Poker etiquette (2 Viewers)

[CHP TD]

@CHP TD and @Taghkanic

Neither of you is changing their minds. This is going in circles. One of you is clearly correct, and the other is not.

To continue to post is futile.

Can we get back to debating hotdog sandwiches?

Hi Tri

I hear ya


Hi Tag


Im going to ignore you on my profile. What this means is anything you've said or will ever say wont appear to me. So anything you have to say has been said, furthermore anything you have to say in the future wont appear to me.


Its been a hell of a ride but now its like masturbating with a cheese grater so im out.

 

[Taghkanic]

Your home game includes players who implicitly collude, based on best practices as described in many poker books and other sources. This is the same as any table in any casino. That is fine.

Sigh... I again refer anyone who still cares to the chronology of the hand above, and ask you to specify (a) what rule was broken, and (b) what should have been done differently, besides not telling the novice player something about poker which anyone who has played tournaments knows.

IMHO absolutely nothing about the hand would have played out any differently, nor would any hands play differently in the future, based on anything suggested here, including those made in thundering, condemnatory terms.

While at the table, play your own cards, and shut up about the play of others.

At a casino, sure. But in a game populated 90% by people who have played together for years, who are good friends, and who like ordinary guys both enjoy razzing their friends and enjoy chewing over poker strategy—absolutely, people are going to talk, and joke, and yelp, and criticize.

The worst player in our game—a former host of it—gets absolutely killed (verbally) all the time for his play. He seems to actually enjoy it. Never misses a session, ever.

In my experience, normal, friendly home game players make fun of each other’s play all the time, and also discuss what went on in hands after they are over (sometime to psych each other out, sometimes just to better understand the game).

But if you get off on going to low stakes home games to play like a German robot in a high-stakes casino tournament, I won’t criticize your kinks... Still, the literal-mindedness here is kind of incredible.

As for rules... Like I said, a previous host circulated a set some years ago. I believe it was based on Roberts, or maybe the Home Poker Tourney site (which itself may be a modified Roberts). People just rolled their eyes. But someone probably saved it in theory if something needs to be looked up. Most important to me as host is that any issue is solved by consensus whenever possible, which is pretty much always.

Do people have examples of major disputes about rules which occurred in their games, which required some lawyerly parsing of a rule book? Per my earlier message, my experience is that the only real differences of opinion arise on odd misdeal situations (say, a card burned or urned too soon), and that the dispute is usually between someone who desperately wanted a different outcome than what they know is the correct handling...

 

[philzefair]

I just read the entire thread.

@Taghkanic, if you consider that custom is so important in your game that you need to enforce it on new players. Then it's not a custom but a rule and you should put it clearly on your rule sheet.

I can clearly understand that a newbie receiving friendly explanation twice on an unwritten rule she has never heard of before would consider it fishy and ask herself "What other custom will they throw at me when I win big?"

Maybe you misinterpreted her pondering after both explanations.
Maybe she was not taking it in but wondering whether she should run away or keep playing.

 

[Gameface]

I just read the entire thread.

@Taghkanic, if you consider that custom is so important in your game that you need to enforce it on new players. Then it's not a custom but a rule and you should put it clearly on your rule sheet.

I can clearly understand that a newbie receiving friendly explanation twice on an unwritten rule she has never heard of before would consider it fishy and ask herself "What other custom will they throw at me when I win big?"

Maybe you misinterpreted her pondering after both explanations.
Maybe she was not taking it in but wondering whether she should run away or keep playing.

As a rule it is completely ambiguous. Check it down unless you have a monster hand, or you're far enough away from the bubble, or several other situations where it is then okay to bet. To make it a rule you'd have to say that you must always check it down. Who wants that rule?

Explaining it as a custom is a big reason why it's a problem, because then it seems like an obligation and you'd be crossing the line to ignore the house custom.

It should have been explained as a generally good idea to check it down to increase the odds that the all-in would be eliminated. I mean it is not a "custom" in any game I play, but it is a very common practice.

 

[Taghkanic]

I don’t know how many times I can repeat that this is *not a rule* in our game.

