Cash Game Rules..... when to follow them (1 Viewer)

[TheBigTater]

Not wanting to hijack some of the other threads concerning rules and/or rulings during hand/play of the game, but I'm just wondering.......

I always find it funny in these types of threads (ruling discussions) that some only believe rules should be followed at 'serious casino games" and not "friendly home games". I too have fallen into this mindset on occasion and it makes me pause.

Not saying either is right or wrong but it does lead to ponder some questions......

Aren't all games involving money serious, or does the size of the pot relate to how much the rules are followed?

If so then where is the line (amount of money involved) for rule bending (not following the hard fast rules)?

Or is it just when the game involves long time close friends that we can have a mulligan?

Sure, nobody is perfect and everyone is going to make mistakes. Seems to me that learning a lesson for a small amount of money would be better than learning a hard one involving a large pot/amount of money. So enforcing the rules at the small stakes friendly game would be a good thing from a learning standpoint.

I'm not a super "rules nazi" kind of guy but it does make sense in a way, why have rules if you aren't going to use them?

this question would be the same for tournaments or cash but it won't let me choose no prefix.

 

[bsdunbar1]

I agree with your questions. We question ourselves sometimes when someone brings up "well 6 months ago you ruled this"
I guess it comes down to these statements from some pretty common rules documents. Also pretty much stated by @CraigT78 in my other post.

The house reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.

The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record

 

[CraigT78]

It's a fine line. A real fine line.

I'll post my thoughts when I'm not on my phone.

 

[TheBigTater]

I'm assuming that people find it easier to determine the offenders intent (mistake or angle) if it is a close or longtime friend. Otherwise trying to determine intent can be tricky.

 

[Jonesey07]

I always try to make rulings based on the spirit of the game at my own game. I also expect the letter of the rules to be followed when I'm playing elsewhere.

 

[detroitdad]

The size of the pot doesn't matter. I'll "try" and rule consistently each time

 

[chipjoker]

I hear what your saying.
I run my games as if we are in a casino (minus the rake), the only stipulation is I make mention of the rule (if one is broken) so that the next person who breaks that will be held to it.
Most of my players know the rules, and I have kept an eye and ear out, I myself had broken a rule and made myself honor it, I thru out a $5 chip (.25/.50 blinds) and did not say raise, so I put my .50 in and took back my 5...Not a big deal, but I want it to run smooth and NO question as to what happens...

Yes it is a friendly game, but, as you stated, money is involved, no string betting, if it goes over the line its in the bet, verbal is binding, I keep these very well.

 

[Jonesey07]

I hear what your saying.
I run my games as if we are in a casino (minus the rake), the only stipulation is I make mention of the rule (if one is broken) so that the next person who breaks that will be held to it.
Most of my players know the rules, and I have kept an eye and ear out, I myself had broken a rule and made myself honor it, I thru out a $5 chip (.25/.50 blinds) and did not say raise, so I put my .50 in and took back my 5...Not a big deal, but I want it to run smooth and NO question as to what happens...

Yes it is a friendly game, but, as you stated, money is involved, no string betting, if it goes over the line its in the bet, verbal is binding, I keep these very well.

I think it's easier to strictly enforce the more common rule breaking scenarios such as the one chip is a call you described. It's the unusual situations that come up that most home games will differ on how they handle situations from what a casino would do.

 

[TheBigTater]

The size of the pot doesn't matter. I'll "try" and rule consistently each time

Consistent rulings would be the correct way always IMO. But I see many comments that people would rule differently if it's just a small pot among friends.

 

[Lemonzest]

To me rules just aren't a big focus in the game. It is a friendly home game and house rules prevail. If someone else hosts then they can get as strict or loose with the rules as they desire. I have some friends that are extremely sticky with rules and that is completely fine as they can adjudicate as they see fit when they are hosts.

Stakes do matter though. We play small stakes among friends or friends of friends so everyone knows each other. No one is going to make a big deal of anything.

If we played NL100 or higher and had some random people show up then yeah rules would be a much bigger focus. The more random people you play with the more you need to think about angles and such.

 

[Gobbs]

The friendlier the game, the more strictly you need to follow the rules. Relaxing rules leads to latent hostility. You may not realize it at the time, but it does. Let latent hostility keep boiling over time and it will eventually boil over and then you have a mess.

Set the rules; let everyone know it’s not personal, but to ensure the game is fair to everybody, the rules will be enforced; and then enforce them as consistently as possible. It may take a couple games for your players to get used to that, but it will pay off in the long run.

(NOTE: While I have a specific set of rules, your rules can be what you want them to be. Personally, I would warn against too many variations from widely accepted rules, but if everybody knows the rules and they are enforced fairly and consistently, that goes a long way towards keeping a friendly game friendly.)

