To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

Something that I have seen discussed very little--although it comes up with some regularity--is the ethical dilemma of whether a player not involved in a hand should speak up when he notices a rule violation that is putting one player at a disadvantage, when the dealer fails to notice or address the problem.



I just put up on my poker blog two such stories from my own experience: Edited out - no free promotion of you blog!
I'd be pleased to read thoughts from others here and/or in the comments section of the blog, on whether I was right to speak up in the first situation, and/or whether I should have said something immediately at the table in the second situation. Also, if you like, comment on how there developed in some circles an unwritten rule that players not involved in the hand should keep quiet about any perceived irregularities, and how we can change that part of poker culture (if that you agree it should be changed), or why we should keep such a practice (if you think that players not in the hand should keep mum).

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

Story 1: I speak up. It seems that most people (including dealers) don't understand what constitutes a raise in those situations. Since the inexperienced player is being taken advantage of in this case (even if it is inadvertent) he should be protected by the other players at the table. I would probably keep quiet though if it were two regulars playing. I'll let them look after themselves in these situations.

Story 2: I speak up after the hand is over. Damage is done, but I'd make a comment about that not really being appropriate. Nothing serious, just a light-hearted comment.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]

I just put up on my poker blog two such stories from my own experience: Edited out - no free promotion of you blog!


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. I was really just trying to save space: those who were interested in the general topic could click over to read the details, others could move on. But OK, here are the situations:

Story #1.

A $1-$2 no-limit hold'em game at the Las Vegas Hilton. After the turn card is dealt, Player A bets $15. Player B moves all-in for $25. Player C calls. The dealer turns back to A, who immediately pushes all-in for around $90. As the dealer turns to C for his action, I speak up and point out that A does not have the option to re-raise there. Before anybody can react to my comment, though, C calls (for a little less than what A had put in). It turns out that C--a fairly weak and inexperienced player--was on a flush draw and missed. He then left the table.

After the hand, Player A acknowledged that he was wrong. He had had a very strong hand, and was eager to get all his chips in. I believe that his mistake was inadvertent. The dealer also acknowledged that he missed the fact that B's all-in was not a full raise, and therefore A could only fold or call. OK--everybody makes mistakes, and the actions happened so quickly that it would be easy to miss.

But what bothered me most was that Player A and two others at the table chastised me for attempting to intervene when I wasn't involved in the hand.

Story #2.

The next day I'm in the same type of game at Bally's. Player A raises. Player B pushes all-in for a substantial re-raise. Player C reluctantly calls. Player A appears equally unhappy about the re-raise, but eventually calls, and as he does so asks C, "You want to just check it down?" C agrees. The dealer does nothing. This time I didn't speak up, largely because the damage was already done: clearly, even if the dealer tells them that such an agreement is in violation of the rules, they'll both officially rescind the deal, but check anyway.

But I think that part of why I didn't protest was having just been criticized the previous day for intervening when I wasn't in the hand, and I didn't feel like being the bad guy twice in a row. I did get up and talk to the floorperson privately about the situation. He came to the table and asked the dealer about it. The dealer said he heard the collusion, but it had happened so fast that he couldn't stop it.

My general thoughts.

To my way of thinking, no player can help another make a decision, but every player has a duty to the integrity of the game, and the integrity of the game includes giving every player the full protection of the rules.

In my first scenario, if the illegal re-raise had been halted in time, I suspect that Player C would have been happy to be able to see the last card for the cheaper price, and save his last money if his draw didn't hit. In the second scenario, Player B would presumably not be pleased with the agreement between A and C, since he would prefer to have one of them push the other out of the pot, and thus only have to beat one other hand at the showdown, rather than two.

