Reading through my old emails today reminded me of one I wrote a year ago about a quandary I faced when, on two consecutive days, I witnessed with a situation in which a rule violation by one player put another at a disadvantage. The dilemma for me was whether to speak up about it or not, when the dealers didn't correct the situations. There is something of a tradition in poker that players not involved in a hand should keep their noses out of it. That's certainly correct insofar as giving advice to those involved, but I don't believe it should also extend to sitting by silently when a rule violation hurts a player.
I'll describe the situations, briefly explain my rationale for non-involved players taking the initiative to speak up, then open the question to readers for comments.
Story #1.
A $1-$2 no-limit hold'em game at the Las Vegas Hilton. After the turn card is dealt, Player A bets $15. Player B moves all-in for $25. Player C calls. The dealer turns back to A, who immediately pushes all-in for around $90. As the dealer turns to C for his action, I speak up and point out that A does not have the option to re-raise there. Before anybody can react to my comment, though, C calls (for a little less than what A had put in). It turns out that C--a fairly weak and inexperienced player--was on a flush draw and missed. He then left the table.
After the hand, Player A acknowledged that he was wrong. He had had a very strong hand, and was eager to get all his chips in. I believe that his mistake was inadvertent. The dealer also acknowledged that he missed the fact that B's all-in was not a full raise, and therefore A could only fold or call. OK--everybody makes mistakes, and the actions happened so quickly that it would be easy to miss.
But what bothered me most was that Player A and two others at the table chastised me for attempting to intervene when I wasn't involved in the hand.
Story #2.
The next day I'm in the same type of game at Bally's. Player A raises. Player B pushes all-in for a substantial re-raise. Player C reluctantly calls. Player A appears equally unhappy about the re-raise, but eventually calls, and as he does so asks C, "You want to just check it down?" C agrees. The dealer does nothing. This time I didn't speak up, largely because the damage was already done: clearly, even if the dealer tells them that such an agreement is in violation of the rules, they'll both officially rescind the deal, but check anyway.
But I think that part of why I didn't protest was having just been criticized the previous day for intervening when I wasn't in the hand, and I didn't feel like being the bad guy twice in a row. I did get up and talk to the floorperson privately about the situation. He came to the table and asked the dealer about it. The dealer said he heard the collusion, but it had happened so fast that he couldn't stop it.
My general thoughts.
To my way of thinking, no player can help another make a decision, but every player has a duty to the integrity of the game, and the integrity of the game includes giving every player the full protection of the rules.
In my first scenario, if the illegal re-raise had been halted in time, I suspect that Player C would have been happy to be able to see the last card for the cheaper price, and save his last money if his draw didn't hit. In the second scenario, Player B would presumably not be pleased with the agreement between A and C, since he would prefer to have one of them push the other out of the pot, and thus only have to beat one other hand at the showdown, rather than two.
I don't know whether the disadvantaged players in these games didn't know the rules, weren't paying enough attention, or were too shy or intimidated to speak up. But even players who don't know all of the intricacies of the rules are entitled to their protection--and if the dealer doesn't act to enforce the rules protecting one player from the illegal action of another, it seems to me that other players should do so. It's just the old golden rule: I would want somebody else to speak up if I were being disadvantaged by an action I didn't know was illegal (because of being inexperienced, distracted, or whatever), so I should do the same in return.
I would also argue that it's better for the game in the long run if weaker players are protected by the more knowledgeable ones; if they know that their inexperience isn't going to be taken unfair advantage of, they'll be more likely to keep coming back.
These two stories occurred shortly after I had bought and read Cooke's Rules of Real Poker. One of the points that had caught my attention in that new book was rule 16.17: "A player should speak up immediately when he sees an error such as an incorrect amount going into the pot; a pot that is about to be awarded to the wrong person; a card going to the wrong person; or a flashed or marred card."
Comments?
If you are so inclined, dear readers, I would appreciate any comment you might have on whether I was right to speak up in the first situation (although I wasn't quite quick enough to prevent the damage from being done), whether I should have said something immediately at the table in the second situation (versus just keeping quiet, or going to the floor person after the hand was over, which is what I settled on). Also, if you like, comment on how there developed in some circles an unwritten rule that players not involved in the hand should keep quiet about any perceived irregularities, and how we can change that part of poker culture (assuming that you agree it should be changed), or why we should keep such a practice (if you think that players not in the hand should keep mum).
