Poker etiquette (3 Viewers)

[upNdown]

Totally disagree.

Point in case is where player 1 does not have enough chips for player 2 to make a valid wager using that criteria; as always, the actual number of player 1 chips is irrelevant to the size of player 2's bet amount.

Player 2 said the magical words, 'all-in'. Done deal. Verbal actions are binding, even when stupidly constructed.

I can see your point. It’s much cleaner to go with the magic words than to try to interpret intent.
Suppose he said “I bet everything you’ve got” and then the guy immediately folded and then mr big stack immediately called - what then?

 

[Steve Birrer]

I can see your point. It’s much cleaner to go with the magic words than to try to interpret intent.
Suppose he said “I bet everything you’ve got” and then the guy immediately folded and then mr big stack immediately called - what then?

We all agree that the language used was not the best. But you are making this too damn complicated.

1. If Player 2 has more chips than Player 1 then Players 2 bet is the total amount of chips Player 1 had.
2. If Player 2 has fewer chips than Player 1 (then he really used poor language) then Player 2 is all in.

In either situation it is Player 3's responsibility to make his bet correctly and if he doesn't understand what Player 2's bet is then he should request an amount before declaring his bet. When Player 3 snaps calls (or says all in) IMO he has no gripe because he clearly got the situation he wanted.

Now we could debate this till the cows come home. I am in the camp that says when its unclear go by the dictionary and language meaning. But at the end of the day the bottom line is that there is a proper way to bet for this very reason. So that there is no dispute.

Oh and for the record, in you scenario the REAL mistake is Player 1 immediately folding OUT OF TURN.

 

[ekricket]

Saw this happen at my local casino

Player 1 bets (stack ~$100)
Player 2 (stack ~$300) says "I put you all in"
player 3 (Has both covered) who has look disinterested the entire hand with cards ready to muck stands up and says "I Call"

Player 1 mucks
Player 2 starts counting how many chips Player 1 had in his stack to put the bet in
Player 3 says "Player 1 put all your chips in you said all in"

Floor was called for a ruling


Moral of the story: Either use chips or use numbers for bets

??? I don't see where player one folded out if turn.

The two questions I see here are

How much was the bet actually, and what determines it?
Does player 1 have to put in ALL of his chips even though he folded after the raise by player 2 and the call by player 3?

Player 1 is folded.
Player 3 is demanding that player 1 put all his chips in.
Player 2 is counting player 1's chips cause that's the amount player 2 intended to bet.

As far as I can tell from the exchange listed the reason the floor got called was to see if player 1 had to put all of their chips in even though player 1 had folded.

 

[upNdown]

We all agree that the language used was not the best. But you are making this too damn complicated.

1. If Player 2 has more chips than Player 1 then Players 2 bet is the total amount of chips Player 1 had.
2. If Player 2 has fewer chips than Player 1 (then he really used poor language) then Player 2 is all in.

In either situation it is Player 3's responsibility to make his bet correctly and if he doesn't understand what Player 2's bet is then he should request an amount before declaring his bet. When Player 3 snaps calls (or says all in) IMO he has no gripe because he clearly got the situation he wanted.

Now we could debate this till the cows come home. I am in the camp that says when its unclear go by the dictionary and language meaning. But at the end of the day the bottom line is that there is a proper way to bet for this very reason. So that there is no dispute.

Oh and for the record, in you scenario the REAL mistake is Player 1 immediately folding OUT OF TURN.

Yeah I got the order wrong. I was just wondering how people would resolve it if different, but still insufficient, words were used, followed by subsequent action.
Obviously, with a good dealer, nobody gets to act until the bet is clarified. But with an angly regular like you had, that’s not always possible. And that may have contributed to the floor ruling - if they know that guy’s always trying to angle somebody, they’re less likely to rule with him on a judgement call.
I guess I like the “magic words” ruling because it takes judgement out of the situation. But I’d like there to be an actual rule that says that.

 

[Steve Birrer]

??? I don't see where player one folded out if turn.

The two questions I see here are

How much was the bet actually, and what determines it?
Does player 1 have to put in ALL of his chips even though he folded after the raise by player 2 and the call by player 3?

Player 1 is folded.
Player 3 is demanding that player 1 put all his chips in.
Player 2 is counting player 1's chips cause that's the amount player 2 intended to bet.

As far as I can tell from the exchange listed the reason the floor got called was to see if player 1 had to put all of their chips in even though player 1 had folded.

