-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
DNegs Advocating for Card Protector Ban in Live Games (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ngmcs8203
- Start date
Aside from the angle shoot aspect of leaving one chip, according to DNeg, there are several other potential issues with leaving a single chip behind.
- stalling with one chip to move up in payout. (If there’s an all-in at another table, you just stall until the hand ends and you make + $x b/c you left one chip in front and can stall the action)
- you get “unfair” odds on your single chip due to big blind ante. If the BB anti is $5k and you have a $1k chip, you can still win the BB antes
Last edited:
Never. If I actually have to push the chips in, I’ll usually just keep a hand on the cards, though I have tossed a phone on them if it takes a while.
stalling in general is a probable with tournament poker, and when I guy is prepared for it to be his last hand, not even Daniel’s chess clock solution will help.
I was watching one of the WSOP in paradise tournaments, late after the bubble. Somebody had gone all in and somebody else was calling for less. But he just put all his time bank tiles up first, and I cared that he’d be calling when they were all used up. Can’t blame him, but very annoying.
OP
OP
ngmcs8203
Flush
DNegs advocates for higher rake. Dunno how much he cares about what is good for the game.
GeeOhVee
Pair
I fully expected the card protector item to be related to this issue...
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/poor-card-capping-technique.93623/
As someone who has bought many decks of used WSOP decks that have related marks, it would have made more sense to be a marked card issue.
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/poor-card-capping-technique.93623/
As someone who has bought many decks of used WSOP decks that have related marks, it would have made more sense to be a marked card issue.
I doubt that’s part of it. Poker pros don’t seem to particularly care about chips/cards and for most of their play it’s just the casino’s problem, no?
Meh. The idea that higher rake chases away the pros making the game less expensive for the recs? He said that like 10 years ago and his point was weak, though maybe defendable. I’d like to hear what he says about that today, years later, now that he’s no longer working for PokerStars. It was probably a mistake.
#1&2 (isn't #2 just redundant? Sunglasses cover your face): Eh. Seems unnecessary as a blanket rule. It wouldn't be terrible, but I don't see enough of a benefit to justify it. I think this is one that's fine to leave to TD discretion. Ski mask that wholly obscures your identity? They can make you take it off to confirm who you are. Sunglasses on because it's bright, or surgical mask because you don't want to get sick? That's fine.
#3: Not a fan of hyper-specific rules like this to try and work out every edge case you don't like. Plus this puts a huge onus on a dealer to count players bets and stacks to make sure they don't cross the 90% threshold. And it still leaves the option of betting 89% of your stack to try and accomplish the same thing. I think if you want to address the issues of stalling and unfairness of a BBA you're going to need a more elegant rule change, this one is rather crude.
#4: Honestly fine with this for tournament play. Card protectors are fun and can show a little flavor, but they really aren't necessary. Frankly even when I have one I almost always end up defaulting to either keeping a hand on my cards or leaving my smallest chip on top of them. The benefit to banning them is minor but there's not a whole lot of cost either.
#3: Not a fan of hyper-specific rules like this to try and work out every edge case you don't like. Plus this puts a huge onus on a dealer to count players bets and stacks to make sure they don't cross the 90% threshold. And it still leaves the option of betting 89% of your stack to try and accomplish the same thing. I think if you want to address the issues of stalling and unfairness of a BBA you're going to need a more elegant rule change, this one is rather crude.
#4: Honestly fine with this for tournament play. Card protectors are fun and can show a little flavor, but they really aren't necessary. Frankly even when I have one I almost always end up defaulting to either keeping a hand on my cards or leaving my smallest chip on top of them. The benefit to banning them is minor but there's not a whole lot of cost either.
HughDrackman
3 of a Kind
I see people advocating for #4, and it honestly surprises me.
First and foremost, there is an easier solution to the issue he addresses, and it’s in how a dealer is taught to deal the cards. If the cards don’t leave the felt, then it would cancel any benefit that a hidden camera would provide.