 

[Hornet]

I think you have to be consistent in enforcing the rules no matter the size of the pot. We play mainly PLO-based games with a 1-2-5 structure. Many pots are several hundred dollars, if not more. Just because a pot is only $50 or so doesn’t mean the same rules won’t be enforced in the name of “fairness.” And I think you get yourself into trouble if you make rulings based on “intent”. We all have been playing in this game for years and there is a high level of trust, but we all agreed to live by a certain set of rules, and none of those are based on intent.

 

[softchewy]

I think you have to be consistent in enforcing the rules no matter the size of the pot. We play mainly PLO-based games with a 1-2-5 structure. Many pots are several hundred dollars, if not more. Just because a pot is only $50 or so doesn’t mean the same rules won’t be enforced in the name of “fairness.” And I think you get yourself into trouble if you make rulings based on “intent”. We all have been playing in this game for years and there is a high level of trust, but we all agreed to live by a certain set of rules, and none of those are based on intent.

Rules are not necessarily based on intent, but rulings can and should be... intent makes a difference.
ex. I have someone play in my game who is a first time player. They decide to raise and put out (over the betting line) a couple of chips and then grab some more from their stack and put those out also. They don't know they are string betting and are not looking at anyone while doing it.
Same scenario with a seasoned player who is actively watching for reactions as they do it..
I honor the rookie's bet and allow the mistake and explain to them again what string betting is.. the veteran gets no slack - different ruling

 

[Kensco]

I'm not a super "rules nazi" kind of guy but it does make sense in a way, why have rules if you aren't going to use them?

I don't see following the rules warranting the negative connotation. Every other game we (you, me, everybody) play we follow the rules i.e. Monopoly, Scrabble, euchre, go fish, etc.. At least I'm not aware of anyone slacking certain rules in any other game.

Why consider poker a different animal?

 

[krafticus]

I don't see following the rules warranting the negative connotation. Every other game we (you, me, everybody) play we follow the rules i.e. Monopoly, Scrabble, euchre, go fish, etc.. At least I'm not aware of anyone slacking certain rules in any other game.

Why consider poker a different animal?

Nobody follows the “correct” rules playing Monopoly

 

[Sal Bandini]

Rules are not necessarily based on intent, but rulings can and should be... intent makes a difference.
ex. I have someone play in my game who is a first time player. They decide to raise and put out (over the betting line) a couple of chips and then grab some more from their stack and put those out also. They don't know they are string betting and are not looking at anyone while doing it.
Same scenario with a seasoned player who is actively watching for reactions as they do it..
I honor the rookie's bet and allow the mistake and explain to them again what string betting is.. the veteran gets no slack - different ruling

I see what you're saying and would be inclined to cut the new guy some slack, but imo you are better off telling him he cannot string bet. He will learn quicker this way rather than if he is given exceptions.

 

[Coyote]

In my opinion, the better the friends are, the more important it is to observe rules. Good rules make (and preserve) good friendships, especially in games like poker, with money at stake.
I can't see how a group of close friends would opt to play soccer also using hands, or basketball allowing to grab the ball and run, just because they 're friends.

That said, any rule should be implemented keeping in mind its spirit (i.e. its aim) and not its letter. Reality always exceeds the imagination of any legislator.
Enforcers should know themselves and explain to others the purpose of each rule.

 

[2plus2]

Mike Caro had a story about how difficult rules can be. This was in a casino.

A player can check either verbally or by knocking the table. One guy in particular would knock the table rather loudly and make a weird noise. Throughout the game he would systematically knock the table more lightly while still making the same sound. Eventually he would stop knocking the table altogether and just make the noise which players and the dealer came to accept as a check.

If you're at all familiar with human psychology you can see why this would work, and where this story goes. At some point in the night when it was quite favorable for him, he'd call the action back, because he hadn't legally checked or even acted at all. While it's easy to notice and condemn this behavior given the details of the story, you can imagine the headache for the floor person. Straight bright lines make things easy, but they rarely exist in nature.

 

[Frogzilla]

I’ll share my experiences with this topic. It’s a delicate one.

There are some negative stigma around poker. One is that poker is cutthroat game not meant to enjoy with friends, but to take money from opponents. Another is that serious poker is nonsocial - headphones in, sunglasses on, not talking as to prevent giving off a tell. Sure, lots of us are trying to enjoy the social aspects of it and not take the money too seriously. But nevertheless those stigmas are present.

Now, in my experience, people associate diligence with the rules as part of those stigmas. I see the value in the rule, sure. I understand that not making change out of the pot until action concluded just speeds up the game and prevents confusion. But someone else hears “don’t make change out of the pot” and thinks “I’m taking this game too seriously.” I don’t feel that way, but it’s certainly relatable.

This is all on top of general dislike for pedantry. Isnt it normal to let some fouls go in pickup basketball? Monopoly, do you stick to the rule guide 100%?

So as a host, you’re in a tough spot. Focus on nitpicking the rules will absolutely improve the play of the game and fairness. But at a cost of making it less social, and alienating some players who just don’t want that kind of environment.

 

[softchewy]

I see what you're saying and would be inclined to cut the new guy some slack, but imo you are better off telling him he cannot string bet. He will learn quicker this way rather than if he is given exceptions.