I think that's the one point everybody should agree to. No Player #1 doesn't not have to put anymore chips in the middle. He followed the normal protocols correctly. He bet. Then two more players bet some more (and how much more is irrelevant to what Player #1 then does). Player #1 folds. He's out of the equation regardless of any dispute between Players 2 and 3 and the dealer. Player 1 will lose his original bet but no more. He is out of the hand.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I don't like the "Magic Words" ruling idea. Intent should rule, not Magic words. If someone says "I just can't call, I'm going to fold", you wouldn't hold him to a call because the magic word "call" was uttered before "fold". His intent would be to fold.

The same thing with "Put you all-in", the intent is to bet the opponent's stack. If the opponent had more chips, it's all-in. If there is another player that the "I put you all-in" guy forgot about, then that becomes open to interpretation, and the "I put you in" guy has to stick with however it was interpreted.

@DRacula 's example was even more confusing, because it appears he just heard "all-in" and thought player 1 said it.

Player 1 may fold, losing anything he put into the pot up to this point.

Player 2 must accept the house ruling. All in for whatever Player 1 had, or all-in for whatever player 3 had (who had him covered, so effectively all-in). I am good with either interpretation.

Player 3 must call whatever Player 2's bet was determined to be.

Run out the board and pay the winner.

 

[Chris Manzoni]

I've had a house rule for years, if you say "I put you all in" it's ruled the same as saying "All in". I know this is technically incorrect, but I don't really care as this clears up any confusion and I agree that it's a passive aggressive jab that really isn't necessary. If you want to 'put someone all-in' just politely ask how much they have behind, and then make a bet that will cover that amount. If they don't want to tell you how much they have, that's their right (though not good etiquette either) all they are responsible for is making sure that you can see their chips. Make your best guess and then bet that amount.

 

[upNdown]

I don't like the "Magic Words" ruling idea. Intent should rule, not Magic words. If someone says "I just can't call, I'm going to fold", you wouldn't hold him to a call because the magic word "call" was uttered before "fold". His intent would be to fold.

The same thing with "Put you all-in", the intent is to bet the opponent's stack. If the opponent had more chips, it's all-in. If there is another player that the "I put you all-in" guy forgot about, then that becomes open to interpretation, and the "I put you in" guy has to stick with however it was interpreted.

@DRacula 's example was even more confusing, because it appears he just heard "all-in" and thought player 1 said it.

Player 1 may fold, losing anything he put into the pot up to this point.

Player 2 must accept the house ruling. All in for whatever Player 1 had, or all-in for whatever player 3 had (who had him covered, so effectively all-in). I am good with either interpretation.

Player 3 must call whatever Player 2's bet was determined to be.

Run out the board and pay the winner.

The problem with intent is that sometimes it has to be ignored. My favorite card room has good dealers who always enforce that situation where:
the blinds are 500/1,000,
there’s like 18,000 in the pot,
some guy reaches for his 5,000 chips and says “fifteen”
It’s clear to everybody at the table that his INTENT was to bet 15,000, but it’s always ruled 1,500.
I realize this is a different situation, but it illustrates how we can’t always rely on intent.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The problem with intent is that sometimes it has to be ignored. My favorite card room has good dealers who always enforce that situation where:
the blinds are 500/1,000,
there’s like 18,000 in the pot,
some guy reaches for his 5,000 chips and says “fifteen”
It’s clear to everybody at the table that his INTENT was to bet 15,000, but it’s always ruled 1,500.
I realize this is a different situation, but it illustrates how we can’t always rely on intent.

That is a pretty clear rule in action.
From the TDA:

52: Non-Standard & Unclear Betting Players use unofficial betting terms and gestures at their own risk. These may be interpreted to mean other than what the player intended. Also, if a declared bet can reasonably have multiple meanings, it will be ruled the lesser value.

So, you are right... you cannot always rely on intent. When the rules are quite clear that his bet of 15 will mean 15 hundred, then it really doesn't matter what his intent is - although following the rules, how the hell would he think saying "15" would mean anything other than 15 hundred?

 

[upNdown]

how the hell would he think saying "15" would mean anything other than 15 hundred?

Because 1,500 is the furthest thing from his mind at that point? Because he’s been betting with thousand chips for the whole hand so he’s thinking in terms of thousands, not hundreds? Because in his head he’s working out his bet sizing and he’s thinking ten thousand . . . Twelve thousand . . . Fifteen!
I see it happen once a tournament. And the last time it happened, the kid couldn’t believe it and called the floor. It’s a common mistake.
You’re 100% right; when there’s a rule on point, nobody would ever consider intent. But like I said, it just illustrates that clear intent isn’t necessarily relevant.

 

[DRacula]

In a friendly home game, I believe it's in the best interest of everyone to give other players the benefit of the doubt. A huge donator stopped playing at our home because a rules nazi berated him for a similar situation.

