Poker etiquette (1 Viewer)

[Taghkanic]

P.S. One benefit of this thread for me is that it has made me wonder how this practice originated. As I said, this group of people has played together for years. I suspect it is as much about wanting to get home by midnight as anything else. It’s a Monday night game, and people are not staying up to 4 am on a weeknight.

 

[JustinInMN]

P.S. One benefit of this thread for me is that it has made me wonder how this practice originated. As I said, this group of people has played together for years. I suspect it is as much about wanting to get home by midnight as anything else. It’s a Monday night game, and people are not staying up to 4 am on a weeknight.

You can always tinker with the structure to shorten things up

 

[Taghkanic]

It's a violation of the rules, and it scared off a player. That player may never play poker again, because their first outing left a bad taste in their mouth.

Per my comment above, if that’s the most any given player can take (in this instance, the explanations were done in a nice way, and we had been holding her hand for 3-4 weeks without criticizing her newbie play), then probably the game is better off without her.

We’ll see. Anyone who sticks around for more than a half-dozen sessions will be in for much stiffer razzing than that.

That said, your game is probably fine. Breaking rules in home games is pretty common. I think I've seen more games where rabbit hunting was permitted than not. I think the only reason that people are resentful is because you have a rule that you must break the rule, and cost the poker community a player trying to enforce your rule.

“The rules” are whatever the house decides is in the benefit of maintaining a game. Or decides arbitrarily. There is no absolutely universal set of rules for tourneys (Roberts? WSOP? WPT? Dealers associations? The list goes on and on.)

Sure, obviously there are some rules which are universal—a straight flush is the highest hand... Until someone decides to create a variant of poker where quad aces is the best. Again, all that matters to me really is that everyone is in on it.

Overall, my game is very strict about stuff like rabbit hunting, going through the muck, show-one-show-all, etc., because that can in fact confer asymmetrical benefits. We had some guys who had bad habits with this, but they have over time steadily had it beaten out of them...

Now if I could just get that one guy in my game who always lifts his hole cards to his face to knock it off, I could die in peace.

 

[Taghkanic]

You can always tinker with the structure to shorten things up

Yep. And we have. The game pretty much always ends between 10:45-11:30 unless something really unusual happens.

 

[Poker Zombie]

... and for the record, @Mrs Poker Zombie once bet out a hand while a short stacked player was all-in on the bubble. The game occured at the Orleans casino in Las Vegas. One of the players pointed out her "mistake" at the table. We were both new to the game at the time, and appreciated the lesson (we weren't focused on end-game strategies at that time). Dealer did not penalize the player for openly colluding, and it made us start thinking about end-game strategies.

She also cashed in 2nd, so don't expect her to always "check it down". The strategy is valid, but not 100% of the time.

 

[Steve Birrer]

About a year ago I became convinced that even though it seems a bit much for a "friendly home game" that a written set of rules was a good idea. Someone on here was nice enough to post up their rules which I copied and tweaked for my game. I had them printed up on a large piece of stock board and hung it on the wall. I was actually surprised the first time that guys even took the time to read it and several had some questions. The bottom line is that there is NO disagreement anymore. The rules are the rules. We've had about 7 games since then and haven't come across a situation yet that wasn't addressed in the simple set of rules. Surely it will happen someday but this has greatly minimized any questions.

I would suggest that the OP just make a set of their rules including this check it down rule. Although I think its a terrible idea its not my game. But it is your game and you expect players to abide by it so just make it written!

 

[pedrofisk]

I think this thread is great. Interesting to hear the different interpretations of etiquette and rule clarifications.

Who's got the next etiquette breach story?

 

[upNdown]

I think it’s interesting how much animosity people have toward rabbit hunting.
The downside is what, a wasted 5 seconds? The upside is that you might probably learn some information from the guy who wants to see it.

 

[krafticus]

I think it’s interesting how much animosity people have toward rabbit hunting.
The downside is what, a wasted 5 seconds? The upside is that you might probably learn some information from the guy who wants to see it.

I don't mind early in a tournament. I don't mind every once in a while. I play in a casual game where they rabbit hunt almost every hand.
It does bother me when the blinds are high, levels are shorter, and we want to see an entire board because you folded something like 67s and wanted to see if you would have flopped a monster.

In a cash game, I don't care one way or another. I've asked to see the river before. (mainly when I had an open ended SF draw and wanted to see if it hit)

 

[upNdown]

I don't mind early in a tournament. I don't mind every once in a while. I play in a casual game where they rabbit hunt almost every hand.
It does bother me when the blinds are high, levels are shorter, and we want to see an entire board because you folded something like 67s and wanted to see if you would have flopped a monster.

In a cash game, I don't care one way or another. I've asked to see the river before. (mainly when I had an open ended SF draw and wanted to see if it hit)

Oh, right. I always think of home games as cash games. I guess I can see not tolerating it for tournaments.

 

[CraigT78]

I think it’s interesting how much animosity people have toward rabbit hunting.
The downside is what, a wasted 5 seconds? The upside is that you might probably learn some information from the guy who wants to see it.