I have repeatedly and specifically noted that people are allowed to ignore the custom of most players in this game.

Indeed, the player did ignore it not long afterward, in the same game. There was no penalty. She was allowed to do so.

And in fact, a few months ago in this game, I was bluffed off a hand by someone who had completely whiffed the flop on a multiway all-in and decided to exploit the group’s tendencies, because he thought he was behind and wanted to narrow things down to the short stack.

That was allowed. There was no penalty. Because it is a custom, not a rule.

It was also allowed for several players to groan when the bluffer flopped over his KJs which missed, and it ran out with the short stack surviving the hand.

 

[Taghkanic]

Lastly, I am genuinely baffled by the sentence:

“It is not a ‘custom’ in any game I play, but it is a very common practice.”​

That is the precise definition of a custom: a common practice among a group of people.

A custom per the dictionary is a habitual practice or convention. It is “the usual way of acting in given circumstances,” a “collective habit,” or “a group pattern”.

But a custom is not a rule. The two words mean very different things. A “usual way” (a custom) is not a “required way” (a rule).

For example, it is the custom in New Orleans to celebrate Mardi Gras. But there is no rule which says you are *required* to celebrate Mardi Gras. You don’t lose your license or pay a fine for not wearing beads and getting drunk.

Sheesh. I’m starting to think that part of the problem here is that the word custom means something different to a few people.

 

[Gameface]

By explaining it to her a a house custom, or a custom in your group you are elevating it beyond something that is a common strategy.

That was my point, it should not have been explained as some special thing that happens in your group. It should have been explained as a strategic decision. She was told, essentially, that she violated your house custom, and then you posted about what she did in a poker etiquette thread. Do you think none of that was impressed upon her, that she had violated the tribal law and therefore was setting herselt apart from the group?

 

[Steve Birrer]

TAG you are just full of it. Here's your original post.

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.

You claim its not a rule and in fact in post #215 you say that someone did this in your game a couple of months ago bluffing you out.

This just SCREAMS do as we say not as we do.

 

[Taghkanic]

TAG you are just full of it.

Sorry, your abusive rant is incoherent and screams of hostile speed-reading, done with an eye toward deliberately misunderstanding. The sections you highlight don’t demonstrate your basis for outrage whatsoever.

... I mean, unless you have never seen anyone look annoyed at a poker table before, or heard anyone discuss poker strategy, or talk about what just happened after a hand is over—what another poster here just described as “a very common practice.” What cardinal sins!

I sincerely hope your righteous anger is giving you whatever pleasure you’re not getting elsewhere.

 

[Taghkanic]

By explaining it to her a a house custom, or a custom in your group you are elevating it beyond something that is a common strategy.

Maybe you play in home games where no one ever talks, or debates strategy, or razzes each other, or even tries to help a newbie (who was having trouble even remembering that a bet UTG had to be as big as the big blind) along. I don’t play in any home games where none of those things ever happen. Maybe because I play live poker with actual human beings?

 

[Steve Birrer]

Ok Tag one last thought.

Suppose the same player who you guys explained to twice about how she wasn't following your custom was playing the night when you got bluffed out of the hand in the same situation. So that players says how is this different than the two times you explained to me not to do that? What do you say to her. I can't wait to hear your response.

 

[Taghkanic]

Ok Tag one last thought.

Suppose the same player who you guys explained to twice about how she wasn't following your custom was playing the night when you got bluffed out of the hand in the same situation. So that players says how is this different than the two times you explained to me not to do that? What do you say to her. I can't wait to hear your response.

(A) She wasn’t there; it was before she joined the game.

(B) She wasn’t ordered not to do it—after all, she did it a second time shortly thereafter! And there was no penalty. Because it is not a rule. Rather, several of us had a discussion about why that is often not advisable, and why most people don’t make that move, unless the common pot is so small that it becomes irrelevant... i.e., that the short stack is still going to be very short if s/he wins. And the point was illustrated later when she got knocked out before the guy she kept in did, and she missed the money. Oh well; live and learn. (Or, in some people’s cases, live, don’t learn, but get very worked up over nothing.)