I don't know whether the disadvantaged players in these games didn't know the rules, weren't paying enough attention, or were too shy or intimidated to speak up. But even players who don't know all of the intricacies of the rules are entitled to their protection--and if the dealer doesn't act to enforce the rules protecting one player from the illegal action of another, it seems to me that other players should do so. It's just the old golden rule: I would want somebody else to speak up if I were being disadvantaged by an action I didn't know was illegal (because of being inexperienced, distracted, or whatever), so I should do the same in return.

I would also argue that it's better for the game in the long run if weaker players are protected by the more knowledgeable ones; if they know that their inexperience isn't going to be taken unfair advantage of, they'll be more likely to keep coming back.

These two stories occurred shortly after I had bought and read Cooke's Rules of Real Poker. One of the points that had caught my attention in that new book was rule 16.17: "A player should speak up immediately when he sees an error such as an incorrect amount going into the pot; a pot that is about to be awarded to the wrong person; a card going to the wrong person; or a flashed or marred card."

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

#1: Speak up as soon as you see it. Rules violations like that are every players responsibility to correct.

#2, Discuss with floor in private like you did. There's no point in asking the dealer or the table - you'll just get a bunch of angry responses about how "it's our money, we can play it any way we like" or "we were heads up so we can agree to this". It's a no win situation for you and the dealer. let the floor handle it. If he's on his game he'll come over, stop the game and let everyone know that this isn't to happen again and why it is collusion.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

I think you should speak up in those situations where you would want someone to speak up if you were the one being disadvantaged.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

I wouldn't have done anything differently.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

not sure if you already have clarified this but you should ask a floor about the rule in the room as to how much of a raise re-opens the action. In at least some places that raise to $25 would reopen betting because it is more than half of a raise.

But more on topic I think that you handled both situations right.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

I always speak up in Case #1, if only because the rule is inconsistently enforced, and I like to get it clarified on the record before it comes up in a situation I am involved in.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

Wow. Seems I'm in the minority on this one. For me, it is the exception, not the rule, when I speak up about errors when I'm not in a hand.

Instances where I would speak up: shorting the pot, player about to pick up the wrong card, dealer about to push the pot to the wrong player, dealer mis-announcing a hand at show-down. I'm sure there are a few others.

During the play of a hand, I believe it is a player's responsibility to protect his hand. I also believe it is his responsibility to protect his rights. Many may disagree. I would imagine it's a matter of opinion.

But let me make a different case for the silence of the would be do-gooder. He may not be doing good. In the 1st story, it could be the case (though rare) that player C was super slowplaying a great hand and hoping that further action would come from player A.

A more common example of this is the string raise rule. Sometimes, the offended player would welcome a string raise. If the would be do-gooder is at the table, his hopes would be dashed.


[ QUOTE ]
#1: Speak up as soon as you see it. Rules violations like that are every players responsibility to correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a particular category (or even list) of rules violations, or should we consider ALL rules violations to be the domain of the non active player?

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
During the play of a hand, I believe it is a player's responsibility to protect his hand. I also believe it is his responsibility to protect his rights. Many may disagree. I would imagine it's a matter of opinion.

But let me make a different case for the silence of the would be do-gooder. He may not be doing good. In the 1st story, it could be the case (though rare) that player C was super slowplaying a great hand and hoping that further action would come from player A.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, many will disagree. Like me. This hits on a couple of my favorite concepts: help the newbies, and consenting adults...

When you're playing NL1/2 with tourists and such who don't know all the specific rules of the cardroom, or of NL, or of poker in general, they cannot protect themselves. I believe the world of poker will be better off if the newbies go away with the impression "those are standup guys who play by the rules" rather than "those dicks cheated me". I'm trying to fleece the sheep repeatedly, some people are trying to skin 'em.

As for whether it was in player C's best interests... It really doesn't matter. There's also player B to be concerned with. Letting player A raise when he didn't actually have that option impacts a third player in the hand. Perhaps B has a monster and he WANTS player C to stay in the hand (but he doesn't know the rule about what kinda raise reopens the wagering to player A). Letting A push here is potentially gonna push C out and impact B's ROI.

