Yesterday a BF and GF come to the table. There’s only one seat open and the GF takes the seat. Her BF pulls up a chair next to her and says he’s not playing. He’s just helping her cuz she’s learning how to play. Essentially he’s telling her what to do. It doesn’t take long before the table seems to have a problem with who’s actually playing and he immediately gets defensive and tells everyone they should mind their own business. Things get heated quickly and she becomes upset and walks out of the room with him chasing her. Eventually he comes back picks up the chips saying she doesn’t want to play anymore.
This wasn’t at my table but at the table next to me. Is there a rule against this? Personally I didn’t see anything wrong with it as I don’t see anyway they could be colluding. Instead a new player gets a bad experience with poker and may never try again.

One player to a hand.
Poker is not a team sport.

If he is telling her what to do during a hand, that most certainly is problematic and the dealer should tell bf to keep his mouth shut. If he persists, floor should be called and he should be at least made to leave the table, if not the room. IMO if he is coaching her after the fact and giving her advice on what she should have done, that is less problematic. There might still be some at the table who would grouse about it but it would at least not be a gross violation of OPTAH.

The question is when the BF was helping her, was he looking at her cards and telling her how to play her hand, or was he only showing her when it's on her and helping with the physical mechanics of the game? If he's telling her how to play her hand then yes, a new player got a bad experience because she was breaking the rules of the game.

There is a rule called OPTAH which stands for one player to a hand. Team play in poker isn't allowed.

There's obviously a rule against it, otherwise people would call their lifeline every time they have a difficult decision.

That said, I've seen the described scenario a couple times where one player is just moving chips and the other one is telling them what to do. The only time someone at the table objected the guy said something along the lines of if disabled players can use a helper, he can use one too. That obviously didn't fly and they left.

Two players deciding what's to be done in a hand? Two brains? No it should be one brain a hand. Otherwise you could have two experts ponding the best move, discussing loudly at the table. Slipping slope...

I think helping people learn the mechanics and rules is good. Most people just have to learn by either ****ing up themselves or seeing someone else do it.

Maybe a well done poker rules video that covers some common mistakes.

No real comment on what was happening here. Need more info.

This is not a problem for me in general because its as if we are playing against the guy and might hear what he is thinking. Personally I wouldn't object because I think it would be great for her to learn to love playing poker and have that in common with him. Its been a sore spot for me that my wife hates Las Vegas and has rarely ever gone to a casino with me.

For me its not really a violation of OPTAH because the guy isn't in the hand and can't see anyone else's hand (well at least that needs to be made certain). He is behind the player. Now obviously she will play better with him telling her what to do than she would have otherwise. But then she wouldn't be playing otherwise.

When I played 20/40 LHE at Foxwoods (FW) as a regular from Friday through Sunday, occasionally one of the guys would have a woman sitting behind them watching. Well they typically were just sitting there, sometimes reading a magazine or a book. Every now and then the guy would show her his hand. The guy would have to reach back and alert her and that was always a tipoff that something was about to happen and they had a big hand. Rarely if ever was it a draw.

In this spot it would be best if he was talking to her only when it was her turn to act. Also, I would be watching him to see if he was observing other players for tells. If he was then that would be the point where I would object. But if he was just helping her from a strategy standpoint I would be OK with that unless she was also a good player and they were maximizing both of their talents (which doesn't seem to be the case here).

From a strategy standpoint I would assume I was playing against him. In general woman play differently than men and those differences would be out the window here. Assuming the casino had windows.

Yes, there is a rule against this.

I'll take the minority view and suggest that there is a time/place where the 'coach' can assist without being a problem. Without knowing the details of what happened, I can't say if I think it was OK.

Probably would have been better if the 'coach' played and allowed the 'newbie' to watch.

Seriously?

Is he considered a 'player' in this (OP) case?

Just as much as somebody shouting from the rail "You need to raise". (Assuming that kind of coaching was going on. I would care if it was just the mechanics he was "coaching".)

I mean you guys did her a favor because that’s not a very good environment to learn how to play.

BB56 nailed it .. especially about the part where 'he' should've been playing, not her. While showing of cards is also a rule, I'm more inclined to let that slide so she can see what he's holding and the decisions he made with those cards.

I think there's a tone for every table (and room/Dealer) that may or may not allow for something like this to happen. I think Players lean too far into the rules and end up looking 'bad' in these spots and affecting the potential growth of a new Player. But I also understand that it's 'real' money and any other Player at the table may lose chips in a spot where a newbie/fish needs to take their lumps in the learning process (as we all did). I have no issue that some tables will be bothered by this and others will not regardless of the venue .. casino, charity room, card club or home game.

