tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post6048405238831298404..comments2024-03-05T08:25:01.029-05:00Comments on Poker Grump: BusybodyRakewellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-18346887439570654282011-02-22T09:42:19.767-05:002011-02-22T09:42:19.767-05:00I found this situation very interesting, particula...I found this situation very interesting, particularly your take on it since as others have pointed out it seems counter to your usual inclinations. I read through all of the comments hoping to see your response - is a final "wrap-up" coming?Wayne W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17192430998735236306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-63601126402884516972011-02-18T12:13:51.106-05:002011-02-18T12:13:51.106-05:00(1) Was the guy wrong to involve himself in the fi...(1) Was the guy wrong to involve himself in the first place?<br /><br />No. Objectively I've heard it said that a lot of rules, like the string bet, are there to stop the person getting information from anyone ... which means if 9 players got dealt cards, then the 7 who have folded can be gamed for information (and so should be allowed to object).<br /><br />Also, subjectively, if he thought it was "cheating" I think it's fine for him to speak up.<br /><br />If he was just doing it so the weaker player would likely have more money ... that's much greyer.<br /><br />(2) Was he wrong to continue to press the point after I had indicated that it was OK with me to let the string bet stand? <br /><br />No, people disagree ... he's allowed to be unconvinced by your argument :).<br /><br />(3) Was I being unethical/dishonest/cheating/angle-shooting to say that I was OK with overlooking the technical violation and attempt to let the bet stand?<br /><br />I think this is more grey than you paint it. If you didn't care because the intent was clear, and would thus. allow the string bet, under the same conditions, even when you would prefer the bet be $20 ... then I would say that's 100% fine.<br />If you would object, for the first offence when the intent was clear and the player was obviously less experienced, that's clearly an angle shot (and bad for the game) ... but it's not cheating.James Antillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03525392387567244342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-65312329314498763512011-02-16T12:10:46.327-05:002011-02-16T12:10:46.327-05:00Obviously hypocritical, considering the post you m...Obviously hypocritical, considering the post you mentioned about the Venetian. Seems really weird coming from someone I thought was really honest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-2241433384116693512011-02-15T17:44:02.301-05:002011-02-15T17:44:02.301-05:00No he was not wrong to initially point it out. But...No he was not wrong to initially point it out. But I can think of instances where a string bet being allowed to stand would benefit the string better in contrast to this case where for sake of argument we are assuming it would have hurt him.<br /><br />No he was not wrong to press the issue. Although I think most reasonable people would not have pressed it given that the sole opponent wanted the full bet to be accepted and that was obviously the string better's intention.<br /><br />No you were not be unethical at all. If anything you gave the string better some information.GeorgeXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183186460774456652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-78015173563633957592011-02-15T13:35:09.373-05:002011-02-15T13:35:09.373-05:00(1) Was the guy wrong to involve himself in the fi...(1) Was the guy wrong to involve himself in the first place?<br /><br />No, but he could have done it much more tactfully. Asking the dealer whether a string bet occurred allows him to back off gracefully when/if she answers no or she defers to you.<br /><br />(2) Was he wrong to continue to press the point after I had indicated that it was OK with me to let the string bet stand?<br /><br />Yes. And it's a total judgment call for the reasons you stated in your post, akin to the NFL rules allowing declining penalties when advantageous.<br /><br />In small stakes games, it's often better for the atmosphere if minor rules violations are overlooked. The bettor clearly meant to bet $40 and you were willing to accept the bet of $40, so there's nothing to be gained from pressing the point other than slowing down and nitting up the game.<br /><br />This is definitely not a game integrity issue.<br /><br />(3) Was I being unethical/dishonest/cheating/angle-shooting to say that I was OK with overlooking the technical violation and attempt to let the bet stand?<br /><br />Dishonest? Absolute no.<br />Cheating? Solid no.<br />Angle shooting? Marginal no.<br /><br />Unethical? Maybe. Depends on your ethics. Some people think it's unethical to take money (at the poker table) from drunks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-24487383445879157742011-02-15T12:34:48.133-05:002011-02-15T12:34:48.133-05:00Classic case of hypocrisy, given your intervention...Classic case of hypocrisy, given your interventionist history of strict enforcement of the rules. You knew a string bet had been made; your behaviour constituted a mild form of angle-shooting to earn an additional $20. You deserve a mild slap on the wrist. Start calling string bets in hands you are involved in, even when doing so is not to your advantage. :)<br /><br />-PLShrikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05404058806313927899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-40840407152665191632011-02-15T12:31:06.404-05:002011-02-15T12:31:06.404-05:00You're incorrect Grumpy...but big mouth should...You're incorrect Grumpy...but big mouth should have advised of the string bet right away , or atleast before you acted.edivadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17764082988378634399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-46554318469978504832011-02-15T10:56:56.417-05:002011-02-15T10:56:56.417-05:00I like the football penalty comparison. Here'...I like the football penalty comparison. Here's my thoughts.