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

[Gobbs]

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.

First, it would be betting is to poker as dribbling is to basketball (both pretty important aspects of their games) and string betting is to poker as palming the ball while dribbling is to basketball (both subsets of the original but still quite important). That pretty much looks like apples to apples to me.

Second, you kind of ignored the whole premise that the rule you quoted doesn’t apply to the situation you presented. Basically, there is no rule that allows the string bet to be acceptable. While I understand why you may be inclined to allow it, as others (and I) have mentioned, not consistently following rules leads to problems. What are you going to do when the next player string bets? Where do you draw the line? What do you do when the next “new-to-your-game” player string bets and it looks like he may have been shooting an angle, but you’re not sure? Again, I understand the inclination, but it really presents problems to not apply the standard rules consistently.

Third, of course, you are well within your rights to run the game as you see fit and I hope you and your players enjoy it. I’m fact, I hope you all enjoy it for a long time. That brings me back to the original point. The friendlier the game, the more important it is to enforce the rules consistently if you want to keep it friendly. Best of luck.

 

[softchewy]

Best of luck.

Thanks.. same to you

 

[TheBigTater]

I believe that enforcing rules at all stages of experience and/or stakes (especially for newbie players) is better for the game. As I said before, learning a lesson for a small amount will help players from repeating a mistake later on for a large amount of money.

Making exceptions based on intent can be a slippery slope and IMO should be done sparingly, if at all. Yes, it may be likely that new player Billy made an honest newbie mistake by string betting but ruling one way one time (because Billy Newcomer isn't familiar with the rules) and another the next time (because Jim Veteran is a regular) is not what I would call consistent and IMO not good for any game (poker or others).

Whether you use RRoP or TDA or some mishmash of both plus a little home brewed rules, everyone should be allowed to run their games based on "their" rules as they see fit for their game. And all players should be apprised of and hopefully understand those rules before playing. But IMO whatever "their" rules are, they should be followed everytime, not sometimes depending on experience/intent/etc...

 

[softchewy]

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)

basically advantage gained.
A player who is unaware they are string betting does not gain an advantage if all players at the table are new (aside from me, the host), don't realize it either and their subsequent decisions in the hand are not effected by it (they don't know there is any issue, they just know that she bet).
The string better gains no advantage. After it happens, string betting is explained to them and they grasp the concept in action.. it is enforced going forward.
Palming, walking, double dribbling, etc gains you an advantage.. Even If you are unaware that they are against the rules.
I certainly enforce rules and also believe in consistency, but situations may dictate slightly different rulings/leeway... such as in a teaching game with a $5 buy in (so players stay somewhat focused.. while drinking ). You can easily argue to just pull back the string bet and explain it as well, but keeping the game fun and not making a player feel bad may be more important at that moment.
With players who have played before, rules are rules and need to be followed.
Like everything.. it's all relative.

 

[Gobbs]

You are making a huge assumption the new player gained no advantage. He may not have intended to gain an advantage, but he certainly might have. How do you know that when he called, he didn’t see a reaction out of the corner of his eye and gain knowledge?

It’s similar to the flashed card rule when pitching cards. Even if nobody saw the card and gained an advantage, if it’s flashed and people could have seen it, it’s replaced to be on the safe side. That’s why string betting isn’t allowed. Even if nobody gained an advantage from it, it’s disallowed to be on the safe side.

 

[toynoob]

Nobody follows the “correct” rules playing Monopoly

That is an incorrect statement, I knew that rule book word for word and anyone who wanted to try to beat me knew we play by the rules or they don't play.

 

[toynoob]

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.

Please name the players who want, string bets, out of turn guy every hand, guy getting change from the pot and he's not even in the hand, has Cheeto fingers while dealing (house rule), splashing pot on bet, etc etc? If this is what they want they can go play bingo bc that isn't poker.

 

[toynoob]

@softchewy I see your points and get that they are new players on the string bet example. My comment to your example would be "if I intended to raise to $100 and took $25 across betting line and then grabbed the $75 and this is a rule in poker, I would want someone to point out to me that's a string bet and here is why it's a rule. I wouldn't want my $100 to then go in the pot because I'm "new". Having it pointed out and enforced will ensure the next hand and for the rest of my life I won't make the same mistake.

I point this out bc I have played in a game close to me the last 2 months and I'm the new guy there and feel completely uncomfortable. The host is so laxed it kinda ruins the game to me. These guys and gals been playing for years, 10-30 people. The string betting is insane. They are all terrible players, I open preflop on this crowd and I here grumbles every single time. They want a "friendly pot" every hand. When you let something slide as a host it can fast get out of control until everyone just excepts it as a norm. My guess is there was a ton of "new people" that started playing there and now play in a circus not knowing they aren't really even playing poker in my opinion.