(C) I certainly did point out to that guy—who is a very old friend, but only an occasional player in our game, because he usually works Monday nights—that his move kept the short stack in the game, and that I folded because I assumed he had flopped a monster. (I had a decent but non-nut piece of it.) He said he hadn’t considered that, only that he wanted to make a play for the pot. Which was his right. And he was hardly as deeply offended as you apparently are, and he has been back since. That precise situation has not come up with him again, but if he chooses to do the same thing, that is his right. And if I see an opportunity to turn the tables on him, I might just do so. Because it is a custom not a rule, for crying out loud.

 

[upNdown]

Because it is a custom not a rule, for crying out loud.

Its probably time to give up the argument. I haven't gone back to count, but I think everybody who has responded has disagreed with you.

 

[Taghkanic]

Actually, not entirely true. And I’m very willing to learn from someone who makes sense and argues from a mature, non-hysterical point of view (e.g. Gameface, who said he thought the handling was “problematic” but “I don't think there's anything wrong with Taghkanic's game and the situation he described... I think after a hand explaining a fairly common tournament practice of checking it down with a multi-way all-in hand is fine.”)

And anyway, I don’t base my views on an internet chat board popularity contest. Moreover, some of those “disagreeing”—more like freaking out as if I invited Vladimir Putin to my game and let him deal from cold decks—have frankly been pretty off-point and overeager to misunderstand/ignore the actual facts of what went on.

So if some want to keep lambasting me irrationally, I’ll keep giving it back to them. (I type like 90 wpm, so it is hardly a sweat.) I think some of the attacks here are pretty embarrassing to y’all... I would call some of them pretty douche-y, which is ironic considering that people are screaming about this somehow being impolite to the newbie.

Anyway, I haven’t heard much yet which budged my position, but I’ve witnessed a lot which gives me insight into who some of the more/less thoughtful posters here are.

 

[BGinGA]

I haven’t heard much yet which budged my position

Mostly because I think you aren't really listening, but that's just my personal observation.

Still think you need a set of rules.

 

[MatB]

I cant read it all.. its too much.

to summarise.. I like panties in a bunch and i never misread a hand. One of those statements is false.

But really, it sounds like OP is saying but maybe not communicating well, is that YES in tournament play if a player is all in it is advantageous to the other players to check it down. You are not required to. And to even suggest it is collusion.
I think perhaps the OPs group maybe 'explained' it to the new player, and maybe the new player felt a little out of their depth and decided to not play there again.

anyways....

So,, who wants hotdog ?

 

[DoubleEagle]

I cant read it all.. its too much.

to summarise.. I like panties in a bunch and i never misread a hand. One of those statements is false.

But really, it sounds like OP is saying but maybe not communicating well, is that YES in tournament play if a player is all in it is advantageous to the other players to check it down. You are not required to. And to even suggest it is collusion.
I think perhaps the OPs group maybe 'explained' it to the new player, and maybe the new player felt a little out of their depth and decided to not play there again.

anyways....

So,, who wants hotdog ?

Amen.

 

[philzefair]

So one night someone bluffs you out and it's fine. Some other night a newcomer tries the same thing and she gets a lecture on her poor strategy.

What was different between those two situations to make the same strategy acceptable in one and unethical in the other?

If you want newbies to understand the strategy you're explaining to them you need to give them clues on what to consider when making the decision.

 

[Poker Zombie]

IF we were to ever try to explain this "custom" to a new player (and we've had ~30 of them come through our doors), we would never explain it right at the table. You correct mistakes at the table. This is a strategy. We discuss strategy on break. One of the reasons our game attracts so many novice players is because we do teach them. It makes poor players comfortable and they return, often bringing more new players.

It's how you grow a game.

Of the 102 players we have hosted, only 5 players played just 2 games and then inexplicably did not return.