Monday, November 26, 2007
Should one speak up when not involved?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
agreed- the rules are there to protect the stupid and ignorant and we should do all we can to keep them coming back (the stupid people, not the rules).
Just because you know the rules you shouldn't feel like its your duty to say something. its your duty to make money. i'll bet you probably weren't doing well that day and had other things on your mind.
if you were up 3 buy-ins and saw that nonsense going on, you'd be quiet, and when its time to rack up and go home you would.
What if you have a situation where a dealer misreads a board? For example, player A has J9 on J9633 board against QQ. QQ shows his hand and then dealer makes the mistake of killing the winning hand. Nobody knows it but you. Do you speak up?
What if you have the j9?
Cards speak, player is supposed to protect their own hand, and dealer isn't supposed to screw up. But, if you're not in the hand and want to speak up, just remember what you're there for.
I'm a firm believer that you're there to make $ first, and have a good time and make sure everyone else does are in a far, far second place.
J
I probably would have talked in both situations.
The first one was a dealer mistake, but it happens, it looks like the flush draw was going to call no matter what.
And saying "do you want to check it down" is an act of collusion. Granted not many people think it's not a big issue, it is really cheating, all the first player has to do is check and the second player should get the hint.
You were absolutely right to speak up, and you should have spomen up in item #2.
And my response has absolutely nothing to do with poker, but with ethics!
We have a societal obligation to do what's right. To Enforce the rules of society or in this case a microcosm of society - the poker table and it's "societal" rules.
I believe a part of why it is expected to stay out of a hand you are not involved with has to do with the rule of not helping another player. However, it also comes from our societies culture as well. People don't wnat ot get involved. they don't want to be the bad guy, even if the bad guy is the right guy. They don't want conflict, they don't want negative ramifications even if it stems from doing right, etc.
I'll give my answer along with a personal story.
My brother and I are at the Bellagio playing in the daily $500 buy-in event.
After 3-4 hours of play, we end up on the same table and the this hand comes up:
My brother is short stacked and open shoves with 9-10 and is called by pocket aces. The flop is 67J and my bro is cheering for the 8 for all he is worth. Turn- K. River- Q.
Hand is over but the dealer starts to push the big pot to the pocket aces and my brother stands up to leave. I am the only one at the table who notices that my brother hit the straight and I obviously point it out.
The dealer correctly points out that he made a mistake and now the other guy is livid.
He is yelling at the dealer that my brother stood up to leave (and apparently in his own little universe this is just like a muck).
When that ploy fails he turns to me and starts yelling about the fact that I wasn't involved in the hand and should have kept quiet. To make matters worse, my brother had announced to the table upon sitting down that we were brothers (something that we always do to be up front).
Amazingly, 2 or 3 other players back up this moron who is trying to steal a pot he didnt win and doesnt deserve. The main argument I'm hearing is that if it was my brother that had the AA, I wouldnt have said a word.
My answer to them is the same as my answer to you.
As HUMAN BEINGS we have a duty towards honesty and fair play, and even though you may be cast in a bad light sometimes, you have no choice but to speak up. I have no doubt that if the situation was reversed and my brother was being shoved a pot he didn't deserve, I would be the 1st guy to point it out, and my brother would push the pot to the rightful winner himself.
Moral of the story is that you come across many many idiots along the way, and those people are not the ones that should dictate your behavior. Pointing out mistakes and rule infractions are MANDATORY in my opinion.
Good job in Story #1, not as good in Story #2, but I can certainly see your apprehension in that case since it was a grey area for sure.
I think that you were not wrong to speak up in either situation. I would be far more inclined to speak up in the first than in the second; mostly because the guy in the first situation didn't seem to know that he even had the option to not call the full all-in. In the second situation, an assumption of competence would lead one to think that the player could protect himself.
My general default, which is probably not ideal, is to say something like 'Wait a minute...Well I'm not in the hand, you guys do what you want.' That lets people know that something may be amiss and that I probably know what it is. If they want to ask me for more info at that point, I will answer honestly. This still puts the onus on the newb, but (s)he is, at least, aware that all may not be right. There is probably a more correct way to handle it, but I'm also not looking to make enemies or come off as the rules nit when I'm going to be at the table for a while.
RR88
Not everyone knows the rules or is as honest as you. As I fish, in a way I count on your speaking up to help me learn the game and help me keep my head above water. I may know the most important rules, but get myopic at the tables.
I don't know the game well enough that I think I would have the courage to say anything.
I would LOVE having you at my table, even though you'd probably get all my chips!
ChicagoSteve
Post a Comment