Cash Game Robert's Rules of Poker no longer considered universal poker rules? (2 Viewers)

[JustinInMN]

For 3 USD you can get it in electronic form from Amazon

That's probably worth a read, but 2005 is still 17 years old. I am not sure when Bob's was last updated.

 

[Machine]

That's probably worth a read, but 2005 is still 17 years old. I am not sure when Bob's was last updated.

I would like to be able to argue that paying a small amount for someone's effort to keep something up-to-date is worth a small fee; alas I have no leg to stand on =)

 

[grebe]

grebe's rules of poker:

Just fucking verbalize your action. I'll never get why so many people think they are going to convey so much information by stating clearly: "call" or "raise". So dumb. 90% of this shit goes away by just saying one syllable.

If you refuse to state clearly what you want to do, then you are at the whim of the person making the ruling.

 

[BruceM]

Tda poker rules are a great guideline

I can't stand this, it's nothing but a distraction, and you see it in several places.

I know a guy who literally has over 70 player cards from various card rooms and casinos. He has had exactly 1 experience with this rule in a casino.

The amount of chips over the line was the bet, but they didn't post it, and they didn't tell him. He had a barrel of 5's and was calling a 45 USD bet; they explained it was a raise.

This is the crappy part, later the tabled had cycled and he picked up a barrel of 25s and said 'Call' as he moved across the betting line, well now it's a raise and he can Hollywood it's a call and make a fuss.

Releasing chips isn't vague it's a physical action, when he removes his hand, what is left is the bet.

This creates more angling than it helps, hence against the spirit of the game.

This was ruled wrong, if the person said call first before bringing chips forward that supercedes. In CO there is no betting line and it’s forward motion with release.

 

[ArielVer18]

Even if "chips released" is the legit house rule, TD should at least put him on the hook for a call for moving chips toward the pot.

"Chip released" isn't a house rule; it's the standard universally accepted poker rule, unless a house rule says otherwise. Releasing chips is a common betting style for at least a decade. Players habitually shuffle a stack of chips and lifts the entire stack of chip towards the middle of the table to "release" what they actually want to bet and pull the rest back. It's not my favorite way to make a silent bet, but it's something to be aware of.

Long ago, I was playing in a home tournament ($60 entry, two full tables). Not long after starting, I am dealt pocket aces in the small blind (50/100 blinds).

Folds around to me, and I raise to 300. The BB player takes his entire stack (about 15 chips total, a combo of T25, T100, T500, and T1000s), and extends his arm fully forward (about 1" above the felt).

I immediately blurt "call", and flip over my aces. He pulls his hand back and claims he never bet anything. TD is called, who rules 'no bet' because the chips were not released.

I argued the angle-shooter aspect of his action to no avail, and collected my T100 winnings.

That being said, I'm not sure how long ago this was, but modern rules say you cannot extend a stack of chips out and still fold. By bringing chips forward, you are making at least a call.

Poker rules can change over time. I'm watching old WSOP footage and hear things like "I call and raise" or "I put you all in," stuff that would not fly in 2022.

 

[JustinInMN]

"Chip released" isn't a house rule; it's the standard universally accepted poker rule, unless a house rule says otherwise.

point well taken. the phrase "rule in play" instead of "house rule" would have better conveyed my meaning.

and as you can see in the earliest posts in this thread, I think forward motion and released is the superior rule and I hate the concept of a betting line.

 

[upNdown]

I hate the concept of a betting line.

Why? I’m curious. It seems like a clean and simple solution. Maybe I’m not sure why we have these rules at all. But if the purpose of the rules is to prevent angling by faking a bet or by faking a larger bet, it would seem to me that a betting line makes a lot more sense than released chips.
I have to admit, I can’t stand it when somebody brings a stack of 20 out, drops 3 in the middle, and pulls it back. It just seems reckless and lazy to me.

 

[grebe]

I have to admit, I can’t stand it when somebody brings a stack of 20 out, drops 3 in the middle, and pulls it back. It just seems reckless and lazy to me.

I like to think that every now and again, they clumsily drop the stack. They complain to the dealer they only meant to make it $15, but now it's $100 and they lose. This would be what is known as an "asshole tax".

 

[JustinInMN]

Why? I’m curious. It seems like a clean and simple solution. Maybe I’m not sure why we have these rules at all. But if the purpose of the rules is to prevent angling by faking a bet or by faking a larger bet, it would seem to me that a betting line makes a lot more sense than released chips.
I have to admit, I can’t stand it when somebody brings a stack of 20 out, drops 3 in the middle, and pulls it back. It just seems reckless and lazy to me.

