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].

Q: Maximize EV or Build the Game?

A: Yes!

Dear TRG,

I am a winning player at the low- to mid-stakes live cash games where I do everything possible to keep recreational players coming back. But I play the game for a profit and ultimately must take advantage of mistakes by said players to make money.

I was playing $1-$3 when a middle-aged man sat down; it was evident this was his first time ever playing at the casino, and he was using mostly large denomination chips, probably from pit games. A hand occurred where three people limped up front, and I raised to $15 with A-Q offsuit in middle position. Action folded around to this beginner and, after discovering he didn’t have $15 in red chips, he grabbed a $100 chip, then grabbed five $1 chips and said, “I’ll make this easier for the dealer,” and put $105 out. The dealer ruled that it was a raise, which visibly flustered this guy. Action folded back around to me and, for the sake of not ruining his first experience, I decided to let him have the pot and mucked.

Fast forward to a later $1-$2 session. A young guy two to my right was playing a losing LAG style and straddling $5 on the button every time. A hand came up where he straddled $5 again, and, knowing he would raise over limps, I decided to limp with pocket tens in the big blind. A couple others limped and, just as planned, he obliged and threw out four chips off the top of his red stack for a raise, only to find out he accidentally threw out a red chip and three $25 chips that do in fact look way more similar than they should for a casino. I decided not to let him off the hook and jammed for around $450, which covered the players in the hand. It folded around to him, and he decided he was committed for his $225 stack and called off with K-7 offsuit, and I held.  

Do you think I acted appropriately in each scenario or is it okay to punish every mistake?  

—The Occasional Punisher

Dear OP:

This is a brilliant question because it highlights a fundamental element of TRG’s ethical poker philosophy (EPP™—TRG completely created that trademark, and no, you may not use it!). In EPP terms, the same action can have completely different consequences and dictate completely different responses depending solely on the circumstances.

These two actions are similar. The new player inadvertently made a raise when he clearly meant just to call. The straddle-hungry LAGer inadvertently made an overbet-raise when he clearly meant just to make a normal raise (to $20, if TRG is reading your description correctly).

Two very similar actions; two very similar mistakes. And yet, your own response to these parallel mistakes is about as diametrically opposite as is possible—and, TRG adds, completely appropriate in each case.

In the first instance, by not taking advantage of the new player’s mistake, you were undeniably correct. Note that it would have been within your rights to punish his ignorance—but TRG is glad you chose the better part of valor. In the second instance, you were well within your rights to take full advantage of the situation.

TRG will boil the difference down to one word: context.

Your reasoning about the newbie player sounds accurate. He didn’t know the basics, and in trying to be helpful to the flow of the game, by making change in advance so to speak, he raised—clearly and visibly in error. (Side note: TRG believes the dealer could have been less of a stickler here and asked the player’s intentions. This would have stopped the action, and the player could have made a verbal declaration. Side note #2: Verbal declarations, which are binding and take precedence over any subsequent action, do minimize confusion. If he said “Call” but then put out a million chips, it’s just a call. Players, make your intentions clear!)

Once the dealer has ruled the action constituted a raise, it’s a raise, of course. When the action folded to you, you made the decision to fold, letting newbie off the hook. However unlikely it may appear, he could have had a monster and was trying to be tricky; plus, even if you’d taken full advantage of him by jamming, he might have called and won. So you probably let him off the hook for his mistake, but it’s by no means a certainty.

But let’s say you took another course, and ended up winning a pot inflated by his mistake. He would have learned a lesson, of course, but not the lesson you want him to learn: that poker can be competitive without being cutthroat. The biggest fear of new players is that they’ll be made to look stupid or they’re being continually taken advantage of. You cut him some slack, and he’ll remember that.

On to the second situation, with the straddle-happy LAGer. The situation is almost identical, but not entirely so.

The first player meant to call, but ended up raising. The second player meant to raise and ended up making a massive overbet, an obvious mistake. But in this case, he is not a newbie who deserves a little slack. (People who straddle a lot aren’t by definition great players, of course, but they are almost certainly not newbies.) He made a mistake that you’re entitled to pounce on. Even if he released the chips and immediately noticed he had overbet, he has to live with the consequences of his mistake in a way that newbie player shouldn’t. (That said, if he had immediately realized and said “Damn, I meant to make it $20 to go, not $80!” a friendly game might have let him take the $60 out, but not the $20, of course.)

Note that straddle-LAGer compounds his error by calling your bet. TRG realizes he may been pot-committed, but he could have folded his hand and written off his $60 mistake.

You might recall one of TRG’s favorite rules, as articulated by the Tournament Directors Association: “Poker is a game of alert, continuous observation.” Player one’s mistake was forgivable ignorance; player two’s mistake is simple negligence. In the first situation, you acted in the interest of the game and long-term EV: welcoming a new player and not taking full advantage of his lack of experience. In the second situation, you acted in the interest of short-term EV: taking full advantage of a mistake from a player who should (and probably does) know better.

Well done, OP. ♠