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].

Dear The Rules Guy:

I recently played a $1,000 buy-in event that had a number of “pros” you see on TV—two at my table. I later found out that those two players were sharing information on Twitter about hands they were playing while we were in-game. Seems to me this should not be allowed and I wanted to know if it violates any rules and what the TDA is doing about emerging technology like this at the tables?

— An Amateur in Amarillo

Dear Amateur,

Did you know that the word “amateur” comes from a Latin word that means “to love”? An amateur (which accurately describes the vast majority of poker players) is someone who loves the game—TRG never apologizes for his amateur status (which is good, since TRG will never be a professional player).

That’s not totally an aside, by the way. A love of the game goes hand-in-hand with faith in the game, faith in the belief that it is played by the rules. And those who want to play by the rules, like you (TRG salutes you, Amateur in Amarillo), want everyone to play by the rules.

It’s only fair.

Of course you’re right: Those two players at your table, regardless of their professional status or lack thereof, should not have been Tweeting about hands during the tournament—whether it was collusion or simply chattering about the tournament. Colluding via Twitter, by the way, sounds like one of the dumbest attempts at cheating in the history of poker. Twitter is an open forum, with a difficult-to-delete e-paper trail.

Colluding is categorically bad and categorically wrong; giving the appearance of colluding is also taboo. Significantly, most venues curtail the use of smartphones and the like at the table. So saith the Tournament Directors Association: “Players may not talk on a phone while at the poker table. House rules apply to other forms of electronic devices and electronic communication.”

Now that’s a bit vague for the likes of a rules nit like The Rules Guy. It should be incorrect to use your phone (for talking, texting, tweeting, etc.—for communicating) if you have cards in front of you. Note that this is hardly onerous for even the most degenerate addicts of Candy Crush Saga. You can look at your cards and check/bet/raise/fold/whatever without having to reach the next level or pause that track from Nickleback you regret purchasing (but can’t quite bring yourself to delete).

It’s likely that the offenders in the case you describe were simply communicating on the level of “Hey dude, what did you have there when you six-bet shoved? I put you on queens.” In other words: information of zero strategic value.

Obviously, if they were actually colluding, they are subject to whatever penalties the TD or floor person feels is appropriate—warnings, moving one of them to a new table, a time-out, or even elimination. (Penalties are and must be a gray area—intent is always hard to prove, especially in real-time, and the penalty must be commensurate with the crime.)

Your question illuminates another key issue for poker rules/etiquette: The appearance of collusion is disconcerting (anything that threatens the integrity of the game is disconcerting). Ergo: Players should not, as a matter of etiquette, give the appearance of cheating, colluding, or impropriety.

But when they do—when you suspect someone of doing something against the rules—you have to speak up. Only a floor person can administer justice, and the floor won’t realize something is amiss unless you say something. Poker players are their own referees.

However, raising the suspicion of collusion or other forms of cheating is not nearly as easy as calling someone out for a string bet or for acting out of turn. It’s one thing to voice a minor procedural error—yelling out “Collusion!” is a much more serious accusation.

TRG’s advice: If you observe something suspicious, ask for the TD or the floor and explain your concern, out of earshot. The mere presence of a floor person will likely make a colluder stop (and should make him wary of colluding again). And, of course, if the floor person observes something out of the ordinary, he or she can make a ruling.

Calling the floor is essential if you suspect something untoward in a tournament. It’s useful in a cash game as well, but you can always rack up and leave if you’re in a crooked cash game—in a tournament, you’re stuck unless you speak up. If you don’t say anything, chances are the floor won’t do anything.

You might be tempted to think, “Why does the onus for watching the game fall on me?” But that’s the wrong question. The right one is, “What happens if I fail to live up to my end of the social contract in poker?” The cheaters win. And everybody loses.

TRG does believe poker is, mostly, on the level. But we can elevate the game much further by being observant and by being careful about what we do at the table. ♠