To speak or not to speak, that is the question

[redfisher]

[ 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.

[bav]

[ 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.

[psandman]

[ 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.

[psandman]

[ 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.

[MCS]

[ 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.

[TMTTR]

[ 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.

[EWillers]

[ 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.)

[MCS]

[ 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.

[tarantulabob]

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

[Aces McGee]

[ 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