The Rules Guy: How To Conduct Yourself at the Poker Table

Most players learn poker’s explicit rules pretty quickly: the “one-chip rule,” for example, or “verbal declarations are binding.” But not everyone seems to have digested the game’s vast book of unwritten rules, admonitions like “don’t berate other players (particularly bad ones)” or “say ‘nice hand’ even when you mean something entirely different.”

Enter “The Rules Guy.” TRG believes that civility and sportsmanship are never wrong, and that bad behavior (even when you’re simply trying to get an edge) is bad for the game. Have you got a question about how to conduct yourself at the poker table? Email TRG at [email protected].

Cardinal Sins: Acting Out of Turn & Verbal Abuse(s)

Dear The Rules Guy:

Why did Scott Seiver get so pissed off at Jungleman’s acting out of turn at the Party Poker Premier League VI? And what did you make of Jungleman’s fairly heated ripostes?

—Curious in Curacao

Dear Curious,

For the benefit of those not in the know, here’s what happened: (The Rules Guy bases this column solely on the evidence provided by a video, posted on YouTube by Party Poker on March 22, 2013, covering a couple of minutes of interchange during a broadcast of Party’s Premier League VI.) Scott Seiver, a well-educated, thoughtful, and excellent player called out Dan “Jungleman” Cates, an experienced professional, for repeatedly acting out of turn. Seiver was understandably incensed, but Jungleman took umbrage at the charge. A clearly exasperated Seiver said, “No, it’s like actual cheating.” Then Cates drops the F-bomb on Seiver, who adds, “It’s impossible for you to be as dumb as you’re acting.” Cates then throws in, with a grotesque display of petulance, “You’re an idiot!”

There seems to be no disputing that Cates acted out of turn. Phil Hellmuth can be heard reminding Cates that he did so six times. Daniel Negreanu admonishes Cates to be more careful. And then Antonio Esfandiari pipes in with the real insight: “You’re both out of line. You’re [Cates] out of line for acting out of turn; you’re [Seiver] out of line for attacking him.”

Although Esfandiari is right, Cates is by far the more egregious actor in this tawdry drama on the felt.

Sin #1: Acting Out of Turn

Cates is categorically wrong for acting out of turn, a cardinal sin in poker that is explicitly forbidden (consult any rule book) and for good reason. When you check, or bet, or fold, or even ask for a count when it’s not your turn to act, you give loads of information to the players in front of you and the players behind you — information they have no right to. An out-of-turn fold weakens an early position raise or might induce a bet or a call from a player who might otherwise be worried about a player behind. In effect, acting out of turn is a violation of poker’s “prime directive” (one player per hand).

Pots and tournaments can be lost when a player acts of turn. Which means Seiver has every right to be angry, especially since Cates cannot possibly plead ignorance. Was Cates simply bored? Or was he trying to tilt Seiver (one of the broadcast’s commentators suggested the two had bad blood from a previous event)? Regardless, Cates was wrong. One time could be construed as careless and, therefore, forgiven; six times must be seen as deliberate bad behavior and, therefore, inexcusable.

Sin #2: Escalating the Battle

Seiver is clearly right to want Cates’s out of turn actions to stop, particularly if he is the victim (for example, if he’s the bettor and Cates is affecting his action). He may have done this (we don’t know from the broadcast), but he should have (a) politely reminded Cates of the mandate to act in turn (astute observers will note how effective Negreanu’s comments were); (b) politely asked the dealer to remind Cates of the mandate to act in turn; or © politely requested a floor person and asked him or her to remind Cates of the mandate to act in turn. It’s up to the players to ask for a floor person, which should have meant Jungleman would be warned and, if he acted out of turn again, penalized.

The Rules Guy has tremendous sympathy for Seiver here; even in a small-stakes cash game, acting out of turn does affect the play of a particular hand, often dramatically so. He was right to speak up, but wrong to use inflammatory language by implying, if not outright saying, that Cates was cheating. Even his second attack on Cates, while probably accurate (“it’s impossible for you to be as dumb as you’re acting”), fans the flame of this contretemps. Players with grievances should stick to the facts (something along the lines of “he’s acted out of turn six times in the last two orbits”), not turn them into personal attacks.

Sin #3: Dropping the F-bomb

It is beyond the scope of The Rule Guy’s brief to explain just exactly why and how the F-bomb is so violently offensive, but Wikipedia points out that “f—- is usually used as an exclamation, indicating surprise, pain, fear, disgust, disappointment, anger, or a sense of extreme elation. In this usage, there is no connection to the sexual meaning of the word implied, and is used purely for its strength as a vulgarity.”

It’s safe to remove “a sense of extreme elation” from Cates’s emotional “range” here (in fact, it’s safe to say his emotional range is well and truly capped here). Regardless, directing an F-bomb to Seiver is categorically wrong, triply so given that the table was being shown on TV. TRG believes that Cates felt threatened, and opted for the “fight” option in the well-known “fight or flight” response.

What should he have said? If he was in fact being thoughtless and careless about folding out of turn, he should have said, “I’m sorry. That was thoughtless and careless of me. It won’t happen again.” If he was shooting an angle or pursuing some kind of misguided personal vendetta against Seiver, he should have said, “I’m sorry. That was thoughtless and careless of me. It won’t happen again.” (Note to all rule-breakers, angle shooters and otherwise: an apology, no matter how hollow, will earn you a reprieve; a denial or a defense of your bad behavior, or an excuse for it, or an attack on the accuser, never will.)

Violating the letter of the law cannot be right — but neither can turning frustration into a personal attack, which is why Esfandiari was absolutely right to point out that both parties acted badly. By all means, let’s follow the rules, and let’s point out (to a floor person!) if someone isn’t doing so, preferably well before the matter gets out of hand. But above all, let’s try to be civil to one another at the table. ♠

Comments? Questions? Behavioral issues? Email TRG at [email protected].