Poker Rules Construction

In order to talk about the construction of good poker rules, we need to discuss rule-making in general. We have rules that have the force of law, as put out by governmental entities such as states, counties, and cities. We have rules for practically every organization or other group. All rule-makers face a common problem. Do we make a rule that pertains to all areas, derived from an overriding principle, or do we make a rule that caters to speciality, allowing for differences between various areas, perhaps less tied in with an overriding principle. For each rule, we need to make this decision regarding how universal it will be.

I am of the opinion that entirely too much rule-making is tied in with an overriding principle, a one-size-fits-all approach. Such rules sound very noble and principled, but do not stand close scrutiny. An example from real life is the California "three-strikes law," in which the lawmakers have taken a baseball slogan and turned it into a way of giving a three-peat offender a 25-year-to-life sentence for a violation that wouldn't get you or me any time in the pokey at all.

I am more inclined to the viewpoint of the little guy affected by a law than the problems of the administrator who is trying to have a sweeping piece of legislation that is universal in scope, thus easier to construct and apply. What I do is examine the actual application of a law. If I see places in administering the law where a clear injustice is done, I am of the opinion that the law needs to be written differently. That is my view on the application of laws to real life, and that is my view on the application of laws to poker situations. I prefer to go from the particular to the general, rather than the other way around.

Let's now look at some poker situations in which a law sounds pretty reasonable, but leads to injustice in certain circumstances, giving the opinion that it could be written in a different manner or limited in application so that these little pockets of injustice are avoided.

For openers, let's start with this law: "At the showdown, you must have the proper number of cards for that poker form in order to be awarded the pot." Sounds good, and makes sense. Obviously, a player with too many cards has an advantage over others, and should not be permitted to win. But what about a hand with too few cards? I have never seen this to be a problem in hold'em or Omaha. However, in seven-card stud, every once in a while a player has only six cards at the end. Almost without exception, this is caused by a problem with his last card, the downcard at the river. Either he did not receive one or he did not protect it properly, and it was mistakenly put into the discards. Often, this happens to a player who has a hand on sixth street that is so powerful that it either cannot be improved or improvement does not look like it is needed. So, we are usually talking about a player with a straight, flush, or full house, whom the rule-makers are trying to deprive of the pot because his hand was so strong that he was lulled into not taking adequate means to protect his final card. I find this to be unfair, and see no reason why a seven-stud player missing a river card cannot win the pot anyway. At the very least, we should allow a floorperson the option to rule the hand live if he finds that no impropriety was committed.

Here is another poker example: "Action out of turn is not binding." Makes some sense, doesn't it? For example, in a hold'em game, a player puts chips in the pot to raise, but the player on his right (who had his cards a bit out of plain view) now decides to call or raise. It now would be unfair to force the would-be raiser to make the play in turn that he had made out of turn. But are there other types of out-of-turn action in which the fair thing to do is to rule that the play must be made? In our example, suppose the intervening player decided to fold. It is altogether possible that his decision to fold was strongly influenced by the out-of-turn "raise" on his left. The player who committed the impropriety would thus gain by his improper act if he were not required to put the money into the pot. Some snakes make this type of play deliberately, with malice aforethought. There is nothing like "raising" someone out of the pot without having to put the money in! It appears to me that an injustice has been done if we allow an act like this to go unpunished. Do I have a high-sounding principle like "Action out of turn is not binding" to base the rules on that I believe should govern this type of situation? No, I do not. I would not blame anyone who didn't care for the ring of "Action out of turn is sometimes binding, sometimes not." This maxim sounds pretty wimpy, and not at all principled. Yet, it is how I believe the rule should be drawn up (not literally, of course), specifying which types of action are binding and which are not.

Some poker rules work so well in practice that they can be extended to all situations. For example, "You must show the entire hand at the showdown" (not just enough strength to get the pot). To see if a nice-sounding principle is capable of universal use, you must examine all the results in the actual practice of using it.

We should see from these examples that rules need to be constructed that do not lead to a clear injustice in their application. If there are cases in which the rule leads to an injustice if applied as worded, it needs to be rewritten. It is perhaps not necessary that the person or ruling body who writes the rules have firsthand familiarity with their practical effect. However, it is essential that the rules be made with input from people who are familiar with the practical effect of those rules.

If there is anything I decry in our society, it is the separation of rule-makers from seeing the results of their rule-making. The rule-maker does not get to become familiar with the practical effect of the rules. He does not have to view all of the atrocities firsthand. Such a divergence was the mechanism that enabled the Nazi state to function in its full horrors. More recently, it had a lot to do with the terrible crimes in Kosovo.

As applied to poker, this separation of rule-maker from results of his rules does, of course, not kill or torture people. But it's unhealthy, nevertheless. What I am saying is that a cardroom manager should not simply lay down the law and order compliance. He should meet with his staff and with his customers. You cannot draw up an optimum set of rules without being intimately familiar with their practical effect. And if the practical effect of a rule leads to injustice in individual cases, there is something wrong with the rule. It is that way in poker, and that way in real life.

Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone is available for poker lessons. He may be reached at (989) 792-0884. His website is www.diamondcs.net/~thecoach, where you can download Robert's Rules of Poker for free. His books Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Hold'em Poker are available through Card Player.