I laid it out in post #19.

Also I will add, the "release" rule is way better than any "betting line" rule. If the betting line is the rule, angle shooters can pretty much do anything they want to get reads behind the line. You will start dealing with pump-fakes, drops they want to take back and so many other distasteful possibilities.

I get the desire to believe the betting line is a "clean and simple solution." But in practice, what this really does is define the area outside the line as free space for any angle shooter to maximize any number of pump fakes and unsporting moves. We really don't want floorpeople in a position to look at bets the same way football referees have to look at deciding on a ball carrier at the goal line (which chips/how many broke the plane?) Motion toward the pot and release is much easier to enforce and forces players to be cautions of what they are doing regardless of where they are on the table. A betting line provides more protection for bad actors, not from them.

 

[upNdown]

I laid it out in post #19.


I get the desire to believe the betting line is a "clean and simple solution." But in practice, what this really does is define the area outside the line as free space for any angle shooter to maximize any number of pump fakes and unsporting moves. We really don't want floorpeople in a position to look at bets the same way football referees have to look at deciding on a ball carrier at the goal line (which chips/how many broke the plane?) Motion toward the pot and release is much easier to enforce and forces players to be cautions of what they are doing regardless of where they are on the table. A betting line provides more protection for bad actors, not from them.

I guess that’s a fair point. I just don’t have much experience with these bad actors. I believe I’ve been angled like this exactly once in my life, though I can’t even remember the details any more (though I’m pretty sure I posted about it here.). How many times have I seen it, live, at a table? A very small handful?
I guess my point is that in my experience, it isn’t a significant concern. But yes, if you’re trying to rule out all possible shenanigans, I see your point.

 

[Lemonzest]

Just fucking verbalize your action.

This.

As a beginner I was stung at the casino due to a misunderstanding where I flipped over my hand without verbally stating call.

The poker world should push verbalizing your action right at the beginning of your turn. This leaves no room for misunderstanding or accusations of angling.

Even apart from angle shooting it is annoying waiting for the person to stop fumbling with their chips to figure out whether they are calling or raising and if raising then by how much. If the player verbalizes their action up front then the other players can start thinking how they want to react while the player fumbles around and counts out chips.

Verbalizing action not only removes confusion but also speeds up the game. Lets make it the norm.

 

[Machine]

... I hate the concept of a betting line.

I DISAGREE!

Now let's define the concept

If it's a place where a bet is valid and in play, allowing the player to have a defined space (behind the line) to prep bets and situate cards / chips, then we are on the same page.

If it's a line that mandates all chips are a wager and in play that cross it, well that's BS!

I like the line, I dislike the WRONG concept of the line

 

[upNdown]

I DISAGREE!

Now let's define the concept

If it's a place where a bet is valid and in play, allowing the player to have a defined space (behind the line) to prep bets and situate cards / chips, then we are on the same page.

If it's a line that mandates all chips are a wager and in play that cross it, well that's BS!

I like the line, I dislike the WRONG concept of the line

So you like it for the exact reason that he dislikes it.
Great work we’re doing here.

 

[Taghkanic]

How do Cooke’s rules differ from Robert’s?

 

[CrazyEddie]

This ruling is truly awful. Even if "chips released" is the legit house rule, TD should at least put him on the hook for a call for moving chips toward the pot.

Robert's Rules is pretty clear that "forward motion" is only binding in limit poker.

Villain did not make a bet, and was within his rights to fold when Dave interrupted him while he was still in the process of betting.

... per the house rules that were in effect for that game.

 

[Machine]

How do Cooke’s rules differ from Robert’s?

Well the first thing is the name…

I doubt I could articulate it very well, but I find bits differently in each source and I enjoy the mostly subtle differences, I often enjoy learning and it can highlight other aspects of the rules or purposes

 

[Bunny]

I prefer to use multiple sources.

TDA / Robert's Rules / Cooke's Rules

With these three I think you can navigate a situation that isn't explicitly listed.

Cooke's Rules of Real Poker is the best rulebook I've come across. The rules are not only presented in an orderly format each rule well explained in regards to application and intention.
Alternate rules are provide for some situations where a slight change may solve a problem that arises when using a traditional rule.

 

[Bunny]

For 3 USD you can get it in electronic form from Amazon

Spend the extra money for the physical copy. It's easier to index and you can stick it under someone's nose when they argue with you.

 

[Jdawg]

What do you guys think of this...