Yes, but I can't expect a brand new player in a friendly low stakes game to memorize all the different lesser known rules on the first go... so if it is obvious to all that the intent was not to deceive anyone and no one has acted different (attempted to call the initial amount of chips put out) prior to the string bet, I'm allowing it. Once explained in action, now they are responsible to follow it.. this is where the friendly game portion comes into play. If you have a "serious" game, you expect much more from the players.

 

[Coyote]

@Frogzilla , I see where you 're coming from, ie from a -culturally- Christian Protestant society, where people pretend to be doing the right thing and the threat is, clearly, pedantry (blind enforcement of rules, by their letter; not their aim).
I come from a -culturally- Christian Orthodox society, where people pretend to love each other, and the threat, is, clearly, no enforcement of any f*king rule

It always depends on cultural factors too to see where the biggest threat is coming from.

 

[Gobbs]

Yes, but I can't expect a brand new player in a friendly low stakes game to memorize all the different lesser known rules on the first go... so if it is obvious to all that the intent was not to deceive anyone and no one has acted different (attempted to call the initial amount of chips put out) prior to the string bet, I'm allowing it. Once explained in action, now they are responsible to follow it.. this is where the friendly game portion comes into play. If you have a "serious" game, you expect much more from the players.

Can we play basketball for $100 per bucket? I’ve never played before, though. So, when I intend to dribble, but travel, you’ll let it slide, right?

 

[softchewy]

Can we play basketball for $100 per bucket? I’ve never played before, though. So, when I intend to dribble, but travel, you’ll let it slide, right?

nice try, but not even close to the same...

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

For me, the decision has always been twofold: if the infraction is made unknowingly and without malintent AND it has not affected play, I stop the table, explain the rule AND why it is important, then roll back to allow the offender to correct. If either of the above criteria is not met, I do the same except insist the "rules to the letter" is enforced.

 

[Gobbs]

nice try, but not even close to the same...

...and how is it different? I mean, I would have scored if I dribbled, too.

 

[softchewy]

...and how is it different? I mean, I would have scored if I dribbled, too.

You are well aware of this from Robert's Rules, so no need to troll further...

7. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

7. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

At my games, when a player action falls into a gray area or seems to have unknowingly violated a rule, I always ask myself two questions:

1) What was their intent?
2) Should they know better?

My rulings are heavily influenced by the answers. I will often let newbs get away with infractions if their intent was counter to their action. However, I also use those times as teaching moments, and I make it clear that I expect them to learn the rule and not break it in the future.

I'm stricter with players when I know that they are experienced, but even then I consider intent - especially when alcohol has been flowing, as it often does at my games.

 

[Gobbs]

You are well aware of this from Robert's Rules, so no need to troll further...

7. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

That rule is completely not applicable in the example you gave. The intent of the player is not in question. The player intended to raise. Everybody knows he intended to raise. The problem was in the player’s execution. He simply didn’t do it right; no different than a player intending to dribble but carrying the ball. He intended to dribble it right, but executed it improperly.

The bottom line, ignorance of the rules is no excuse. If you play a game or participate in a sport, you should know the rules. Inexperience can excuse ambiguous actions like turning over cards to call an all-in. Then, you can consider experience, but not when the action is simply breaking the rules.

 

[softchewy]

That rule is completely not applicable in the example you gave. The intent of the player is not in question. The player intended to raise. Everybody knows he intended to raise. The problem was in the player’s execution. He simply didn’t do it right; no different than a player intending to dribble but carrying the ball. He intended to dribble it right, but executed it improperly.

The bottom line, ignorance of the rules is no excuse. If you play a game or participate in a sport, you should know the rules. Inexperience can excuse ambiguous actions like turning over cards to call an all-in. Then, you can consider experience, but not when the action is simply breaking the rules.

right, so you know you're supposed to dribble, but the poker player doesn't know they are not supposed to string bet (they didn't know what string betting was).. yep, still apples an oranges.
The relative fundamental aspects don't add up. You're analogy is no good (plus the stakes are way off)..
Dribbling is to basketball as string betting is to poker?
I disagree with that logical fallacy... so you run your game your way and I'll run mine my way.. sound good?
May be best to ignore my "poor" example and address the OP directly if you have more to add.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

Dribbling is to basketball as string betting is to poker?
I disagree with that logical fallacy

So in my mind, the reason this is not a good example is that the failure to dribble is paired with moving down court. Thus, further actions have been affected by the breaking of the rule, therefore it would have to stand to the letter of the rule. Consider instead this scenario: new player manages to break away with the ball. He travels, then the buzzer for end of quarter/half rings immediately after. No further effect is observed. If I knew the player knew what he was doing and was hoping not dribbling would give him an edge, i.e. maybe a better shot at a buzzer beater, I'd call him on it and call a foul. If the player was truly new and just got excited, forgetting to dribble, I'd point out to him that it should really be a foul, but since it didn't hurt anything, we'll let it go (after all, this is a friendly game)