Depends, but in many cases I would probably hold you to it.

On the other hand, if the board is K789, and you yell out "ten!" while staring at the board as the dealer is putting out the river, I will probably guess that you are calling for a card and not trying to bet 10 dark, and rule thusly.

The issue is the ambiguity. "Ten" can mean the 10-spot, or a bet size. Slapping the felt hard can mean check, or (in gambling parlance and history) it can mean that you're trying to get the poker gods to bring your card on the river. "all-in" probably only means all-in in that situation. Unless you were having a side conversation with someone at the same time about action on a previous hand, say, in which case I would probably not rule you all in if that could be determined, and if it didn't cause action behind you.

Context is important.

That would be the opposite of what I said

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

You said that you wouldn't consider action to be on a player before the card is dealt, but you are saying that you would consider verbal declarations binding. So, how is action not on the player?

What I said is that though the action isn't on the player they are next to act and they can act dark if they do so in a manner that makes it clear that is what they are doing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I guess I don't see the functional difference between the state you described, and action being to a player. In fact, I would worry that your quasi-binding state would lead to ambiguous situations and possible angling.

So when the action checks around on the flop if the first player to act is drumming his fingers it should be a check for the turn? That seems more reasonable to you?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Since drumming of fingers, as a constant action not as a sudden, explicit action, is not usually considered a check, then no. For example, if I am drumming my fingers already, or fidgeting, or playing with a chip, and action comes to me, this is not usually interpreted as a check. if, however, when action is on my, I take a deliberate and explicit action with my hand like slapping the table, that is almost always a check. What I hear you saying is that first to act, but no card dealt, is a hybrid state where a player can do things that would normally be a check, but aren't in this situation, but do other things, like make a verbal declaration, that are binding. This seems awfully vague. I think that being first to act before the next card is dealt should be treated the same as having the action on you. If room policy is to clarify and give one warning when a player acts ambiguously with his hand, so be it. If room policy is to strictly hold a player to a check if he does anything with his hand when action is on him, that should apply as well.

It is vague, but as I have explained repeatedly, context is important. If you want to act "dark", you need to be explicit about the action you're taking, and it needs to be non-ambiguous.

If you need to have an explicit rule, I would much rather have it be that no one can act until the card is put up, rather than have action immediately switch to "first to act" as soon as the previous street finishes. That way leads to many problems.

Not to people who think playing gotcha is part of the game. That won't stop until the last fun player has been driven away from the table.

I don't agree with the notion that if you are going to be first to act on the next street, that the action is actually officially "on you" before the previous street is complete and the next card is dealt, and therefore an action like slapping the table while the dealer is still pulling in chips is in anyway binding. How would that apply prefop? A hand officially starts when he green button is pushed, so does that mean that action s officially on UTG from that instant? if UTG mistakenly thinks he is the big blind and puts out a chip as the dealer starts to deal, that he has called the BB in turn? If the dealer tells him he's not a blind before he even got his second card, can he not take back that chip? Or is he bound to a call?

Does the action become officially on the first to act on the river the instant the chips of the last person to act on the turn hit the felt? Before the dealer has pulled in bets, tapped the table or burned a card prior to putting out the river card? I don't believe that is the usual accepted case. That's why it is necessary for a player to inform the table that he is acting "in the dark" as a way to signify that he is announcing his action early. But absent that announcement I don't see how you could consider a tap on the table a check in the dark, especially when paired with a verbal statement that is unrelated to an action.

Just so we're clear, this should not be policy.

yep. Not too hard to understand this need.

Then you start falling into ambiguity based on poorly enforced rules. I have only ever had one dealer in my life inform me that pointing to the next player was not an action.

For me it is this-if I am at the table, and I can pretty clearly discern what they mean, I will not usually be a rules nit during the hand. But to prevent angling or simple misunderstandings, the rules should be unambiguous and consistently applied. If a slap on the table is a check, then it should be a check if you are next to act, even if the next card hasn't been dealt. If it isn't a check, then it should never be a check.

I just don't believe you should have an ambiguous state before the next card is dealt where next to act can do some actions and be binding, and do others which aren't binding (though they would have been if the card had been dealt). This is too much of an easily avoidable gray area.

Then you can start the worldwide march to enforce that a check will explicitly only be an open downward facing palm starting from 3 to 5 inches above the felt moving downward at a rate of 0.8 m/s until it comes into contact with the table, at which time the motion of the hand must reverse in direction and repeat the rapping of the table a total of three times.