Generally the way I phrase it is something like "if any of you guys still in the hand don't like that, you should ask for the floor--I don't think that's allowed in this situation" (or something like that). I am not going to INSIST the floor get called. Long as the involved players understand they have that option, I'm a-ok with consenting adults agreeing to play by adjusted rules.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
After the turn card is dealt, Player A bets $15. Player B moves all-in for $25. Player C calls. The dealer turns back to A, who immediately pushes all-in for around $90. As the dealer turns to C for his action, I speak up and point out that A does not have the option to re-raise there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to ask, but why is it no option for A to re-raise? I never played in a casino, as I couldn't afford it. So I only play online. But when I see it right, A bets, B raises AI, C calls the raise... so why can A only call or fold?!

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for whether it was in player C's best interests... It really doesn't matter. There's also player B to be concerned with. Letting player A raise when he didn't actually have that option impacts a third player in the hand. Perhaps B has a monster and he WANTS player C to stay in the hand (but he doesn't know the rule about what kinda raise reopens the wagering to player A). Letting A push here is potentially gonna push C out and impact B's ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bav,

You're crossed up here. It's obviously in B's interest for C to fold. B is AI, C called, A tries to reopen betting. C is protected here, not B. B can only triple up. His equity goes up when C is forced out. Regardless, point taken. In a three way situation, all players' interests should be protected.

My problem with not being the table rules nit when not in the hand is as follows: How can I complain about rules violation ABC when it affects me if I have watched it happen to other players 10 times in the last 3 hours? I have implicitly accepted that what is going on is OK. If I would object to a poker situation if it involved me I try to make it clear that the victim may allow the angle, but I will not tolerate it.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After the turn card is dealt, Player A bets $15. Player B moves all-in for $25. Player C calls. The dealer turns back to A, who immediately pushes all-in for around $90. As the dealer turns to C for his action, I speak up and point out that A does not have the option to re-raise there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to ask, but why is it no option for A to re-raise? I never played in a casino, as I couldn't afford it. So I only play online. But when I see it right, A bets, B raises AI, C calls the raise... so why can A only call or fold?!

[/ QUOTE ]

The standard rule in no-limit cash games is that if an all-in bet is not a full raise, then any player who called the previous bet does not re-gain the option to put in another raise. By "full raise" here, I mean a raise that is at least the size of the previous raise (if there was one), or double the current bet (if there was no previous raise). Here, if the all-in player had had $30 left instead of just $25, and C called that, A would have the option to re-raise, because his $15 got a full, legal raise. As it actually happened, the $25 wasn't really a raise (technically it was a "call plus action"). For A to put in a reraise means that he would, in effect, be raising his own previous bet. If B had raised instead of calling the $25, that, too, would re-open things to A for a re-raise, because then he is not raising his own prior bet.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

Thank you for the information. Don't know if I really like it. But if it's the rule in casinos, then it is the rule in casinos. Never saw it online though...

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

I think if you see something wrong you definitely should speak up. Sometimes I get chastised for this, but I really think it is everyone's duty to speak up when they see something wrong. For example, a little while ago 3 people saw the flop at a casino I frequent. It was checked to the preflop raiser who elected to go allin. The next player to act started to chat with the other player that was to act after him, on whether he was going to fold or not in a subtle way. The dealer did nothing. He repeated the question in a less subtle way, and I immediately interjected before the other player could answer, and the hand concluded fairly. Had I kept my mouth shut, there was a very good chance that the allin player would have gotten screwed. Dealers make mistakes, as do floor people. If you see a mistake that can be corrected/prevented, you should do so -- maintaining justice should not be only the casino's responsibility.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're crossed up here. It's obviously in B's interest for C to fold. B is AI, C called, A tries to reopen betting. C is protected here, not B. B can only triple up. His equity goes up when C is forced out.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never much liked learning my ABC's, anyway. That "ellemenoopee" thing always threw me--I had some trouble figuring out what that really long word was referring to. But I digress slightly...

