What if villain has a draw, you bet big on the turn to deny him odds, he tips away his stack until he has proper pot odds and calls, then hits his draw on the river and takes the money, still ok?
Let's assume you both already put in a significant amount of money pre and on the flop.

Or worse, you're bluffing a strong draw on the turn, villain can't call, but just tips away his stack to solve the issue and see a showdown, you miss, villain takes the pot with bottom pair.

None of these scenarios are +EV for the one doing the tipping, assuming they don't have a deal to somehow get it back. They still lose the same amount of money, which is why it's too rare for most rooms to make a rule about. The only thing they gain is the ability to spite someone.

If they DO have a deal, that is grounds for the dealer and player to get kicked out of the room for good.

I'm trying to understand what this means. How does the amount you win not matter? Why is "win the money" meaningful but the actual amount irrelevant? Is winning $1 the same as winning $1,000 to you because you just get to chalk up a win?

And when the waitress brings your beer & sandwich you say 'sorry, wait, I can only pay if I win this hand'?

No, you set aside money or chips for this, like a lot of reasonable folks would do.

This. It's your responsibility to have money available to pay in addition to your chips in play. It's like when you're at a horse or dog track. You cant order a drink and meal, then spend all of your money on a race ticket. When waitress brings your meal, you dont get to say "sorry, honey, my dog didnt win, so I have no money to pay you."

Since I initiated this thread and seen some of the responses, I have started making sure that whenever I order a drink from the waitress, I take whatever amount I plan on tipping her off of my stack and let it sit on the rail while waiting for my drink to make it clear it is out of play.

I also want to give a shout out to Reducto for being the only one to point out that overtipping from your stack might be spiteful, but is NOT +EV (assuming that waitress is not a friend/relative). Other posters look at it from the other player getting less, but it does not benefit the overtipping player (other than satisfaction of spite).

It's not -EV for the player tipping but it is cheating 100% of the time.

I don’t recall anyone suggesting overtipping is +EV for tipper or anyone else in the game. It is money leaving the game thus unavailable for anyone to win. Tipper loses same amount, his whole stack, but can only win the small amount he leaves behind. Similarly his opponent in this hand can only win the small amount left behind. In subsequent hands the rest of the table can’t win those tipped dollars.

The only +EV ignoring the waitress is that in this hand the bettor will lose less win the tipper sucks out. But if we believe the bettor is ahead and favored, a safe assumption based on tipper tanking, history and the overtip IMO, then bettor will win more often than lose thus net -EV. So IMO nothing positive.

Ahh, so doing something the casino allows is cheating.

Do words even have meanings anymore?

I don't recall anyone suggesting it either. Just like no one has suggested lots of other stuff.

However there were quite a few posters trying to concoct some crazy scenarios where they tried to imply the over tipper would benefit from a poker standpoint. That is what his response was about.

Most casinos rules state that whatever chips are in play at the start of a hand must remain in play until the end of the hand. They usually allow an exception to the rule for minimal amounts such as tipping a server, or paying a nominal amount for a drink, in order to not tie up the servers by making them wait until the hand is over. There is no exception for taking large amounts off a stack. That is against the rules, aka cheating. Words do have meaning.

That is simply not true for any casino I know of. There is an exception for money to be taken off for tips or paying for things normally paid for at the table such as food or drinks ordered at the table and massages. Those amount are usually nominal but there is rarely if ever any rule stating that it must be.

There are the rules that are posted on the wall of the poker room, and there is also the rule book that is only available to dealers and floors. Players don't get to see that rule book because it's like having a detailed map of the bank layout ahead of the robbery - it makes it lot easier to identify and exploit weaknesses.

I think that when people speak from a position of authority about the rules of the poker rooms they frequent, they mostly have no idea what the actual rules are unless they have direct experience with that particular rule.

I used to play in a room where the straddle had to be posted before the first card came off the deck or it wasn't allowed. That rule was not printed on any of the signage in the room (yes I've read it all) but it was enforced 100% of the time. I also used to be friends with that poker room manager, and he told me that when he was promoted to that position, they gave him the authority to re-write all the cash game rules. I know for a fact that some are publicly posted and some are not.

Yes, I've been in the industry for a while and read several of these "secret" rulebooks. Of those that mentioned removing money for tips and such, none put a limit on the amount.