<br /><br />I think the player not in the hand should have stayed out of it. This is a dealer and players in the hand call in my opinion.<br /><br />I don't think it's a case though where you can accept or decline to have the string bet enforced. It's a procedural issue here and not one where I think you wind up with the option to allow it.<br /><br />I don't think you are angle shooting in this case, I see your point, I just think it's one of those situations where procedure rules.<br /><br />Having said all that, I don't think you are wrong for being upset, as ultimately I think the busybody intervened when he shouldn't have. I think the question I'd pose though is if the dealer called it, would you be upset. (I'm guessing you wouldn't based on how you typically have handled things) Which is the reason I don't think it's an angle shoot.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17190937282558817928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-58347462165210076922011-02-15T10:08:05.781-05:002011-02-15T10:08:05.781-05:00I don't think you were "cheating" in...I don't think you were "cheating" in not speaking up. And i don't think the other player was totally out of line in speaking up.<br /><br />There are some places where string bets can only be called by a player in the hand .... the dealer can not stop a string bet unless a player objects (I'm not aware of any rooms in Vegas that use this rule).<br /><br />One reason I do not like that rule is that it seems to trap an unwary player who does not know the rule against string bets so that they get the worst of it no matter what.<br /><br />If they string bet and their opponent wants the bet to stand no one says a word and they are allowed to bet that way. Then an hour later they bet exactly the same way they have been doing it all night, and their opponent doesn't want it allowed so he speaks up and suddenly now he isn't allowed to bet this way after doing it all night. It seems dishonest to me to selectively enforce this rule in this way (I don't have this objection if the player involved is clearly someone aware of the rule .... but 90% of string bets come from new players who aren't).<br /><br />That being said I'm also not a huge fan of strict enforcement of the string bet rule. I think when a player in No Limit makes a bet in a manner in which it is reasonably obvious that he intended to make this bet and he does not in fact cause action behind him based on the first motion then the bet should stand. The rule as it was traditionally applied to No Limit poker (and as it appears in Robert's Rule of Poker) is :<br /><br />"a player who says "raise" is allowed to continue putting chips into the pot with more than one move; the wager is assumed complete when the player's hands come to rest outside the pot area. (This rule is used because no-limit play may require a large number of chips be put into the pot.)" <br /><br />I think this is a preferable rule to the one which has become more standard today (the result of people not familiar with No-Limit applying limit poker rules to No-Limit games).<br /><br />As a player I would not get involved and call the string bet here, but I understand why some people do. I think your Seat 9 guy may just be a rules nit and not necessarily someone sharing my concerns.Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15453813685418342406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-34114235487933708602011-02-15T09:08:15.832-05:002011-02-15T09:08:15.832-05:00We wouldn't be having this conversation if the...We wouldn't be having this conversation if the dealer had done her job. Dealer sees string bet, dealer corrects string bet.<br /><br />I don't blame seat 9 for speaking up in the first place. He saw a dealer not doing their job and spoke up. Once the dealer didn't immediately act on his observation, and you stated you were fine with the string bet, his job was done. Everyone was happy at this point: original bettor made the bet he wanted, dealer didn't have to confront the bettor, and you got more money in the pot. Insisting the string bet rule be strictly enforced at this point was not necessary for the integrity of the game.<br /><br />I definitely would not call anything you did here cheating or even an angle. The bettor wanted $40 in the pot and you were fine with the $40 bet. I wouldn't have been all that upset at seat 9 if he had just pointed out the string bet and then butted out. The insistence on enforcement and then accusation of cheating were wrong.<br /><br />P.S. It turns out all NFL coaches are angle shooters because sometimes they have a rule enforced against the other team, and sometime they do not. "The very definition of an angle shot." Definitely no human interpretation of the string bet rule, at least in this case. Maybe in the future the dealer could throw a yellow flag for a heads-up string betting penalty and you could choose whether you want the penalty enforced.Tarpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10117117121445134204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-39326084219524447162011-02-15T09:01:35.327-05:002011-02-15T09:01:35.327-05:00You wrote, "First, I see the main reason for ...You wrote, "First, I see the main reason for speaking up to be to help protect the general integrity of the game"<br /><br />Unlike football, there's nothing in poker about players getting to decide on rule enforcement. What if someone made an invalid "raise" (e.g., less than amount of previous bet)? Should the playes in the hand be the ones to decide if that re-opens the betting?