If you are playing at a casino though, IMO you need to leave no room for misinterpretation. I'm not mucking hands until chips are pushed, and I only bet with chips/ verbal the exact number, or "ALL IN". Deviating from this will lose you money.

 

[Poker Zombie]

In a friendly home game, I believe it's in the best interest of everyone to give other players the benefit of the doubt.

I agree, but with a couple of caveats:

• The rule-breaking player should be gently informed as to why the rule exists. This rule teaching does not involve mass graves or gas chambers (let's not forget why Nazi's are bad) but a gentle reminder. Usually explaining why the rule exists will give the offending player a "lightbulb" moment.
• Friendly home games can become unfriendly when well established rules are violated.

There is no reason whatsoever that a home game can't run in a very friendly manner and follow casino rules and procedures. I get chips then muck, wether at home or in a casino. It's more important in a home game, because I tend to drink more and may misread a hand. I use clear terms or make silent, unmistakable single motion raises. Good habits at home equate to good habits in a card room. Allowing rules to simply be violated because "it's friendly" is like saying "I'm not going to wear my seatbelt because I'm only driving a couple of miles".

 

[DRacula]

I agree, but with a couple of caveats:

• The rule-breaking player should be gently informed as to why the rule exists. This rule teaching does not involve mass graves or gas chambers (let's not forget why Nazi's are bad) but a gentle reminder. Usually explaining why the rule exists will give the offending player a "lightbulb" moment.
• Friendly home games can become unfriendly when well established rules are violated.

There is no reason whatsoever that a home game can't run in a very friendly manner and follow casino rules and procedures. I get chips then muck, wether at home or in a casino. It's more important in a home game, because I tend to drink more and may misread a hand. I use clear terms or make silent, unmistakable single motion raises. Good habits at home equate to good habits in a card room. Allowing rules to simply be violated because "it's friendly" is like saying "I'm not going to wear my seatbelt because I'm only driving a couple of miles".

I say rules nazi because of how wildly inappropriate he is when correcting people, coincidentally he is also a miserable loser

 

[Poker Zombie]

I say rules nazi because of how wildly inappropriate he is when correcting people, coincidentally he is also a miserable loser

wildly inappropriate he is when correcting people, a miserable loser... sounds like the wrong guy quit playing.

 

[grantc54]

That is a pretty clear rule in action.
From the TDA:


So, you are right... you cannot always rely on intent. When the rules are quite clear that his bet of 15 will mean 15 hundred, then it really doesn't matter what his intent is - although following the rules, how the hell would he think saying "15" would mean anything other than 15 hundred?

I believe they changed this rule last year:
Players use unofficial betting terms and gestures at their own risk. These may be interpreted to mean other than what the player intended. Also, if a declared bet can legally have multiple meanings, it will be ruled the highest reasonable amount that is less than or equal to the pot size* before the bet. Ex: NLHE 200-400, the pot totals less than 5000, player declares “I bet five.” With no other clarifying information, the bet is 500; if the pot totals 5000 or more, the bet is 5000. *The pot is the total of all prior bets including any bets in front of a player not yet pulled in. See Rules 2, 3, 40 & 46.

 

[upNdown]

I believe they changed this rule last year:
Players use unofficial betting terms and gestures at their own risk. These may be interpreted to mean other than what the player intended. Also, if a declared bet can legally have multiple meanings, it will be ruled the highest reasonable amount that is less than or equal to the pot size* before the bet. Ex: NLHE 200-400, the pot totals less than 5000, player declares “I bet five.” With no other clarifying information, the bet is 500; if the pot totals 5000 or more, the bet is 5000. *The pot is the total of all prior bets including any bets in front of a player not yet pulled in. See Rules 2, 3, 40 & 46.

That’s interesting. This particular card room is very diligent in enforcing such bets as the lowest possible meaning.
Funny, because when I was at Foxwoods a couple of months ago, I saw somebody make the same kind of bet and I was surprised the dealer didn’t enforce the lowest possible amount rule Maybe this is why.

 

[CHP TD]

There it is

case closed.

After reading all this i had a revelation - Im a cranky old man!!!!

there was no need for me to get all worked up about this and i did!?!?!

Yep there's no denying it Im cranky, im old, and im a man

What happened to me????

 

[PlaidDragon]

I've said the "I'll put you all in" before but like some others I had ZERO IDEA this was a no-no. Having read the thread I see why, and thus will not use it again.

 

[DRacula]

I've said the "I'll put you all in" before but like some others I had ZERO IDEA this was a no-no. Having read the thread I see why, and thus will not use it again.