But I think the bigger argument against banning card cappers is that it would diminish the experience for the common reg. MTT’s lifeblood is the pool of regs that it can pull to inflate its payouts. An overwhelming majority of the players at the WSOP Main Event aren’t pros, they’re average people ticking an item off their bucket list. Those regs tend to bring a trinket with them: card capper, good luck charm, what have you, because it’s part of the experience they’ve built in their heads. Banning card cappers would take away at least some of that experience from Joe Lunchpail who doesn’t really think he had a legitimate shot at winning the bracelet, he just wants a story to bring back home to his buddies. Those are the players who WSOP and WPT need to cater to, not the super pros who make the loudest noise through the biggest microphones.
First and foremost, there is an easier solution to the issue he addresses, and it’s in how a dealer is taught to deal the cards. If the cards don’t leave the felt, then it would cancel any benefit that a hidden camera would provide.
But I think the bigger argument against banning card cappers is that it would diminish the experience for the common reg. MTT’s lifeblood is the pool of regs that it can pull to inflate its payouts. An overwhelming majority of the players at the WSOP Main Event aren’t pros, they’re average people ticking an item off their bucket list. Those regs tend to bring a trinket with them: card capper, good luck charm, what have you, because it’s part of the experience they’ve built in their heads. Banning card cappers would take away at least some of that experience from Joe Lunchpail who doesn’t really think he had a legitimate shot at winning the bracelet, he just wants a story to bring back home to his buddies. Those are the players who WSOP and WPT need to cater to, not the super pros who make the loudest noise through the biggest microphones.
Last edited:
Eh, how meant of those bucket listers/regs are really going to care if their lucky coin is on the table or in their pocket? I don't see it diminishing much. Their story doesnt change. Can you see anyone saying "yeah I went to Vegas and lost my money, but I'm not going back because I wasn't allowed a toy while gambling" ?
Not saying you're wrong, I just dont see it as that strong a motivator.
ItsAlwaysLupus
Sitting Out
I like the novelty of card cappers but I would also have no problem with them going away. If it potentially makes for a safer game, then I'm for it. I don't think it's a huge issue in the 1/2 or 1/3 streets that I play in.
ChipMonster
3 of a Kind
#1 & #2 are a slippery slope. Is it so he can get a better read on his opponent or is it to prevent concealed electronics? There are probably better ways to ensure no electronic cheating devices are being used. Also, what counts as a face covering? What about a huge beard where you can’t see the person’s mouth? What about someone covering a portion of their face with their hands? I’d rather see him stop running his mouth during every pot he’s involved in as he is trying to get a read on his opponent…
#3 doesn’t make any sense. It’s called no limit and since they have a big blind ante, that has become part of the strategy. I’d rather see a rule about your single $1k chip left behind only able to win that as a multiple of the BBA when it isn’t enough to be a full ante. Better yet, I’d be a fan of just getting rid of the BBA/SBA format. Tournament structures run better in my opinion if it’s just the small blind and big blind and BBA/SBA just overcomplicated it. Change the blind structure if they need it to run faster.
#4 I kind of partially agree. Some people look like they have a kid’s toy box on the table and it becomes distracting and hard to deal around. Just use a single chip or coin to protect your cards. Leave phones off the table too.
#3 doesn’t make any sense. It’s called no limit and since they have a big blind ante, that has become part of the strategy. I’d rather see a rule about your single $1k chip left behind only able to win that as a multiple of the BBA when it isn’t enough to be a full ante. Better yet, I’d be a fan of just getting rid of the BBA/SBA format. Tournament structures run better in my opinion if it’s just the small blind and big blind and BBA/SBA just overcomplicated it. Change the blind structure if they need it to run faster.
#4 I kind of partially agree. Some people look like they have a kid’s toy box on the table and it becomes distracting and hard to deal around. Just use a single chip or coin to protect your cards. Leave phones off the table too.
I bet we’re getting there. There were quite a few dealers doing that euro pitch at the recent WSOP in paradise. At least on the tv tables.
Make Verbal Imperative
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Don't think it's been posted yet, but here's Daniel's take on the All (but one chip) In and his 90% idea.
Too Long, didn't listen to all of it.
Next step would (SHOULD) be for him to become a Priest (obviously Orthodox, judging also from the beard).
His country of descent (Romania) is Greek Orthodox, and he 's already married, so only the Greek Orthodox church can allow this.
Don't know about the various Protestant sects.
Next step would (SHOULD) be for him to become a Priest (obviously Orthodox, judging also from the beard).