Player 1 and player 2 are heads up on the river.
Player 1 is first to act and checks.
Player 2 bets.
Player 1 calls.
Player 2 mucks his cards without showing.

Should player 1 still have to show his cards to win the hand?... personally I don't think so. Since he's not being contested, it's not technically a showdown is it?

I don't think this is addressed in Robert's rules.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

What do you guys think of this...

Player 1 and player 2 are heads up on the river.
Player 1 is first to act and checks.
Player 2 bets.
Player 1 calls.
Player 2 mucks his cards without showing.

Should player 1 still have to show his cards to win the hand?... personally I don't think so. Since he's not being contested, it's not technically a showdown is it?

I don't think this is addressed in Robert's rules.

Yes. Soon as the bet is called, they are at showdown; player 1 should show cards to claim the pot. Especially in tournaments this is done to avoid collusion.

The Showdown section of RRoP:
1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played or not.

 

[Jdawg]

Yes. Soon as the bet is called, they are at showdown; player 1 should show cards to claim the pot. Especially in tournaments this is done to avoid collusion.

The Showdown section of RRoP:
1. To win any part of a pot, a player must show all of his cards faceup on the table, whether they were used in the final hand played

I disagree... respectfully.

I think you need at least 2 players for a showdown meaning at least 2 exposed hands...
If player 2 shows his hand, then player 1 has the option to expose his/her winning hand, or mucking his/her losing hand and not showing it.
After player 2 mucks his/her hand, he/she effectively surrenders leaving player 1 uncontested to win the pot and thus no need for a showdown. As a game director, I'm definitely not going to require player 1 to show his/her hand and at the same allow player 2 to muck his/her hand.

I also don't really understand how exposing a players hand at this stage prevents collusion... I can see things like squeeze plays being a form of collusion... but considering this specific scenario, I think of it as more of an angle to force someone unethically to reveal his/her hand in order to get free information on the players involved. If a player raises and everybody folds, does he have to show his hand to win the pot..? No. He doesn't.
I think a player has a right to protect information about his/her strategy/style/range.

I've read Robert's rules and I generally like them with this exception. If you or anyone else can share any info or insight that would help me better understand this, I would really appreciate it. Also thank you for responding.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I disagree... respectfully.

I think you need at least 2 players for a showdown meaning at least 2 exposed hands...
If player 2 shows his hand, then player 1 has the option to expose his/her winning hand, or mucking his/her losing hand and not showing it.
After player 2 mucks his/her hand, he/she effectively surrenders leaving player 1 uncontested to win the pot and thus no need for a showdown. As a game director, I'm definitely not going to require player 1 to show his/her hand and at the same allow player 2 to muck his/her hand.

I also don't really understand how exposing a players hand at this stage prevents collusion... I can see things like squeeze plays being a form of collusion... but considering this specific scenario, I think of it as more of an angle to force someone unethically to reveal his/her hand in order to get free information on the players involved. If a player raises and everybody folds, does he have to show his hand to win the pot..? No. He doesn't.
I think a player has a right to protect information about his/her strategy/style/range.

I've read Robert's rules and I generally like them with this exception. If you or anyone else can share any info or insight that would help me better understand this, I would really appreciate it. Also thank you for responding.

Not a problem, not offended, good discussions. Dont worry about it.

Showdown is not two hands showing, showdown is a stage of the hand. Soon as the last bet is called, the showdown has started. There is no pending action other than "show your cards to accept the pot". Respectfully, where are you a game director? The rules are very clear about this; need to show a full hand to win the pot at showdown.

You see showdown as an optional way to win the pot, which I believe to be incorrect. Showdown is a stage that the hand naturally plays to.

Chip dumping comes to mind; if I want my partner to get my chips to have a significant advantage in a tournament, I call/bet/whatever, fold everyone else out, then fold after checking the river. My partner scoops the pot with less suspicion after they called my overbet with absolutely nothing. If they have to show, collusion is more obvious especially if a pattern of this develops between two people.

Or Im sitting with two black aces, both of which are spades. I play them as such, I say "I have aces" and opponent folds, I never have to show the fact that I knew the deck was faulty and my hand shouldve been declared dead soon as the flop came.

What about assholes who say "I have a straight" while having nothing? Opponent mucks, I take the pot without having to show the fact that I angled/am a douchebag?

There is 0 unethical behavior in following these rules as others do. We can discuss whatever we'd like or best practices but dont bring that into it. Allowing people to scoop the pot without showing a hand at showdown allows for way more unethical behavior and its not close.