• 2 were a couple we used to hang out with. Their M.O. was mostly sitting and drinking/talking. They simply did not like "doing stuff". We don't hang out with them anymore, because I really hate "sit and talk" parties.
• One is the wife of our "Iron Zombie". He has never missed an event since he first attended in June, 2013. She just doesn't like poker, but he figured this game she would enjoy. It was still too much poker. He did seem to "correct" her play ("on that hand you should have bet more" type stuff) after the hand a little too often, so I think his "strategy tips" drove her off.
• One claimed to "be too busy" (softball, soccer, etc).
• One simply stopped.

Tag's player that quit after the lecturing may have been like one of the above. It's roughly a 5% chance that's the case. I think that if someone isn't cut out for poker, they know after a single tournament. That's a couple of hours to decide if you like it or not, but if you come back for that 2nd game, you're a member until life takes you in another direction.

 

[Taghkanic]

Mostly because I think you aren't really listening, but that's just my personal observation.

I’m just glad I provided you something to do with your Saturday night, BG.

Philzefair and Poker Zombie, no one got a “lecture,” but that misreading seems to be part of why people are talking past each other here.

The rest of Zombie’s post is more constructive, informative, and appreciated.

Ours is a very social game—there is no way that strategy talk is going to be confined to pregame and breaks. If anything, it’s the reverse of what Zombie described: People tend to talk game theory and tactics during the game, then catch up about their social life during the breaks. And while these are (mostly) serious players, this is not some high-stakes game in a casino against strangers where everyone is constantly on guard and never gives away anything about how they were thinking about a hand.

Anyhow, I don’t know for certain that this player has quit permanently. She just hasn’t been back in a few sessions. She’s still a member of our Facebook group, and bought squares on a Super Bowl card since this episode. She has given other reasons (Holiday finances, anniversary dinner, etc.) for missing out. So we’ll see. Getting her up to speed on much more rudimentary stuff, as noted, wouldn’t make it such a huge loss, except that we have been trying to get more women into the game so it isn’t such a sausage-fest. Her absence may be due to feeling kind of lost in the game in many different situations, as to this particular one; or just due as much as anything to not getting back into the money after min-cashing on her first try. (Seems a common thing that new players go deep the first time, until people get a measure of their play.)

 

[BGinGA]

I’m just glad I provided you something to do with your Saturday night, BG.

Yep, took me all of 15 seconds to post. No worries.

 

[Justin Olson]

The rules of this game are standard. Nothing that would surprise any experienced poker player. Some were circulated maybe five years ago; I would guess it was based either on WSOP or Roberts Rules. But we have not had to pull out any rules for a very long time. If there is a question or dispute, we discuss it. If someone has to referee a situation which can't be resolved by consensus, the host makes the decision. That might happen once every 18 months at most.

The custom which has gotten at least one PCF member’s panties in a bunch is that people almost always check it down on 3+ way all-in hands close to the bubble. This is not explicitly stated during the hand. It’s just what people in this game generally do, for the obvious reasons.

If someone makes a very strong hand, they generally bet. If they make the nuts, they always bet. But unless the short stack is very, very short, it is a general understanding that the hand will usually be checked down. (And it’s certainly not specific to any player; over time, the custom impacts everyone basically equally.)

But not a rule. Just a custom.

Doesn't sound like Tag's game is Dirty or Crooked.

The mistake i do see is more of a social mistake then a rule breaking. i understand the "explaining" of the custom after the 1st time since this is a group custom for your home game and not a game rule. (i do disagree with this custom). I would totally disagree with the "explaining" of the custom, no matter how gentle, after the second time. Your group should have figured out she didn't get it, didn't care, or was just playing her game. Your group should have moved on and realized how she plays.

I would love to play in a game where there is an opportunity to take advantage of scooping side pots with weak hands and seeing the river for super cheap with mediocre hands. IMO

 

[Taghkanic]

I would love to play in a game where there is an opportunity to take advantage of scooping side pots with weak hands and seeing the river for super cheap with mediocre hands. IMO

It certainly creates an opportunity for an exploit. The one problem is that since the short stack is all-in, you’ll have to show down the bluff / weak hand / mediocre hand. So over time the culture of that game will adjust. And then you could switch back to only re-shoving with premium hands, and getting called because they think you’re stealing!

 

[Jambine]

Can some please post a link to the Standard Rules of poker?