Right? I can’t recall saying it outside of heads up situations, but I was surprised to hear that it is considered poor etiquette. Especially considering all the angle shooting I’ve witnessed

 

[BGinGA]

There is no reason whatsoever that a home game can't run in a very friendly manner and follow casino rules and procedures.

 

[upNdown]

Well how about talking? In the casinos and the cardrooms, they won't let you say a damn word (about the hand) during a hand. I don't applaud those rules and I don't want to follow them if I have a choice. I realize it's a slippery slope when a home game decides not to enforce some rules. But on the other hand, if you don't have the freedom to talk shit to your buddies during a hand, what the hell are you doing there?

 

[DRacula]

I agree, for the most part
In my experience, most home games have players that are inexperienced (Have never played at a casino, or rarely play poker in general) and I always make sure to explain certain rules to them that are integral to the game, HOWEVER I have seen people address issues in a way that has made a player uncomfortable enough not to return, and that is -EV in life. If someone is mucking out of turn because they don't know better or picking up their cards off the table to look at them, there is a nice way to tell them to stop.

 

[BGinGA]

Well how about talking? In the casinos and the cardrooms, they won't let you say a damn word (about the hand) during a hand. I don't applaud those rules and I don't want to follow them if I have a choice. I realize it's a slippery slope when a home game decides not to enforce some rules. But on the other hand, if you don't have the freedom to talk shit to your buddies during a hand, what the hell are you doing there?

I agree, for the most part
In my experience, most home games have players that are inexperienced (Have never played at a casino, or rarely play poker in general) and I always make sure to explain certain rules to them that are integral to the game, HOWEVER I have seen people address issues in a way that has made a player uncomfortable enough not to return, and that is -EV in life. If someone is mucking out of turn because they don't know better or picking up their cards off the table to look at them, there is a nice way to tell them to stop.

Always read the entire sentence, folks.

There is no reason whatsoever that a home game can't run in a very friendly manner and follow casino rules and procedures.

You can always talk shit to your buddies at my place. But you can't comment on the hand if it could potentially affect play, which is the proper thing to enforce in any game setting.

And one doesn't need to be an asshat when explaining to newbies about the rules or the reason for their existence.

Generally speaking, people that spew anti-social comments towards the new guys usually don't restrict it to just addressing rules. Those folks really don't belong at a friendly game, especially if they are driving away new players.

 

[DRacula]

Always read the entire sentence, folks.

You can always talk shit to your buddies at my place. But you can't comment on the hand if it could potentially affect play, which is the proper thing to enforce in any game setting.

And one doesn't need to be an asshat when explaining to newbies about the rules or the reason for their existence.

Generally speaking, people that spew anti-social comments towards the new guys usually don't restrict it to just addressing rules. Those folks really don't belong at a friendly game, especially if they are driving away new players.

I read the entire paragraph, what I was getting at is that some people cannot take the needle. I love to needle and naturally, I embrace getting needled as well, that's part of poker. Some people however aren't in that camp of people, and are.... how do you say? Sensitive?

Edit: I agree with what you said, and I'm the same way. You should be courteous and good company to all, but in my experience, poker, and more specifically, losing large sums of money, has a tendency to bring the worse out of people

 

[Gameface]

I've had a house rule for years, if you say "I put you all in" it's ruled the same as saying "All in". I know this is technically incorrect, but I don't really care as this clears up any confusion and I agree that it's a passive aggressive jab that really isn't necessary. If you want to 'put someone all-in' just politely ask how much they have behind, and then make a bet that will cover that amount. If they don't want to tell you how much they have, that's their right (though not good etiquette either) all they are responsible for is making sure that you can see their chips. Make your best guess and then bet that amount.

I've always felt that a player while in a hand can remain completely silent as long as their actions are clear. If someone needs a count the dealer can and should count their stack if another player asks for a count.

Now if the dealer needs to ask for clarification as to their actions/intentions, they need to clarify for the dealer. But they don't have to answer or respond to other players.

 

[Gameface]

I agree, for the most part
In my experience, most home games have players that are inexperienced (Have never played at a casino, or rarely play poker in general) and I always make sure to explain certain rules to them that are integral to the game, HOWEVER I have seen people address issues in a way that has made a player uncomfortable enough not to return, and that is -EV in life. If someone is mucking out of turn because they don't know better or picking up their cards off the table to look at them, there is a nice way to tell them to stop.

So much this. I host people all the time that have never played poker in a serious setting before. I want my game to be a gateway to poker, not a roadblock. I want it to be exciting and have an allure of a "real casino" game, while making my guests comfortable enough to enjoy it, regardless of if it's their first serious poker game or their 10,000th.

