Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Brick and Mortar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-26-2007, 08:50 PM
rakewell rakewell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38
Default 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).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-26-2007, 09:04 PM
jjshabado jjshabado is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,879
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-26-2007, 09:43 PM
rakewell rakewell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38
Default 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."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-27-2007, 01:05 AM
Rottersod Rottersod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Where I Want To Be
Posts: 3,154
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-27-2007, 01:10 AM
Doc T River Doc T River is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: amongst my tomes
Posts: 475
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-27-2007, 01:37 AM
TacitMike TacitMike is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Awkward chic
Posts: 42
Default Re: To speak or not to speak, that is the question

I wouldn't have done anything differently.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-27-2007, 01:53 AM
jack492505 jack492505 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 148
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-27-2007, 03:06 AM
NickMPK NickMPK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,626
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-27-2007, 03:22 AM
EWillers EWillers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 227
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-27-2007, 04:11 AM
bav bav is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vegas
Posts: 2,857
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.