You are right though, many people do speak with authority in this business when they have no idea how the rules are actually worded or whether there is really even a rule.

If there is no rule, then how can there be an exception for nominal amounts? It's an exception to the rule, is it not? Our room has an explicit exception to the rule concerning paying for nominal items and tipping. But the rule itself states that chips in play at the start of a hand remain in play until the end of the hand. But even absent that, I think every room has a table stakes rule that prohibits taking chips out of play at any time. So either way there is a rule that states that your chips must remain in play and on the table, with some rooms allowing an exception for things bought at the table. If a room had no specific rule about chips remaining in play, then someone could simply take half his stack off the table in the middle of a hand for any reason. Are you suggesting that most casinos DONT have a rule that prevents that?

I think it's fairly common for rooms to have detailed rulebooks that are not available to public. Ours did, and it was very detailed. It's over 50 pages long. It covers many areas not covered in the brochure and wall signs available to the public. It's actually more of a combination of rules and procedures. For example, it details things like how many seats can a player move before having to post the blind. There is no need to put that info out in print to the public. A dealer or floor will let them know if they question it.

It's called "table stakes"?
You can't add or remove chips during the hand.

Or tech even between hands. But many of the detailed rules do have provisions to allow pulling nominal amounts for tips and similar. Otherwise plAyers could not even tip dealers from their stacks. But I have never seen any of these rules specific how much this could be. The rules I have seen universally used the term “nominal”. None defined nominal. When does nominal become excessive.

To m this is much like the justice’s comment about porn. Something like ‘I cannot define it but when I see it I recognize it’. But again I have never seen the amount specified.

Well between hands you may be able to add. And you can always take it all off and the table and leave.

I think it's not defined as a set dollar amount the same way the calling the clock rule states that you can call the clock after a "reasonable" amount of time without stating a specific number of minutes. What is reasonable depends on the situation.

IME nominal depends on the level of game played, the size of the players stacks, and the attitude of the players themselves. For example, I was dealing a 10/25 plo game where everyone had around 3-5k stacks, while an out of town whale had around 15k. He finished getting a massage, and she said it was 2 hours, which is $240. He gave her a $500 chip and told her to keep the change. No player said a thing or blinked an eye. The last thing they wanted to do was upset that guy over $500, which in that situation was a nominal amount no one wanted to make a fuss about.

Obviously in any 1/2 or 2/5 nl game that would be much more than nominal. That's why a dollar amount isnt specified. It allows flexibility to accomodate a variety of situations. And I think in most cases, it will initially be the affected player who decides if they want to bring it up or is OK with the amount.

One of the casinos I worked at actually had written into their rulebook that up to $40 could be taken off the table for incidentals at one time (IE food, drinks etc) You could pay the massage therapists off your stack, however, anything larger was supposed to be on credit card (IE buying the table a round of drinks)

That's a lot in a 4-8 limit game. You can tip a full buy in?

You are supporting my point. Thanks.

Words like large, nominal, etc are relative words that have no meaning without context. Most people consider $1 million dollars to be a large amount of money but in the context of the U.S. federal budget, $1 million is literally nothing.

Back to the point, you stated that 100% of the time this is cheating. 100% is a clear, well defined context. 100% of the time would include me sitting with $3000 at a $2/$5 game in the big blind waiting for the pre-flop action when the waitress passes by with a tray full of water and me asking for one and giving her a dollar from my stack while my hand was still live.

This is something that happens hundreds of times a day in every casino and is allowed without question. However you consider 100% of those people to be cheaters.

Yes. Words do have meanings.

Now do speed limits and use taxes, smart guy.

I'll give it one last try then give up. I stated that there are exceptions to the rule. So obviously, when an exception is in play, it is not cheating, bc that action (like minimal tips to waitresses) is excluded from the rule. 100% of the time when someone breaks the rule by taking off an amount more than allowed by the exception it is cheating. He is breaking the rule.

As to what is a nominal amount, I also described how that depends on context based on several factors. So I dont know why you are bringing up that point about tips to waitresses. The 100% cheating I was referring to was the type of violation of the rules as described in the OP. The distinction seems clear to me, but perhaps it isnt, but I cant find another way to describe it so I'll just leave it at what Ive already posted.