Worst Rule In Poker

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem that I have with the extra small blind penalty is that it adds extra dead money to the next pot. This could be fixed by simply removing the small blind penalty from play. This is what I think is the best way to have a tournament penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

But now you have a situation in which one player can willfully affect the dynamics at the table, and it becomes more and more significant as the small blind increases with respect to the stack sizes. I understand that this hurts the person given the penalty more than anybody else, but it still may change the play for the other players at the table. And yes, I understand that giving a player a "time out" penalty may change the dynamics of the table as well. I was simply pointing out that either way, the dynamics change.

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
I speak of the one where a player who puts in too little money, because he is unaware of the correct amount, can't take it back, but can fold if he leaves the short amount in.

[/ QUOTE ]

We had an even worse rule at a local cardroom here. The rule was as you stated, but in addition, action out of turn was binding, and any money that crossed the betting line had to stay in the pot no matter what. In effect, these rules allowed the possibility of a player betting twice in the same betting round! Example:

Player A bets $200. Player B calls $200. Player C is thinking about what to do, at which point Player A shoves in another $1000. Now Player C knows the bet will be $1200, and can act accordingly. If he calls or raises the bet will be at lease $1200 when the action gets back to him. If he folds, Player B now has to decide whether or not to call the $1000 or forefit his $200.

I pointed out this huge flaw to the manager of the cardroom, and needless to say, the rule was abandoned shortly after. They do still have some pretty screwed up rules, though, such as action out of turn being binding and the rule you mentioned in the OP. I have talked with her about why these rules are illogical and the possible repercussions that could come with them. Her answer was simply, "Well if people start to use them to shoot angles, we'll just expel them from the cardroom" to which I countered, "Why not just keep the standard rules and if people try to shoot angles with them (as stopping angles was the primary reason for implementing most of these non standard rules) kick those people out?" I never received a reply.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem that I have with the extra small blind penalty is that it adds extra dead money to the next pot. This could be fixed by simply removing the small blind penalty from play. This is what I think is the best way to have a tournament penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

But now you have a situation in which one player can willfully affect the dynamics at the table, and it becomes more and more significant as the small blind increases with respect to the stack sizes. I understand that this hurts the person given the penalty more than anybody else, but it still may change the play for the other players at the table. And yes, I understand that giving a player a "time out" penalty may change the dynamics of the table as well. I was simply pointing out that either way, the dynamics change.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is why I think the penalty should be that they drop and give us ten.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this is the worst rule David?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not David...but I think its a dumb rule because it defeats its own aim.

Like, the reason the rule is not that the players must complete the full amount of the call is because there would be alot of times where the player who made the intial raise was bluffing, isolating, etc...and so forcing calls screws with the game's integrity. The house is trying to avoid that.

Except that the rule the way it is does that anyway by telling the player that they can either complete or forfeit what's already in the pot. The large majority of players are going to pick CALL rather than forfeit their chips...even though they probably would have gone with FOLD if it wasn't for having to forfeit the chips.


What do you all think of if the RULE was that if a player puts money in the pot with the clear intention of calling, but doesn't realize there was a raise and so goes to pull the amount of the first call back- any other player at the table may force the call.

The house, however, does not force the call untill a player requsts it. (Much like the called hand rule for collusion- where any player can ask the dealer to show a called hand if they suspect collusion, but the dealer cannot turn a hand up unless a player has requested it.)

I dont know...there are alot of unusual cardroom rules.

Do you think that would make the rule less dumb?

[willie24]

wait...so if the pot was 4 handed and i bet 200 and got 2 calls, and the 3rd was thinking about it...i could say, oh by the way i bet another 500, and that bet would count? and the people who called 200 would be screwed?

i must have this wrong. if not, i am dumbfounded and also surprised that stories of serious violence in this cardroom didn't come with your post.

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
wait...so if the pot was 4 handed and i bet 200 and got 2 calls, and the 3rd was thinking about it...i could say, oh by the way i bet another 500, and that bet would count? and the people who called 200 would be screwed?

i must have this wrong. if not, i am dumbfounded and also surprised that stories of serious violence in this cardroom didn't come with your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have it correct (except that if you actually said 'oh by the way I bet another 500' the floor man would likely realize you were shooting an angle and kick you out after the hand - in that case he might make you take the 500 back. You would have to make it look like an accident - something along the lines of you thought one of the two guys who called raised and you didn't see the third guy in there). As I mentioned, I quickly pointed out the horrible flaw when this rule was implemented and it was changed shortly thereafter. It had caused a of lot problems before it was changed, but nobody shot the specific angle of "double betting" before it was changed. The players in this cardroom are for the most part either too stupid or too honest to do that.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
but nobody shot the specific angle of "double betting" before it was changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that?

There are lots of mind games you can play here. For instance your subconscious mind can do the cheating for you, allowing you to ‘completely honesty’ admit you did not know what was going on. It’s an extremely important technique in Bridge and it’s also why you have to assume guilty until proved innocence in these sorts of situations.

[Magic_Man]

About 2 years ago, I was playing in Tunica. UTG raised, and there was one coldcall. The next guy says "I call" but only puts in one bet. After the dealer says "no, it's two bets," the guy says "Well in that case, I reraise." And they allowed it! I was pretty pissed because I was sitting on the button with 66 and several more players were coming for two bets. Horrible ruling.

[soon2bepro]

David. I know of a rule much worse than that... Or rather, a rule that is lacking...

In most live tables and tournaments, there is no specified time a player can use to take action.