Speaking Up When Not Involved

I received an e-mail from reader Bob Woolley, who asked my opinion on a couple of situations he had been involved in at the poker table. Bob did such a good job of explaining both of the situations, breaking down his thoughts and then giving an overall assessment of the primary questions, that I decided to let him tell the story from beginning to end.

Situation No. 1: It's a $1-$2 no-limit hold'em game. 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 player A, who immediately pushes all in for $90. As the dealer turns to player C for his action, Bob speaks up and points out that player A should not have the option to reraise. Before anybody can react, player C calls (for a little less than what player A had put in). Player C, a fairly weak and inexperienced player, was on a flush draw and missed. He then left the table.

Bob's thoughts on the situation: After the hand, player A acknowledged that he was wrong. He had a very strong hand and was eager to get all of his chips in. I believe that his mistake was inadvertent. The dealer also acknowledged that he missed the fact that player B's all-in raise was not a full raise, and therefore player 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.

Situation No. 2: Preflop, in a $1-$2 no-limit hold'em game, player A raises to $10, and player B pushes all in for $200. Player C reluctantly calls. Player A appears equally unhappy about the reraise, but eventually calls, and as he does so, he asks player C, "You want to just check it down?" Player C agrees. The dealer does nothing.

Bob's thoughts on the situation: 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 two days in a row. I did, however, 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 that he heard the collusion, but it happened so fast that he couldn't stop it.

Bob's thoughts on "speaking up": To my way of thinking, no player can help another make a decision. 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 reraise 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 remaining money if his draw didn't hit. In the second scenario, player B would presumably not be pleased with the agreement between players A and C, since he would prefer to have one of them push the other out of the pot, and thus have to beat only 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 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 that 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.

I have written several columns about "speaking up." I am a big advocate of all players doing their part to make sure that the rules are followed, and all players are protected. Bob did a good job of explaining some of the reasons why this is important, and why it is good not only for the game of poker, but for all poker players, experienced and inexperienced.

Mike O'Malley is a consultant for www.PartyGaming.com, and can be reached at [email protected]. His website is updated regularly at www.rzitup.com.