<br /><br />Principles only have meaning if you follow them even when it costs you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-66370996032711321302011-02-15T08:34:02.687-05:002011-02-15T08:34:02.687-05:00hypocrite hahahahahypocrite hahahahaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-80309917518794535212011-02-15T08:32:06.894-05:002011-02-15T08:32:06.894-05:00From you Grump, it's hypocritical, since you a...From you Grump, it's hypocritical, since you are as anal retentive about the rules as anyone I've every heard (and they call me the "poker Nazi" in my home game, which means I know what I'm talking about).<br /><br />The best way for you to have dealt with the situation would have been to ask out loud, before seat 9 got involved, "how much do you want to bet?". When he answers $40, tell him that next time it should be one smooth motion, then ask the dealer if the bet stands. When the dealer answers, it'll overrule the opinion of any busybody at the table.<br /><br />Also, you cost yourself a lot of money by speaking up. When you said that you wanted the $40 to stand, then moved in on him, he knew you were super strong. You should have only cared about that extra $20 if you wanted him to fold. If you wanted a call, which seems like your plan, that $20 was supposed to get in there anyway at some point, so there was no benefit for arguing for it there.Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07894508369148783870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-7556937165022484702011-02-15T05:51:17.535-05:002011-02-15T05:51:17.535-05:00I have been playing poker in cardrooms for 20 year...I have been playing poker in cardrooms for 20 years. Your actions are not only hypocritical, but constitute angle shooting (passively).<br /><br />Usually, the best course of action with a player clearly unfamiliar with the setting (and likely the rules) is to help him out and be friendly. Then he will want to come back and play again. Next time, please think of the long term effect your actions at the table have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-26540784245695366092011-02-15T05:21:56.036-05:002011-02-15T05:21:56.036-05:00I play in local LHE cardrooms in WA state. Some ro...I play in local LHE cardrooms in WA state. Some rooms, the player must call the string bet. Other rooms, the dealer is the only one who can call a string. In no rooms (that I know of) can an uninvolved player call a string.<br /><br />Not sure what this means for your situation, other than the fact that it is odd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-39288211684818376792011-02-15T05:05:35.376-05:002011-02-15T05:05:35.376-05:00The very definition of angle shooting; if it hurts...The very definition of angle shooting; if it hurts you, speak up and protest, and if it benefits you let it slide. And as Graeme says, hypocritical to boot. WPtaximike44https://www.blogger.com/profile/01753121408004687564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-18128841962667174402011-02-15T04:50:14.459-05:002011-02-15T04:50:14.459-05:00(1) Was the guy wrong to involve himself in the fi...(1) Was the guy wrong to involve himself in the first place? <br /><br />I'd say that like your interpretation (or angle if you will), he could very much have a justification in his mind why he should say something, i.e. "That player is week, I want him to keep as much money for ME as possible", or whatever. So, per the letter of the law, he was perfectly in his rights to do it.<br /><br />That said, it's a pretty nitty thing to do. <br /><br />It takes me to my main point, which I have mentioned before, which is: What is the SPIRIT of the rule? WHY is that rule in place? To protect against people shooting an angle by getting info on what people are going to do behind them. This clearly wasn't happening here. <br /><br />It's for this reason that at my home game we have disallowed the "all called hands may ask to be shown" rule, which was solely put in place to prevent collusion. To ask that in a home game, especially one in which all the players are regulars, is totally unrelated to the spirit of the rule, and as we know none of us are colluding, there's no point for us to have that rule in the first place.<br /><br />(2) Was he wrong to continue to press the point after I had indicated that it was OK with me to let the string bet stand? <br /><br />Meh, whatever. See above.<br /><br />(3) Was I being unethical/dishonest/cheating/angle-shooting to say that I was OK with overlooking the technical violation and attempt to let the bet stand?<br /><br />It's an angle, in that you wouldn't have been consistent. If you only wanted to call the $20, you would have enforced it. Therefore, the rule was doing the exact opposite of what it was for, and allowed YOU to shoot the angle, the guy who was supposed to benefit from being protected.<br /><br />The NFL keeps trying to come up with rules that don't require ANY human interpretation or judgment, and that's fine for poker too. However, when those same rules are exploited to give either side an unfair advantage, something is either wrong with the rule or the enforcement.<br /><br />After following you for a little while here, I do agree that it's being a bit hypocritical on your part, as you have always come across as a hyper-stickler. I'd say that you probably failed this test of integrity per the letter of the law.<br /><br />I could go on and on, arguing both sides. But I'll stop.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00879919383924233635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36880087.post-56425546322222394652011-02-15T03:28:25.296-05:002011-02-15T03:28:25.296-05:00I've been reading your blog for a long time, a...I've been reading your blog for a long time, at least 2 years. You are a stickler for playing by the rules, and that's putting it mildly.<br /><br />This post is a little hypocritical, don't you think?Graemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03899382241466320227noreply@blogger.com