His country of descent (Romania) is Greek Orthodox, and he 's already married, so only the Greek Orthodox church can allow this.
Don't know about the various Protestant sects.
I feel like as long as the community keeps up the "all you need is a chip and a chair" stuff you kind of ought to let people hold on to one chip and their chair.
The shot clock vs chess clock thing I find more interesting if also a bit more selfish. I'm not sure I agree that an edge needs to be given to players who make quick decisions for most hands then want to drag out the really important ones... I think time banks accomplish this well enough really. But if I allow for a moment that it's a good idea, a Go clock with byo-yomi options I think would fit the bill and allow for either type of time management, the main issue would be coding one that tracks periods for everyone at the table, and across tables at a big MTT event.
For those unfamiliar, a go clock allows for a set amount of game time for the main period which counts down for every move while you think. You can also set a number of byo-yomi periods and their length. These kind of work like the current shot clock system, where you have say 5 byo-yomi periods of 30 seconds. You get 30 seconds each move, and if you go over that 30 seconds 1 is subtracted from your number of byo-yomi periods. When you hit 0 periods you lose the game, but for poker you could just get your hand mucked and go back to 1 or something.
Again, I'm not sure it's a good idea and think it would give a greater edge to the professionals, and I'm not really for giving an increased edge to professionals in tournaments especially. If you want lower variance and a bigger edge over recreational players that's what cash games are for.
The shot clock vs chess clock thing I find more interesting if also a bit more selfish. I'm not sure I agree that an edge needs to be given to players who make quick decisions for most hands then want to drag out the really important ones... I think time banks accomplish this well enough really. But if I allow for a moment that it's a good idea, a Go clock with byo-yomi options I think would fit the bill and allow for either type of time management, the main issue would be coding one that tracks periods for everyone at the table, and across tables at a big MTT event.
For those unfamiliar, a go clock allows for a set amount of game time for the main period which counts down for every move while you think. You can also set a number of byo-yomi periods and their length. These kind of work like the current shot clock system, where you have say 5 byo-yomi periods of 30 seconds. You get 30 seconds each move, and if you go over that 30 seconds 1 is subtracted from your number of byo-yomi periods. When you hit 0 periods you lose the game, but for poker you could just get your hand mucked and go back to 1 or something.
Again, I'm not sure it's a good idea and think it would give a greater edge to the professionals, and I'm not really for giving an increased edge to professionals in tournaments especially. If you want lower variance and a bigger edge over recreational players that's what cash games are for.
GreatWhiteDope
High Hand
You do realize that the WSOP actually did this two years ago, right? except for the bagging it part
Nope, had no idea
Much better video than I expected.
#4 sounds powerful, but isn't fair to be labelled collusion any more than any other ICM play, I think it should be allowed.
The key thing is when it's not clear there are chips behind. #4 is fine, and you could announce there is a chip behind and it still works, because it's not an angle.
The plays to get rid of are those that wouldn't work if opponent notices villain is not all in. I like dealer's attempting to announce there are chips behind, and maybe TD allowing the caller to force the all-in if that was the apparent intention. But I don't think we've heard the final answer yet.
Perhaps there could be a guidance like - if player has less then n blinds after a bet, we assume they meant to move all-in unless they announced like, "I bet x, leaving y behind"
I love Daniel. I hate his take on 1 chip left behind. I don’t like the idea of trying to legislate strategy out of the game. Especially when a player can counter this by simply paying attention. If a player declares a bet amount without saying “all-in”, you can always ask how much is left behind. The fix for this is for players to pay attention.
Absolutely. Yes its annoying, but its using the rules as intended, not some odd angle or loophole. I understand it must be more annoying for someone playing 40 hours of tournaments every week with some of the best, would be exhausting, but to change all tournaments would be silly.
I've got a player in a home game that will think twice about calling an all-in, but will call anything less pretty quickly if its before the draw/flop/4th street. If this type of ruling would force me all-in or force the dealer to announce it when I'm betting the vast majority of my stack this even hurts my value bets. Just agreeing with your take.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Also takes care of those situations were a live chip is used as a card cap and not moved forward.
drdr
Straight
Not a fan, would tilt me. My bet is exactly what I decide it is. Not what others or rules want to assume. If I bet 900 of my 1000 that's because I want to bet 900.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