Nothing else will be considered a check.


Let's make this game as unfun as possible. We cannot afford to take any chances with ambiguity.

The lack of fun wouldn't kill the game. The angleshooters who would raise their hand 2.5" off the felt and pretend to check would.

That might even add another fun prop bet to the game:
Over/under on 3.0" when the floor gets out the ruler to measure a freeze frame from the cameras.

Having the ruler readily available would also help with d***-measuring contests.

So, you don't think specific words or gestures should have binding meaning in poker? (I know you will say of course not, but either you have non-ambiguous action definitions, or you go case by case based on intent, it is hard to have a middle ground)

I posit that it's not that hard to have a middle ground that is functional and works often enough in practice for it not to be a burden on everyone in the game.


If you want to Six Sigma the **** out of the process of Poker in an attempt to remove the outlieriest of outliers, then have at it. We in the practical world have better things to do with our time and efforts.

Indeed, that is what we have, and it works quite well. Which makes his argument that much more strange.

It's at least as easy as strictly following one of those two extremes. You're acting like it's never been tested when in fact it is practiced almost everywhere.

Interesting conversation. Most everyone seems to agree that this is not a check. I also am in agreement.

And yet at the Borgota several years ago I was talking to my neighbor before the turn was dealt and I tapped the table with my knuckles to indicate to that player that he had played the hand before well.

The action was on me and I reached for chips. Villain says "You checked dark". This had not been announced by the dealer nor was it my intent. Two or three other players said something to the effect of "yes I saw it he tapped the table". The Dealer then went with it and said "check".

Given the number of people who were about to testify and that the Dealer had called it a check, I viewed my chances of success when calling the Floor over to be minimal. So I didn't.

I won the hand, and a new dealer came over to the table. I told him what happened and he said he wasn't surprised at that specific player's behavior. I called the Floor over just to warn him that the player was an angleshooter and a Dealer from another table said "yes he is..." It was almost worth it to see the jerk humiliated by several Dealers.

The guy said something like "Its in the rules. I'm just enforcing the rules." And I said something like "You are an angleshooter. I don't like you and I don't respect you."

But my takeaway from this was you have to be careful when the action is on you. It is just another protect your hand/action scenario. As much as I think it should never happen, it did. Fortunately it was a small hand in a non-critical point in the tournament and the Villain didn't improve. And maybe if I had called the Floor over and told him what happened and if my neighbor backed up my story it might have been decided in my favor. Maybe not. And this experience might save me from a nightmare in the future in a critical spot.

Lets say you did not tap the table in any form. Angleshooter claims you checked dark anyway, dealer and 3 other players back him up.

Do you think the floor would rule differently if you called him? Do you think they would pause the tournament to go to the cameras to see if you checked?

You can try to protect your action all you want. If people lie you might still be out of luck. If somebody steps behind you and rips your cards out of your hand and runs away, did you really fail to protect your hand?

In your example that would not be an angleshooter. That would be a cheater. And the three people who back him up would be lying accomplices.

In my case and in the OP nobody lied.

I did tap the table before the turn. It just didn't have anything to do with the hand.

Angleshooters are going to shoot angles. It was my misfortune that three other people backed up his story without taking into account the context.

I have rarely seen people outright lie in the poker room in order to gain procedural advantage. It happened to me once in a big hand in a $600 tournament. And there was a second player who backed up the lie. And a third player who knew what happened but chose not to speak up. I have been playing about 1,000 hours of poker a year now for 10+ years.

But I have seen a ton of people try to shoot angles on technicalities.

I now consciously don't tap the table when I am in conversation with other people while I am in a hand. This is a good practice for me anyway because there have also been several times that I have inadvertently tapped the table when it was my turn to act (and some of those times I was held to a check).

I am not advocating that others do this. I think it will come up rarely if at all. I do it because I am unsure of how it would affect me if it were to happen again.

Basically what's he (angleshooter) is claiming is that touching the table at any time when you have cards is a check. That's fairly insane.

Speaking as a dealer - vague actions before the card comes out are NOT actions. Explicit actions are actions. So touching the table first to act while I'm bringing the bets in - not a check. Announcing "I check" or "I bet 10" - yeah you're held to that. Once that card comes out, back to fairly strict.

That concept of vague not being binding is also true for players yet to act. Action is on seat 2. I'm not watching Seat 8 to see if their hand grazes the table to hold them to a check out of turn.