You are correct, I screwed up on the details.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
During the play of a hand, I believe it is a player's responsibility to protect his hand. I also believe it is his responsibility to protect his rights. Many may disagree. I would imagine it's a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I see with this is that the player involved in the hand can not always speak up to protect his rights.

ExampleL years ago I was playing in a small tournament. I raise before the flop and get headsup with a player who is behind me. On the flop I miss but I make a continuation bet. She calls me. The yurn comes and I bet out again. She now makes an extrememly blatant string raise. The dealer says nothing and no other player says a word.

What can I do here? well I can ignore the fact that she strung raised and fold my cards. Or I can bring to the dealers attention that she sring raised. But if I do that I am telling her that I don;t think my hand is any good here and that information may hurt me on the river.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with not being the table rules nit when not in the hand is as follows: How can I complain about rules violation ABC when it affects me if I have watched it happen to other players 10 times in the last 3 hours? I have implicitly accepted that what is going on is OK. If I would object to a poker situation if it involved me I try to make it clear that the victim may allow the angle, but I will not tolerate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Situation #2 is my boggest pet peeve. I see it commonly when I am dealing and when I speak up about it I get a lot of [censored]. I am constantly told that this is allowed in every casino by every other dealer except me (I don't believe it).

People need to speak up on this problem because too many players think this is acceptable conduct.

The one time I ever got written up was out of an incident that grew out of this situation. A player became abusive to me, the floor did nothing so I abused the player back. Now playuers shouldn;t have to be abused over this either, but since so many players think this play is acceptable someone has to speak out or it will only continue.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for the information. Don't know if I really like it. But if it's the rule in casinos, then it is the rule in casinos. Never saw it online though...

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure this rule applies online as well.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem I see with this is that the player involved in the hand can not always speak up to protect his rights. ... I can ignore the fact that she strung raised and fold my cards. Or I can bring to the dealers attention that she sring raised. But if I do that I am telling her that I don;t think my hand is any good here and that information may hurt me on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really good point.

In your spot, was the string raise an angle or do you think she was just careless? If it was not an angle, it seems reasonable to let it stand (she's not gaining an "unfair" advantage in some sense) but say something after the hand like, "Just so you know, you're really not supposed to do that, I know this wasn't your intention but here's why it's illegal..."

As for the OP, in story 1 I speak up for sure; it's a valuable rules clarification for the future as well. In story 2 there's nothing you can do to make them bet, but after the hand I'd explain in a non-aggressive manner that what they did wasn't really okay.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
ExampleL years ago I was playing in a small tournament. I raise before the flop and get headsup with a player who is behind me. On the flop I miss but I make a continuation bet. She calls me. The yurn comes and I bet out again. She now makes an extrememly blatant string raise. The dealer says nothing and no other player says a word.


[/ QUOTE ]

The string raise issue definitely cuts both ways. I was at a 2/5 game one night where the donkey attempted a raise on the river with a board of K K 7 7 Q. Player A led out 125. The donkey attempted to raise to some amount but screwed up the procedure and thus attempted a string raise. Would be do-gooder who wasn't in the hand spoke up and the attempted raise was disallowed. Player A had K Q and donkey had K whatever. Effect stack was about 1000.

As far as doing good vs. doing not good, it cuts both ways.

What I find interesting re: the string raise mistake specifically is what is the best rule for combating it. There are 3 main choices.

1) Dealer should be always active. Anytime a string raise is made the dealer should disallow it and explain the rule if necessary.

2) Dealer should be active only when the pot is not head-up. The thinking here is that though the string raise may actually benefit a would be offended player, there is a 3rd party involved, and thus the dealer should actively correct the mistake to protect the 3rd party.