We don’t allow it in tournaments but if you want to rabbit hunt in the cast game - it’s $1 per street to the Bad Beat Jackpot.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I don't like the rabbit hunt, but I'm mostly tournament.

Beyond that, there is a chance that the rabbit hunt might expose a bluff, so I don't permit it in my games - ever.

 

[CHP TD]

Collusion implies something which is advantageous to a small subset of players, not a condition common to everyone.

Na it doesnt. You might want to check that out.

 

[CHP TD]

ok ill spell it out

there is an agreement of two players not betting each other off the hand against the all in player right? This doubles their chances of knocking the all in player out.

its clearly pre meditated cheating. no matter how you look at it. it also violates one hand per player. there are now 2 hand working against 1.

There is no defending this. you decide before hand anyone all in will be at a disadvantage.of 2 hands against 1.

i dont really care how you defend it it just sounds like your trying to convince yourself its not cheating.

go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

No one else buys it.

 

[MatB]

I understand if someone is new to poker, tournament poker, that maybe explaining 'checking it down' is a strategy employed to optimize eliminating a player.

But if i were that person and starting getting lectured by the table of players after not checking it down, i personally would say. "you play your cards how you want.. i'll play mine'

Depending how much i was pissed at being lectured, i may employ that strategy of "not checking it down" just to tilt the table..


FWIW, i would check it down with a shitty hand and not try to bluff someone off the pot, because whats the point? if all-in player is probably winning the hand anyway. If i check it down, other non all-in player may win, eliminating the other guy. Which for my purposes only is better.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm kind of confused anyway - If it's a house rule to check it down when a player is all in, why don't you just turn hands up at that point and then run it out? New player would never need to be corrected, and they'd still be playing.

 

[Frogzilla]

Can I completely change the subject. What, in your opinion, is the right etiquette in this situation:

Night is getting late, I'm up about a buy-in. I indicates I would like to leave in after one more orbit, and table accepts. On my last hand, I crush a massive pot, and wipe out a big stack that is creating a lot of action. Should I stay a bit longer so the game doesn't die? Should I honor my agreed upon last hand?

 

[CraigT78]

Can I completely change the subject. What, in your opinion, is the right etiquette in this situation:

Night is getting late, I'm up about a buy-in. I indicates I would like to leave in after one more orbit, and table accepts. On my last hand, I crush a massive pot, and wipe out a big stack that is creating a lot of action. Should I stay a bit longer so the game doesn't die? Should I honor my agreed upon last hand?

In my game we razz the hell out of you staying the one orbit rule resets after every pot you win. Depending on how much you’ve had to drink you either go with it or you continue to bug me to cash you out.

In seriousness- you called your time, you’re free to go and make sure you say “poker sorry” on the way out!

 

[Taghkanic]

ok ill spell it out

there is an agreement of two players not betting each other off the hand against the all in player right? This doubles their chances of knocking the all in player out.

You appear to be speed reading. As already stated ad nauseam, it is a home game understanding between *all* players in this game in all hands. It is not between two players colluding against one. I agree that if it were a one-off with two players explicitly agreeing to check down, that would be textbook collusion. This is distinct, because it is universal.

As far as the idea of turning cards up: As stated, players do bet when they make a very strong hand. And it is just a lot easier to clue the new player in to any customs or rules so that they understand what is going on. (Again, this is a custom, not a rule; the new player could disregard it if s/he wishes.)

As far as the idea that anyone was “lectured,” that’s not how it went down at all. As stated, it was done diplomatically, twice. Her problem seemed to be comprehension, not that she was in any way shamed. Plus—as also already stated—this player had been getting a *lot* of charitable help and indulgence. (She’s not very experienced, often has to be reminded that it’s her turn, what the blinds are, minimum bet sizes, etc. Was invited because a longtime regular wanted to bring her. Probably a mistake.)

Seems to be some people like to get on their high horse without engaging the actual issue/question or paying attention to the details. That’s a shame.

 

[upNdown]

Should I stay a bit longer so the game doesn't die?

This question indicates that you know what you should do.
Of course you’re entitled to leave, so you have to decide whether you want to be the guy who took all the money off the table and left, or the guy who stuck around for the good of the game.

Edit: this assumes you’re at a home game, where you’d like to be invited back. If you’re in a casino, screw ‘em.

 

[Taghkanic]

Night is getting late, I'm up about a buy-in. I indicates I would like to leave in after one more orbit, and table accepts. On my last hand, I crush a massive pot, and wipe out a big stack that is creating a lot of action. Should I stay a bit longer so the game doesn't die? Should I honor my agreed upon last hand?

I think so long as you've given notice, you can leave with a clear conscience. My policy is to do what just you did—whether up or down—that is, give reasonable advance notice of either a time or an orbit when I will be leaving (typically 20-30 minutes, or an orbit). That way I don’t feel I have to stay longer or otherwise adjust my play if something like what you describe happens. And I don’t feel pressure to sit there folding or giving token action just for the sake of appearances.

