You must know that 99% of 1-2 players will at least limp with 33 for one more buck in the small blind even with only 1 other caller But anyway, no strat here.

Maybe you are right about more people limping and checking it down if there is no $20 requirement...but I don't think it would be a huge issue. First of all for example, even with the current $20 requirement, in a 10 handed 1-2 game everyone could collude and limp preflop to try to hit a high hand. Or they could pull some other shenanigans like 5 people limp, 5 non-colluders fold, and then the colluders each put $2 more in on the flop and then check it down. But you don't see stuff like that because 1) at almost every table there are players that are interested in playing real poker and 2) it would soon become obvious what the colluders were doing and the floor could put a stop to it.

I can see having a $20 requirement for some huge bad beat jackpot. But for a $500 high hand I'd like to see rooms try to see if it will work without it. Then you wont have rec and new players being turned off when they see regular players trying to game the system to get to $20 to win a high hand, which they shouldn't be doing. I think the $20 requirement is more trouble than its worth.

No minimum in the pot for the $88,888 BBJ here or for high hands and Monte Carlos.

If no minimum pot size you get a bunch of players come in together tie up a table have them limp just enough to be under the rake threshold while they work to hit the high hand. I have seen tables full of people doing this sort of thing when promo rules have not been thought out well.

OP, what state?

If you don't want to say specifically, maybe you'll answer this: is it New Hampshire? Cuz high-hand-mania is gripping that market right now, and everyone involved in the poker industry there, from State regulators to cardroom owners to floor staff to dealers, strikes me as mostly incompetent

Just throw them out?

I was at a new casino and asked a reg if he wanted to chop. He said "no I wanna play" and called. He checked flop and I bet. He grumbled and called. He checked turn and I bet. He said he couldn't believe this and hopped karma would work it out. On the river he led and said something about how this was karma for not checking it down with him. I was pretty confused. I could tell he was agitated but had no idea why. Later when he got up a much nicer older guy explained what had happened.

In the room I saw the worst case of it management ultimately did that but they managed to get a lot of that promo money before the hammer dropped

I'ma start saying this every time I'm wrong.

it is NH,

some have noted and even instructed for players to have an unspoken agreement.
THIS is the problem IT , YOU ARE CHEATING THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE ROOM INCLUDING YOURSELF.
if the guy to your right asked you to give him your stack would you?
but he says to you call me so I can win the HH promo which you contributed to and people agree

came back north for a funeral, and yes the rooms are drawing more players mid day with the promos but it sucks at the slime ball mentality some players have. Bad enough sitting in the Daytona rock fest chasing HH promos .
it is the MALE VERSION OF BINGO!

Thanks

Because the rules state that you can't say anything about the promotion during the play of the hand. So when someone asks if you want to chop, a person has to answer yes or no. There is nothing against any rule related to the high hand that says you can't answer no. But in the general understanding of the HH chasers they will chop unless they have a possible HH holding. But they still simply answer no, which is not against any rule.

They have to answer either yes or no. It silly to say that anyone who answers no is violating the HH rule against discussing the HH during the play of the hand.

If you think that is against the rules, do you also think that when two players that sit down say at the first chop situation that they always chop are guilty of collusion because they are agreeing to play a hand a certain way ahead of time?

Would you feel better if instead of saying I disagree, I say "no, YOU'RE wrong!" Will that clarify the situation any or lead to a better discussion?

Yes. Asking if you wAnt to chop in a vacuum ... Not a problem. Asking if you want to chop when you have discussed that you will chop unless you have a bad beat hand is not.

Giving the money back afterwards or expecting them to give it back is also a problem.

I disagree. Uh, I mean, YOU'RE WRONG!!! (Just kidding)

The thing is that players who play for HHs don't actually have any discussions just prior to the game about chopping. It is such a universally known strategy of how to maximize looks for a HH that they all know it already. And I believe it is just that--a strategy designed to maximize the players chances of getting a HH, which is often the main reason they are there. IMO it's no different than when a player checks a set on a draw heavy flop or turn rather than bet because he wants to see if he hits quads. Bad play that often ends up costing him money, and is a reason others like to play against HH chasers. But is he guilty of soft play because he didn't bet--no.

So while a player may always chop if there is no HH going on, his decision not to chop when there is a HH going on and he has a PP or SC does not break any rule. And so many thousands of rec HH chasers play the same way that there does not need to be any discussion about it before or during a hand. And they aren't violating any rules or cheating when they do it, IMO.

But giving money back is against rules and shouldn't be allowed.

Bull****. I hear it all the time at the table....even in rooms without a jackpot people are explain what they do.

People are talking about seeing a flop with a potential HH even in rooms without HHs? Wow.

No, it would not make feel better if you went from pretending it’s a matter of opinion to calling those who are correcting you “wrong”. You’re being ridiculous.

OP, if you actually do speak to anyone from the state, I'd be very interested to hear how that goes. I grew up in that region, and watching them botch their every attempt at casino-style gaming has been a lifelong fascination of mine.

I dealt in NH for a brief time. I had to go to Concord for my Gaming badge. They didn't have a "Gaming Commission", the agency that oversaw horse racing and lottery was told, "You guys do poker, too!" I had no reason to believe anyone in that tiny office knew anything about poker.

Here, I'm quoting the first "ridiculous" post ITT.

Why is that ridiculous.

From 12 Angry Men:

(The characters have no names, and are ID'd by juror number)

It's ridiculous for you to object to his politeness.

I reject that he’s being polite by repeatedly framing the legality of codified language as a matter of opinion and suggesting that an appropriate alternative is to call those who are correcting him wrong instead. As they say, “we disagree”.

Please quote the rule that saying no to chopping the blinds when you have a HH possibility violates. I'd like to see what you are basing your opinion on, other than your opinion. IOW did you confirm your position by thinking about it or do you have an actual reference from a casino?

You may not be able to prove it but technically a pre-existing plan makes it cheating.

Kinda like two players checking it down late in a tournament to knock out the all in player.
Verbalize it and you're cheating. Quietly dong it because you both think it's good strategy you can get away with.

Although depending on the promotion it may not be arguably good strategy for both players and the usual routine is that the winner of the hand gives back the blind to the loser thereby making it clearly a sham.

I think the tournament example is a good analogy. It is such a well known strategy amongst tournament players that there is no need for any players at a final table to discuss the situation personally before it happens. But two players who don't know each other and have never discussed it will still check it down because they believe it is a strategy in their best interest. But they do not violate any written collusion rule because they have had absolutely no prior discussion or agreement with the other player.

I think it is the same situation with players who chase HHs. In the examples I gave (a player betting half of the amount needed to get to the minimum pot without saying anything or a player saying he doesn't want to chop) do not violate any collusion rule or any HH specific rule about discussing a HH during play. But most HH chasers recognize the strategy without any discussion or prearrangement. They will do it with a total stranger. So it does not, IMO violate any rule or constitute cheating. I also happen to think that there are thousands of other players that do not consider that breaking a rule or cheating.

I do believe that players who say "I need a call now" during the play of a hand are breaking the rule if the room has that rule. But that wasn't the situation I was addressing. Some posters take what I believe is the minority opinion on that, yet seem obsessed with being declared right and calling the majority of players that disagree with them as wrong.