 

[Taghkanic]

Can some please post a link to the Standard Rules of poker?

Here’s three questions back at ’ya, Jambine, with my answers. How about yours?

(1) What important differences do you find in the common standard rulesets (Roberts, TDA, Home Poker Tourney, etc.) which you need to quiz a host about, and how often do these differences come up in your games?

A: For me it’s extremely few and almost never.

(2) If you are invited to a home Hold ’Em cash game or tournament you haven’t played in before, do you feel unsure about the rules, and immediately start quizzing the host about them? Or can you just sit down and play, knowing these are indeed standard?

A: I never feel the need to ask, and am comfortable just sitting down playing. In fact, when I’m a new player in a private game I try to avoid saying much besides well-played and nice hand until I have been accepted as a regular. If the game turns out to be poorly-run, that will become obvious and I can choose not to return.

Heck, I don’t even know what the formal rulebook is for the casino where I play regularly, and I have never asked. Why? Because I don’t need to. They spread Hold ’Em cash and run tournaments 99.99% the same standard way everyone else does. (If I run into that 0.01% situation and some ruling goes against me, I’ll live and learn. It’s not like I am betting my life savings in these games.)

(3) Have you had such huge disputes about rules in home games that people had to pull out an actual rulebook, or left the game because of ruling they thought was unfair?

A: There is enough knowledge at the self-dealt games I play in that on the extremely rare occasions when something unusual comes up, it gets resolved amicably via discussion among the players. Three of my regulars formerly hosted my game (this is its fourth venue), so among other things I have three other well-trusted guys who have been around the block on hosting to turn to if necessary. But it is so rare as to be a non-issue.

-------

At the end of the day, every set of rules and every venue I’ve ever played in has one absolute rule in common—the host’s decision is final.

The host might even be wrong sometimes, including at a casino with managers/bosses. Even the WSOP notes that they can make exceptions to the stated rules, if they feel it is in the interest of the game or general fairness. Players can choose to avoid games and venues where the host proves to be arbitrary or unfair. Again... not a problem in my poker life thus far.

At a new venue, I of course will take a look at the blind structure for a tournament, or the terms of any high hand jackpot. (Some of the goofier firehouse/social hall games I used to play in do high hands different ways, though the usual thing was have to use two cards/but don’t have to go to the river).

But that’s different than crying, “I demand to know which ruleset is in force here or I’m taking my ball home and not playing!”

 

[Jambine]

Here’s three questions back at ’ya, Jambine, with my answers. How about yours?

I think I answered these already (and specifically) but I'll do it again.

1. No need to quiz anyone. I simply ask "What rules are you using?".
2. I'm absolutely sure after the host answers "What rules are you using?".
3. Yes, I've seen some pretty big blow ups that required consulting an actual rule book

 

[BGinGA]

(3) Have you had such huge disputes about rules in home games that people had to pull out an actual rulebook, or left the game because of ruling they thought was unfair?

Nope. Nobody has ever thought a ruling was unfair BECAUSE we have an actual rule book. Same regarding disputes -- rule books are precisely what prevent them. Sorry you can't seem to find the logic in that.

Eventually, you'll get bitten merely because you don't have a set of rules to fall back on. Okay by me, I don't play in your game and won't have to endure the chaos it will cause.

 

[Steve Birrer]

I have asked this of Tag before and got no reply so I'll ask again. And it goes for pretty much everybody who has a home game. What is the downside of having a simple set of rules for your game?

 

[Taghkanic]

I think I answered these already (and specifically) but I'll do it again.

1. No need to quiz anyone. I simply ask "What rules are you using?".

Again, my (unanswered) question is: What specific rule differences are you concerned about, among those commonly used? If the answer is, nothing in particular, then why ask?

I have never been to amy home, private, or social hall game wheee anyone asked.

 

[Taghkanic]

I have asked this of Tag before and got no reply so I'll ask again. And it goes for pretty much everybody who has a home game. What is the downside of having a simple set of rules for your game?

You skipped or ignored the answer: A previous host circulated rules, I believe based on Roberts. And no one has ever referenced them.