3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

I imagine in a perfect world, the rule used by a house would depend on the size of the game. Entry level games would use #1 or 2, while larger games would use #3. I'm not sure if this is practical to do within a given house given the crop of dealers at the casinos I frequent (prolly 1/2 would be able to do it no prob; the other 1/2, it would be a disaster.)

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
In story 2 there's nothing you can do to make them bet, but after the hand I'd explain in a non-aggressive manner that what they did wasn't really okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is important. I would not do as I believe OP did and just talk to the floor discretely. After the hand was over, I would say something out loud to the two players (and the table, if they are listening) about it not being cool to agree to check it down when someone is all in. No reason to be over-agressive. Indeed, it often takes some explaining about why it is different to check it down when it is truly heads up versus when a third party is all in, but it is a conversation worth having. If the conversation gets heated or players disagree with you about the rule, ask the floor to clarify.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

Situation 1: same thing happened the other day at TS, player A bets 50, player B goes all in for 63, player c calls and player A tries to re-raise. At least 3 players spoke up (me included) and none were in the hand. Have to correct the action if necessary. Player A didn't understand the rule, dealer called the floor, floor made the right decision, player A could not re-raise.

Situation 2: I could never understand checking it down in a cash game, I'll bet into an all-in pot any day if I have a chance of winning it or a side pot. I'm there to earn cash after all.

BC

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info.

Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info.

Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. I was really just trying to save space: those who were interested in the general topic could click over to read the details, others could move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was able to find your blog on google searching for the text of the stories you posted. I have no idea why TT finds posting that link objectionable. There's nothing commercial about it. Anyway, there should be space in your personal info for a "Homepage." Link your blog there, if you want.

Story 1: Tough call. Generally, I like to let players still in the hand call stuff like this -- and string raises, for example -- because Player C could have wanted all of Player A's chips in the middle. Given that C is inexperienced, I can see an argument for speaking up to protect him, but I think I keep quiet.

Hand 2: I don't say anything at the time unless the discussion continues further -- if one player doesn't understand why the other wants to check it down and they start discussing it, for example. You are right; the damage has been done.

After the hand, however, I would probably say something. The key is to do it in a friendly way that isn't confrontational, and if the discussion gets heated, to get an "official" word from the dealer and/or floor.

-McGee

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info.

Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, okay. I guess it's fair in the sense of everyone is held to the same standard. I still don't like it, but I am a low-stakes player in addition to being kind of a rules nit.

Are there ever issues with players abusing the rule somehow?

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) The dealer should allow the offended party to bring up the issue if he chooses. The dealer should never actively correct the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea at all. I think that it would just lead to situations like the one described earlier where revealing whether you are okay with the string raise gives away info.

Unless you call out angleshooters a game theoretically optimal percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most commonly used rule in higher limits (and all of California form what I have observed). It is a tradeoff, you can accept the action or you can reveal the weakness of your hand but save the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, okay. I guess it's fair in the sense of everyone is held to the same standard. I still don't like it, but I am a low-stakes player in addition to being kind of a rules nit.

Are there ever issues with players abusing the rule somehow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I have seen. There is the potential for someone to string bet to see if their opponent wants to call a string bet, but it comes at the cost of having to pay the extra bet (or even face a reraise) if the player wants to accept the action. What happens in practice if a newbie makes a string bet is everyone lets it in and then someone explains to them after the hand how to bet properly.

Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Story 1: Tough call. Generally, I like to let players still in the hand call stuff like this -- and string raises, for example -- because Player C could have wanted all of Player A's chips in the middle. Given that C is inexperienced, I can see an argument for speaking up to protect him, but I think I keep quiet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If C were experienced, he would know (or be expected to know) that A cannot raise and thus that he cannot get all of A's chips in on this street by just calling. Therefore that is not a valid defense, and C shouldn't expect to be allowed to call.
If C is not experienced, he has the right to be protected from illegal moves that he may not know are illegal. Thus, C should not be forced to call.