around that's forbidden?

And how is it enforced? Is it ruled a min raise?

I guess my question is: What's the exact rule?

The exact rule will depend on the house. TDA no longer allow multi-move actions around 2019 so more and more places will also update their house rules to follow TDA. Therefore, it’s a bad idea to say “raise, <pause>, to 400” without already knowing the house rules.

If enforced, anything you say after the pause is considered a string, so saying “raise” will be ruled min raise

 

[Bunny]

Individual etiquette is a choice. If one is going to bluff, you must be prepared to have your bluff called. I'm interested in what is consistent with the rules, because it's hard to police behaviour. If I have paid for the right to see a hand, can I not exercise it to see if my instinct was correct? What if he mucked the winning hand?

re "What if he mucked the winning hand?"
This is interesting. When he mucks the winning hand his hand is dead. If you demand to see his hand, the cards once again become live and cards speak. If he has the winner he gets the pot and (again just my opinion) you look like a damn fool.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

The exact rule will depend on the house. TDA no longer allow multi-move actions around 2019 so more and more places will also update their house rules to follow TDA. Therefore, it’s a bad idea to say “raise, <pause>, to 400” without already knowing the house rules.

If enforced, anything you say after the pause is considered a string, so saying “raise” will be ruled min raise

This is completely avoided by yelling "POT!" instead of raise. No pause or extra syllables to get hung up on, just pure unadulterated aggression and confidence.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

The exact rule will depend on the house. TDA no longer allow multi-move actions around 2019 so more and more places will also update their house rules to follow TDA. Therefore, it’s a bad idea to say “raise, <pause>, to 400” without already knowing the house rules.

If enforced, anything you say after the pause is considered a string, so saying “raise” will be ruled min raise

Enforcing this seems like it would be ridiculously subjective. I often pause after saying raise to do quick math and decide how much, but it's rarely more than a second or so.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

This is completely avoided by yelling "POT!" instead of raise. No pause or extra syllables to get hung up on, just pure unadulterated aggression and confidence.

I like your style.

Unfortunately, "pot" is not a legal action in NL games. The solution, of course, is to only play PL.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Enforcing this seems like it would be ridiculously subjective. I often pause after saying raise to do quick math and decide how much, but it's rarely more than a second or so.

Agreed. Maybe the looking around is doing more work in that rule? As dealer, I don't mind it if, while deciding the amount, they're looking down in despair or up in desperation, just not side to side for insight lol.

I like your style.

Unfortunately, "pot" is not a legal action in NL games. The solution, of course, is to only play PL.

Huh, I didn't realize this and have messed up that ruling. When people have said pot they would put enough chips out to match the pot, occasionally in more than one physical action. I guess its intention based anyways; not a legal action but an amount that can be understood by the table.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Huh, I didn't realize this and have messed up that ruling. When people have said pot they would put enough chips out to match the pot, occasionally in more than one physical action. I guess its intention based anyways; not a legal action but an amount that can be understood by the table.

The problem is that in NL (unlike PL) tracking the amount in the pot is not the dealer's responsibility. So strictly speaking, "pot" is a meaningless word in NL.

Obviously it's easy to figure out, but when someone in my game says something like "pot" or "I put you all in," I remind them that their bet has to be a dollar amount or all in. I don't want to teach bad habits that will burn them in a casino game.