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. What’s wrong? What’s right? What’s an angle? Got a question about how to behave at the poker table (or a comment about a column)? Email TRG at [email protected].

Props to Connor Drinan: “If I lose like this… whatever.”

It’s rare, but it does happen: losing with AA v AA. But rarely has it happened as dramatically as at the WSOP $1 million Big One for One Drop in 2014. Cary Katz opened with aces; Connor Drinan three-bet; Katz four-bet; Drinan shoved; Katz snap-called. When two hearts flopped, Katz, holding the A, had a sliver more equity in the pot; when the turn put three hearts on the board, the tension mounted, and Drinan said, “If I lose like this…whatever….”

His karmic display of cool earns him props from The Rules Guy. And when Drinan surfaced in a recent etiquette/rules controversy, TRG was all ears. Read on…

Hands off!

Dear The Rules Guy:

You’ve surely seen Connor Drinan’s tweet from a tournament in April; how would you rule in that situation?

— Taking the Pulse in Tallahassee

Dear TPT:

For the benefit of all readers, Drinan’s (ConnorDrinan) tweeted to Matt Savage (SavagePoker) on April 18:

“Player bets river, I shove, 2 minutes into tanking, he grabs my forearm and says let me feel your pulse. Big pot, never met him. Ruling?”

Savage Tweets Back:

Very likely an amateur “joking around,” but killing hand and a warning/penalty is likely warranted, not the death penalty.

Savage joked about “death penalty” in response to a vigorous Twitter conversation in which some armchair warriors vowed physical harm to would-be (surely unsuccessful) pulse-taker.

Even if the player was joking and intended to fold immediately, as Savage suspected, he could elicit information of value to someone at the table in a future hand. That alone mandates a penalty – some things, including poker hands in big poker tournaments, are simply not joking matters. But in this case, the player tanked and eventually called. Drinan should have called the floor, who should have immediately awarded him the pot and given the offender a meaningful penalty.

It may not be an assault, but it’s very much an affront, one that shouldn’t be tolerated at the poker table. We can stare down an opponent. We can ask questions to elicit some kind of response. But what we cannot do, must never do, is take matters into our own hands – or to take another player’s hand (or wrist) into ours.

When Taking Shots, Be Prepared for the Recoil

Dear The Rules Guy,

In online poker cash games, I sometimes take shots at slightly higher stakes than I would normally play and short-stack, buying in for around the minimum and trying to find advantageous spots to move all-in over three-bets and flat calls.

My etiquette question comes in when I have doubled, tripled or quadrupled my buy-in quickly and find myself sitting deeper-stacked than I feel comfortable playing. I have sometimes left the table and taken a seat on a different table at the same stakes, once again buying in for the minimum and banking the profit.

Once I was called out by a player and accused of “rat-holing.” I certainly see where he was coming from. Is what I did plainly unethical? Obviously it’s looked down upon and discouraged, but is it bad enough that I need to stop the practice entirely? If so, what could I do to modify the behavior so it isn’t so offensive and wrong? Do I really owe it to my opponents to play a certain amount of orbits with a stack I don’t strategically feel comfortable playing (against the tougher competition at the higher stakes) or am I within my rights to take my money and run?

Thanks for your input.

— Anonymous

Dear Anonymous,

The very name “rat-holing” suggests that the behavior is frowned upon and wrong. Which it is: rat-holing in the strictest sense is both frowned upon (other players hate it) and wrong (against the rules). What you’re doing is not strictly speaking rat-holing, but will generally be frowned upon. But if you do it often enough, you’ll find that your game dries up – you won’t get the action you need to make money. Side note: You won’t make a lot of new friends at the tables either.

Let’s start with what is actually against the rules: taking money off your stack while remaining seated at the table. This is a disqualifying event in a tournament (obvious; justified). In cash games, the rule is typically expressed in a roundabout way, as in this citation in “Roberts Rules of Poker” (Rules 2.6 & 7):

Money and chips may be removed for security purposes when leaving the table….All removed funds must be fully restored when returning to the game.
If you return to the same game within one hour of cashing out, your buy-in must be equal to the amount removed when leaving that game.

Clearly, the second component there is to prevent the action you’re describing: winning and moving to a new table in an attempt to protect your winnings.

TRG would prefer a clear-cut rule about this, but the intent is clear enough. You don’t mention if your card room has a waiting period rule, but TRG’s does (40 minutes to buy into a new game, otherwise you must move the same stack over). Obviously, if you’re conforming to the letter of the law, you’re technically within your rights.

But are you conforming to the spirit of the law? It’s fine to take shots, of course. Players in higher stakes games positively love it when players from lower-stakes games take shots. And it’s always fine to leave a winner. Indeed, TRG’s card room has this admirably worded rule: “A player is entitled to quit a game at any time without being subject to criticism from another player.”

However – it seems that in the rules of poker, there is always a “however” – just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something. And you should not rat-hole enough to be seen as a rat-holer. Let’s put it this way: If you take a shot at a bigger game and double-up and leave once or twice, no one will think twice about it. If you do it everyday, (a) you’d be among the luckier players on Earth and (b) every regular would know exactly what you’re doing and stop getting into pots with you without exceptionally strong (i.e., not coinflips) hands.

The old adage “You have to give action to get action” is usually attributed to Doyle Brunson, and its corollary applies here: “You have to be willing to lose in order to win.” Your strategy is fine for taking the occasional shot, but if your goal is to move up in stakes and give yourself the chance to win at a faster rate, you have to play deeper and play deeper longer.

And a side note for anyone confronting the “ignominy” of appearing to be executing a hit-and-run, especially if you’ve won big: Play a couple of extra rounds and make a friendly, subtle announcement of your plans to leave: “I’m playing until the next button” or something like that.