 

[JustinInMN]

Mandatory "does the NBA even make players dribble anymore" snark post.

 

[Gobbs]

Mandatory "does the NBA even make players dribble anymore" snark post.

Mandatory “No, especially if your initials are LBJ” snark answer.

 

[Gameface]

I think this question of rules enforcement is made much easier if the host and/or dedicated dealer are on top of things.

If someone is betting out of turn, I as the dealer stop them as quickly as I can and tell them player x hasn't acted yet.

If, as in the Mike Caro example, a guy is trying to use some weird noise to check, I will confirm with that player if they are checking instead of letting action continue.

If a new player throws out a T500 chip when blinds are 50-100 I stop play and ask them if they intended to raise. If they say they wanted to raise AND no action has happened after them I will often let the action stand after explaining the one chip rule to them at the same time explaining that if they ever don't have exact change not to worry about it because they will get change back after the betting is complete.

There was a situation recently where a player put in a single chip and the two players following him called before action was stopped (I wasn't dealing). In that situation the bet was counted as a call due to action taking place before clarification was made.

If a player has been in the game for a while the one chip rule is enforced without question. They've seen it happen, they've heard it explained to new players.

There is one guy in our group who likes to get cute when he's contemplating a call or someone else is taking time trying to call a big bet by him. I'm not the host in this game so I have deferred to the host, but this guy plays in casino games regularly and I personally would tell him to cut it out. For example, when contemplating a call he'll think it out out loud like "Does he have the king? Yeah, he probably has the king." Then he'll talk to the other player "You got it bruh? Yeah, you got me man." And then he'll pick up his cards and kind of start to motion like he's folding them, then pull them back, then talk some more. Personally I'd tell him he can't play Hokey Pokey with his cards. If he makes a folding motion it's going to be considered a fold. If he makes a motion with his chips like he's putting them in the pot it's gonna be a call. But the host has let it go.

This guy I'm talking about had another incident when I was dealing. We were playing a $100 buy-in deepstack tournament, first one this group had played. We started with T30,000. I want to say the blinds were in the 100-200 range give or take a blind level. On the turn it's him and one other player. There might have been T3000 in the pot. He announces a bet of "18," the other guy quickly calls and starts putting T1,800 out. The suspect says "I meant 18,000." I straight up laughed at him. I said there's no way anyone thought you were betting 18,000 at these blind levels when you say "18." The bet it 1,800. He kind of seemed like he wanted to argue it, but I just looked at him like "You can go ahead and cut the shit." and he went with the ruling.

So with a guy like that I think you have to watch for angle shooting and be ready stop it as fast as possible.

 

[Taghkanic]

I’d agree with those who say the one instance where rules sometimes might get bent—once—is if you have a relatively inexperienced player joining a home game.

As a host, one has the constant responsibility/challenge of keeping attendance up.

If someone has just joined a game, who is not that experienced a player, but you hope to bring them along as a regular while teaching them the ropes, I think in such cases there is more of a rationale for saying, “OK, s/he didn’t know about [string betting/acting out of turn/putting in one chip/etc.]. Let’s allow it this once, but use it as a chance to explain the rules.”

Yeah, one way to teach a lesson is to have someone suffer the consequences of a mistake. But it can also be a way to chase off a new player, who made an honest error out of ignorance.

So that’s where I think intent does sometimes argue for using the “best interest of the game” clause... sparingly.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Making exceptions based on intent can be a slippery slope and IMO should be done sparingly, if at all.

I've heard this argument before, and yet in several years of running a game with intent-based leniency for newer players, I've never had a single problem. And, many of those players have learned casino rules over time and adhere to them.

Yes, it requires two things that may not be appropriate for all games: ongoing education and selective enforcement. I make an effort to teach new players the rules without penalizing them for acting against their own intent (if the mistake is easily correctable). Once I know they know a rule, I will enforce it more strictly with them.

So if @ni9n3r tries to string bet in my game, I'm going to laugh in his face. But if a newb does it, and I catch it before there's action behind, I'll usually explain the problem and give them a chance to correct their action.

So with a guy like that I think you have to watch for angle shooting and be ready stop it as fast as possible.

Yeah, this type of player can be a big problem for my strategy above. But I avoid inviting them to my games, and angle shooters find their way off my invite list pretty quickly, so it's self-correcting.