 

[JustinInMN]

I would like to see TDA and/or RROP updated to this exact quote.

This might be a good question to ask Matt Savage on Twitter.

I keep a printed set of the rules I have made handy, & although never been needed so far, I did address this topic in a specific rule, just in case one day a new player arrives & creates a "misunderstanding" ....:

** " Statements of I'll put you all-in" should be avoided, (you can’t play someone else’s cards), but if used in the game, in turn, it will be considered a valid bet, equal to the amount of the total chip stack(s) of the player it was directed at. If that player has more chips than the bettor, then it will be considered a valid All-In bet. "

From
https://justpaste.it/167q3
anyone feel free to use / print modify to your game...

+1 For having a written rule in your home game

That said, I think @BGinGA and @Chris Manzoni 's view is correct, here's why.

In a heads up pot, the rule is effectively the same as if someone just said "all-in" themselves, no need to belabor that.

The only controversy is in a multi-way pot. For a bet of "I put you all in" to be clear enough to mean "I bet the amount in your stack" it has to be clear to which player the bettor is referring. In a multiway pot, this is almost never clear, unless we want to start adding finger pointing or whatever to accommodate this needless complication. Not to mention the instances where it is clear, the other players in the pot are going to ask for a count/clarification at least 100% of the time, which again saves nothing.

No other action in poker depends on the amount of chips in a stack unless the stack is commit to the pot. It's a needless complication and I can understand why players could interpret this as a needle.

Bottom line, if you don't make your actions clear, you run the risk of a ruling different than you intend. Clarity is always better for the game.

 

[Taghkanic]

In a friendly home game, I believe it's in the best interest of everyone to give other players the benefit of the doubt. A huge donator stopped playing at our home because a rules nazi berated him for a similar situation.

I’ve recently had a newish-player (3-4 priors at my two-table home tourney) stop attending after getting very gently chided as follows:

There was a three-way all-in, preflop, 6 players left, 4 getting paid.

On the flop, the first caller checked, but the new-ish player (who covered the other two) put in an odd bet for about 3/5 of the pot.

The first guy looked annoyed and folded, and the newish player turned over top pair/middling kicker. She ended up losing the hand, meaning the short stack (TPTK) doubled up rather than getting knocked out by the folder, who had an overpair. The table groaned.

Several people tried to explain—politely, I thought—our custom of checking in that situation unless you have the nuts or very close to it... That when nearing the bubble in a tourney its usually -EV to bet in that spot without a very strong hand. The first guy folded on the assumption she had to be betting at least a flopped set. Many in our game will not bet in that situation without the absolute nuts. Tacit collusion, arguably, but pretty standard.

The new-ish gal looked perplexed, but after some discussion seemed to get it.

About 25 minutes later, this happened again with her—and people again tried to explain it. I could see she was still confused and also embarrassed, though I thought people discussed it diplomatically.

Anyway, she hasn't been back for the past few games. Could be unrelated, but I suspect she won’t be back.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I’ve recently had a newish-player (3-4 priors at my two-table home tourney) stop attending after getting very gently chided as follows:

There was a three-way all-in, preflop, 6 players left, 4 getting paid.

On the flop, the first caller checked, but the new-ish player (who covered the other two) put in an odd bet for about 3/5 of the pot.

The first guy looked annoyed and folded, and the newish player turned over top pair/middling kicker. She ended up losing the hand, meaning the short stack (TPTK) doubled up rather than getting knocked out by the folder, who had an overpair. The table groaned.

Several people tried to explain—politely, I thought—our custom of checking in that situation unless you have the nuts or very close to it... That when nearing the bubble in a tourney its usually -EV to bet in that spot without a very strong hand. The first guy folded on the assumption she had to be betting at least a flopped set. Many in our game will not bet in that situation without the absolute nuts. Tacit collusion, arguably, but pretty standard.

The new-ish gal looked perplexed, but after some discussion seemed to get it.

About 25 minutes later, this happened again with her—and people again tried to explain it. I could see she was still confused and also embarrassed, though I thought people discussed it diplomatically.

Anyway, she hasn't been back for the past few games. Could be unrelated, but I suspect she won’t be back.

There's a difference between being explained the rules, and being told how to play.

A key way to keep newbies from returning is to tell them they are doing it wrong, when they are following every single rule properly. This includes checking down an all-in, calling a bet that was obviously the nuts when you had middling pair, or any other bet/raise/call action. If it's in the rules, it should be allowed, 100% of the time.

Otherwise, you just kill off your fish.

 

[Gameface]

I think the saying is "don't tap the glass"