At a casino with total strangers, I’d follow this same policy but not feel at all bad if I tripled up on my last hand. The one exception for me might be a private game where I’m relatively new, where I want to be re-invited, and ensuring goodwill seems important. Still, if the policy above is followed and the host is a reasonable person, it should be clear that wasn’t the intent.

 

[BGinGA]

We don’t allow it in tournaments but if you want to rabbit hunt in the cast game - it’s $1 per street to the Bad Beat Jackpot.

In games around here, it's $1 per street tipped to the dealer. He's the one doing the extra work. (y) :thumbsup:

 

[Poker Zombie]

Can I completely change the subject. What, in your opinion, is the right etiquette in this situation:

Night is getting late, I'm up about a buy-in. I indicates I would like to leave in after one more orbit, and table accepts. On my last hand, I crush a massive pot, and wipe out a big stack that is creating a lot of action. Should I stay a bit longer so the game doesn't die? Should I honor my agreed upon last hand?

I'd call it a safe time to retreat, in that exact scenario. "Poker sorry" applies. What else are you going to do? Play until you lose it back? Players need to be able to set their expectations reasonably. There is a reason a player would want to call it quits. Babysitters, work nights, even plain old tired. Are you going to tell a player that they need to risk a car crash, a bad workplace performance, or lose a reliable babysitter so they can get back - no, have the opportunity to get back (it's not a guarantee) - their $100 or so back?

You may as well dump 1/2 onto the table and leave at your prescribed time.

 

[WedgeRock]

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.

In our 2nd year of FFB (1992? 93?) one of the new owners tried to draft a guy that had a season ending injury during the pre-season. Several other owners quickly let him know he didn't want to draft that guy.

Six-ish rounds later, the same owner drafts the same player and narry a word was spoken.

Extra $1 in the transaction pool for the EOY.

 

[CHP TD]

You appear to be speed reading. As already stated ad nauseam, it is a home game understanding between *all* players in this game in all hands. It is not between two players colluding against one. I agree that if it were a one-off with two players explicitly agreeing to check down, that would be textbook collusion. This is distinct, because it is universal.

As far as the idea of turning cards up: As stated, players do bet when they make a very strong hand. And it is just a lot easier to clue the new player in to any customs or rules so that they understand what is going on. (Again, this is a custom, not a rule; the new player could disregard it if s/he wishes.)

As far as the idea that anyone was “lectured,” that’s not how it went down at all. As stated, it was done diplomatically, twice. Her problem seemed to be comprehension, not that she was in any way shamed. Plus—as also already stated—this player had been getting a *lot* of charitable help and indulgence. (She’s not very experienced, often has to be reminded that it’s her turn, what the blinds are, minimum bet sizes, etc. Was invited because a longtime regular wanted to bring her. Probably a mistake.)

Seems to be some people like to get on their high horse without engaging the actual issue/question or paying attention to the details. That’s a shame.

ok - you dont get it - you dont listen - So why ask?

 

[Taghkanic]

ok - you dont get it - you dont listen - So why ask?

I do get it; I think you don’t. You have missed the point made repeatedly: that (A) no verbal agreement was made during the hand, and (B) a custom followed universally is not collusion.

As long as a custom is followed by everyone, without prejudice toward any player, it can’t be considered collusion. It’s just considered standard by this group.

And indeed, it is what occurs in countless tournaments in both casinos and homes. People check it down when it is in their own interest, to increase the chances of a knockout. All that is illegal in casinos is saying it out loud.

Anyway: home games are free to have their own rules and customs–whatever the players agree to, for the health or fun of the game.

A group could play Hold ’Em where the ace is only high (no wheel possibility). I wouldn’t like it, and it is obviously not standard, but as long as everyone is in on it, there would be no unfairness.

Take an example from investing: If a CEO withholds info about his company from everyone except his close friends and family, that raises the prospect of insider trading. If he makes it public, everyone knows and can act accordingly.

And BTW, this player did not even know what the term “check it down” meant. She was just an inexperienced player who had never really considered concepts as simple as bubbling, stack sizes, STP ratios, or even that TP weak kicker is not that strong a hand in a three-way all in.

The idea that she would not benefit from learning the game, and should be sheltered from even slight embarrassment from dscussion of rules or customs, would not be a favor to her.

 

[BGinGA]

It was the second 'scolding' that seemed most inappropriate to me. She did her thing, your group pointed out her 'error', she did it again, and your group couldn't let it go. That's attempting to alter the play of another who is playing within the confines of the rules, but not to your liking. And it doesn't sit well with me.

 

[grantc54]

Maybe it would have been avoided if it was stated at the start of the game. Or as previously mentioned by another in this thread, just flip your cards when a small stack is all in with multiple callers.

We follow standard rules and customs except a carry over from way back where minimum raise is small blind (I know, I know) and I announce it at all games with new players.

Grant

 

[Gunnar]

Check down when a player is all in ? Say what !?

I love to bet the other player out or make sidepots

 

[Steve Birrer]

When its an expectation to the point where you expect players to abide by it then in my book its a house rule and should be identified as such before play ever begins. I agree its not collusion but its certainly not in the normal rules of play but since you have adopted it as such it should be stated as such.