Are they slowing the game down? Are they playing 400bb deep? These are things tables should be more worried about than a 'team' playing one hand. Are they really a team when only one knows what their doing? Yes, this isn't letting the grandkids sit at the table on New Year's Eve .. but yet, it is. If you're digging in at a 1/2 table with this 'team' buying in for $50-100 on a Saturday night, then I think you're missing a pretty big point of the poker community. While I do respect your right to your opinion I take exception to your view of the big picture.

If this guy can get his girl to sit at a 1/2 table with $100 for a couple hours, then he may be able to sit in 'his' 2/5 game and dump $1-2k into the middle. NOW .. when she loses her $40 in the penny slots she will be bugging him to leave!

EVERYONE in my PLO pool knows that I try to grow the game .. and that means suggesting a Player sit next to me (preferably on left) so we can talk through 'stuff'. Nothing serious with/during a live hand, but usually just showing their folds so we can chat about the spots. GL

Clearly this is going against OPTAH and dealer should have stopped this from very beginning. It should never get to the point where things get heated and it’s not really up to players to decide whether to allow it. It shouldn’t be anyway.

You don’t want to discourage new players by being rules nits but this can cause obvious problems. Simple solution is just to switch places and she can sweat the cards.

Not the point of the post, and I'm sure if the dealer observed this whole thing they'd never stop them, but kind of related to OPTAH and that she is the player, he is not -- is he even supposed to be able to come back and pick up her chips?

I feel like there is/should be a rule against that? Imagine different situation where I'm at a table with my girlfriend, we argue, we walk away, she comes back and is able to pick up my chips? Seems like a lot of responsibility on the dealer to determine what one person has authorized another person to do with their money

Technically I’d say no and I have seen the dealer stop someone in a somewhat related circumstance where the sweater tried to rack up the chips. The couple would have to be very familiar to the room and dealer.

But in many spots the dealer isn’t really responsible to verify everyone picking up chips. A new dealer who just sat down wouldn’t know who was playing.

If you leave your chips at table for awhile the other players are your first line of defense against an unauthorized racker and then the cameras. Your money isn’t sitting in Fort Knox

Technically 'left' chips on the table .. and especially racked chips of a 'waiting' Player on a closed table .. are consider 'abandoned property' in a casino. By using that designation the casino is not responsible for any theft. That doesn't mean they wont take steps to discourage said theft, it's just that they are not responsible for replacing said chips.

My niece works clothing retail and almost weekly there are 'patrons' who come in and take items without paying for them. Essentially they are not supposed to do anything about it and just let Loss Control do a report. They have issues with the police even showing up to take a report unless the theft was substantial.

IMO I'm not stopping a person with a known 'relationship' with those chips from taking them off the table in total. It's a weird line, but if he had come back and wanted to take 20 off the stack I would have a bigger issue with that since it affects the game.

The big thing is communication .. if the story fits then on we go! GL

Not joking at all, but it honestly never occurred to me that "one player to a hand" applied to people not in the game. If someone watching says "fold, you're going to lose!" people would laugh, and the opponent with the nuts would quietly seethe, but I have a hard time imagining people calling the floor on the spectator.

I've seen what the OP described a number of times and don't ever remember it upsetting anyone.

Basically, if it is bad for the game, I would probably try to stop it. If it was neutral or good for the game - i.e. they are newbs and they are not slowing things down - I would not object.

I think situationally, it can be fine. Random 1/2 game, who cares? High stakes serious game, it would have been self policed already.

So if Phil Ivey is walking by I can say "Hey Phil, what should I do here?"?
He's not in the game, he hasn't seen any other hands...

Poker is not a team game.

Some people might care very much in a 1/2 game

Anyhow, it’s not something for the table to decide on a whim. OPTAH is quite a fundamental poker rule and should be immediately enforced by dealer.

To those saying, thinking or implying the BF is not a player and therefore this isn’t a OPTAH situation, here is a question. Is he helping her to play the hand? Do his actions in this mean he is playing the hand? Answer to both seems to me are yes and it seems those actions mean he is a player. So imo clear OPTAH violation.

What if you suddenly realized that the man had no hands, and effectively he was playing and she was just moving the chips for her?

I understand this is technically against the rules, but if it's really only one "brain" in the hand, I would generally let it slide, at least if it was the smallest game in the room.

When I was teaching a gf how to play poker online I would often look over her shoulder and tell her what to do. I certainly didn't think of it as cheating.

@chillrob
It would "technically" be cheating, but it cannot be enforced anyway, so it's probably a moot point.