The Worst Bet in Gambling

What is the worst bet in gambling? I have made it many times in my poker career, although never intentionally. Most of you readers have made it, as well. It happens more often than it should. The worst bet in gambling is when you pay off if you lose but fail to collect anything when you win. In colloquial language, it is simply getting stiffed if you win.

The most frequent way for a stiff to occur in poker is when the host of a home game fails to pay off. Sometimes this occurs because a losing player failed to pay. It also can happen when the host plays in the game and goes for a big number. I have been the victim of a stiff from both of these situations, and a lot more times than just once. Furthermore, a number of the people who have stiffed me are now dead (just a coincidence … ), so it's a certainty that I'll never collect.

Here is a story about one of the stiffs I've experienced, a typical situation that arises too often. Back in the late '70s, I used to travel regularly to Toledo, Ohio, to play in a $50-$100 game with a group of businessmen. The host was a nice guy whom I originally met through bridge and backgammon tournaments. He was the father of seven children, and was always struggling for money. One night I won about four grand. As usual, the host played in the game, and simply took chips out of the chip rack when he ran short. As the evening wore on, his play got more and more desperate, and he wound up losing even more than I had won. None of the winners got anything, and that was the last poker game he ever hosted. He died many years ago, leaving all of the winners still unpaid. I am sure many of you have a similar story.

Here is an e-mail that I got from a person who hosts a home game, which inspired me to write this column.

"The play was heads up in a small no-limit cash game. One player was facing an all-in bet and showed his holecards to the entire table. There were a few outside comments on what action he should take, and after a couple of minutes, he called the bet. The betting player he called showed an identical hand and made no comment on the outside help. The calling player made a flush on the river to avoid the split pot. The betting player then contested the play due to outside interference, stating that the calling player should be considered to have folded. After much argument, they asked me to rule, and I declared the calling player's hand dead due to outside interference. Did I call it right?"

My answer was exceptionally testy for a reply to a reasonable question:

"You did something that was grossly unfair. You let the calling player put his money into the pot with no chance to win. It is clear that if his opponent had won the whole pot, he would have kept it. (If you had ruled the player's hand dead before he put his money in, after warning him and the table that no help from the outside was allowed, that would have been reasonable. If you had ruled a split pot before the rest of the cards were dealt, and the player who was called agreed, that also would have been reasonable.)

"It also seems evident that such comments are not ­unusual in your game (or you would have spoken up). It is a general principle of law that rules are not to be "selectively enforced," meaning it is improper to enforce a rule selectively against a certain person rather than evenhandedly. This is a regular rule of law, but it should apply to poker law, as well. So, to rule a player's hand dead only on this occasion was also wrong.

"My suggestion is that you pay half the amount of the pot out of your pocket to the guy whose hand you ruled dead. The house has the responsibility of running a fair game, so when the host screws up, he should bear the blame."

As it turned out, the matter was not settled in the way I had assumed it would be. Here is what the game host wrote back:

"When I called his hand dead, I returned his call of the bet to him, as he couldn't call with the outside help. It was effectively a split pot then. All that was in before was the blinds."

I still do not like the fact that the player who called could lose, but could not win. However, it is evident that my correspondent had a fairer mind than I had originally given him credit for having.

I have written some columns about playing in home games, focusing on the twin drawbacks of getting robbed and getting raided. But there is a third drawback, as illustrated in the beginning of this column: getting stiffed. I once again emphasize that we poker players deserve a brick-and-mortar place to play where we are safe – and get paid when we win.

Poker is riding a wave of popularity. If we are ever to get mass legalization of cardrooms, so that we can play without getting robbed, raided, or stiffed, the time is ripe. In my opinion, it is essential that we distinguish poker from casino gambling in general in order to achieve this goal. There is a nice discussion of this subject in Roy Cooke's outstanding column in the Feb. 27, 2004, issue of Card Player, which can be found on the Card Player website in the archives section.

Right now, there is a very interesting bill upon which the people of Michigan will have voted by the time you read these words; it's listed as Proposition One on our ballots. This bill would remove control from the legislature over whether gambling is legal in any area, and require a vote of the people of that area for any new gambling to be legalized. The bill is aimed at restricting the spread of new gambling, and is sponsored by the casino industry, which is ever ready to keep the gambler's dollar only in those establishments that are presently legal, as opposed to new ones. The main argument against the bill comes from the Lottery Commission, which fears its power to generate money for the state will be injured.

Both sides of Proposition One have completely ignored the possibility of poker being legalized by a vote of the people, yet it is obvious that such a vote would have an excellent chance of being successful in today's climate of public opinion. Poker is far more acceptable to people than casino gambling in general. It would not generate the big bucks for the state that full-scale casino gambling would, but it would sure help some strapped local communities pay their bills.

This particular bill has some glaring flaws in it, is opposed by the governor (she is worried about the state's budget), and may not pass. However, a well-constructed bill that gives the people the power to make decisions about gambling at the local level would have an excellent chance for success, both in Michigan and elsewhere. In the near future, I think we are going to see some very interesting developments in the fight to have legal public poker rooms more available for us to enjoy our favorite pastime. Stay tuned.

Editor's note: Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, ­Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Holdem Poker. All can be ordered from Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker ­lessons. E-mail [email protected]. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get Robert's Rules of Poker for free. Ciaffone is the cardroom director for the ChecknRaisePoker.com website.