 

[ArielVer18]

What do you guys think of this...

Player 1 and player 2 are heads up on the river.
Player 1 is first to act and checks.
Player 2 bets.
Player 1 calls.
Player 2 mucks his cards without showing.

Should player 1 still have to show his cards to win the hand?... personally I don't think so. Since he's not being contested, it's not technically a showdown is it?

I don't think this is addressed in Robert's rules.

It’s a showdown. RRoP state you must show to win. Modern rules allows an exception if there’s only one live hand left.

WSOP 2022 live action rule 138: To win any part of a pot, a participant must show all of his cards face up on the table unless that participant has the only remaining live hand.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

It’s a showdown. RRoP state you must show to win. Modern rules allows an exception if there’s only one live hand left.

WSOP 2022 live action rule 138: To win any part of a pot, a participant must show all of his cards face up on the table unless that participant has the only remaining live hand.

In this WSOP setting, Im unsure if any hands are declared dead if not scooped by the dealer? So two hands check at showdown, even if I sigh and push my cards forward, when is that explicitly 'dead'? Would V still have to show to take the pot? Definitely interesting perspective.

 

[Jdawg]

Not a problem, not offended, good discussions. Dont worry about it.

Showdown is not two hands showing, showdown is a stage of the hand. Soon as the last bet is called, the showdown has started. There is no pending action other than "show your cards to accept the pot". Respectfully, where are you a game director? The rules are very clear about this; need to show a full hand to win the pot at showdown.

You see showdown as an optional way to win the pot, which is incorrect. Showdown is a stage that the hand naturally plays to.

Chip dumping comes to mind; if I want my partner to get my chips to have a significant advantage in a tournament, I call/bet/whatever, fold everyone else out, then fold after checking the river. My partner scoops the pot with less suspicion after they called my overbet with absolutely nothing. If they have to show, collusion is more obvious especially if a pattern of this develops between two people.

Or Im sitting with two black aces, both of which are spades. I play them as such, I say "I have aces" and opponent folds, I never have to show the fact that I knew the deck was faulty and my hand shouldve been declared dead soon as the flop came.

What about assholes who say "I have a straight" while having nothing? Opponent mucks, I take the pot without having to show the fact that I angled/am a douchebag?

There is 0 unethical behavior in following these rules as others do. We can discuss whatever we'd like or best practices but dont bring that into it. Allowing people to scoop the pot without showing a hand at showdown allows for way more unethical behavior and its not close.

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.

 

[Jdawg]

It’s a showdown. RRoP state you must show to win. Modern rules allows an exception if there’s only one live hand left.

WSOP 2022 live action rule 138: To win any part of a pot, a participant must show all of his cards face up on the table unless that participant has the only remaining live hand.

This makes sense to me. Thank you very much.

 

[Bunny]

What do you guys think of this...

Player 1 and player 2 are heads up on the river.
Player 1 is first to act and checks.
Player 2 bets.
Player 1 calls.
Player 2 mucks his cards without showing.

Should player 1 still have to show his cards to win the hand?... personally I don't think so. Since he's not being contested, it's not technically a showdown is it?

I don't think this is addressed in Robert's rules.

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.

 

[allforcharity]

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.

 

[buffalojim]

What do you guys think of this...

Player 1 and player 2 are heads up on the river.
Player 1 is first to act and checks.
Player 2 bets.
Player 1 calls.
Player 2 mucks his cards without showing.

Should player 1 still have to show his cards to win the hand?... personally I don't think so. Since he's not being contested, it's not technically a showdown is it?

I don't think this is addressed in Robert's rules.

This is almost exactly the scenario I laid out here, although my question was does Player 1 have the right to still see Player 2s cards.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/what-the-muck.96641/

 

[ArielVer18]

In this WSOP setting, Im unsure if any hands are declared dead if not scooped by the dealer? So two hands check at showdown, even if I sigh and push my cards forward, when is that explicitly 'dead'? Would V still have to show to take the pot? Definitely interesting perspective.

In most places your hand is dead when it's no longer retrievable. However, if you're no longer protecting your hand, unless you're shooting an angle, you're implying you no longer care when your hand is explicitly dead.

There was a pretty controversial situation a while back where on showdown between Roland De Wolfe and Tobias Reinkemeier both players refused to show their weak holdings. Roland flashed his K-high to Tobias and Tobias badgered him to muck it. Roland threw his cards forward facedown and Tobias gloated by tabling his Q-high to win the pot

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.