"What is the best 5 card hand if I have J2 on this board?" feels a bit beyond a standard "rules question" maybe akin to "is there a low possible?" on an Omaha 8 hand. A standard test for "legal advice" is applying the rules to your specific facts, and I think both of those questions crosses that line from info to advice.

I agree the wording could have been a bit better, but this is 100% a question that can be asked and answered. It's no different than asking if an all-in raise is enough to reopen the betting to the original bettor, it's a rules question. lol OP

What if the 2nd card is a deuce? What 2nd card are you talking about? The Dealer can't know this without countering with a question .. THAT would be a OPTAH issue in my mind, similar to telling a Player they 'better table your hand, it's a winner'.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about where the line is for Dealers these days, which I think is a 'good' indicator of poker growth.

In this case the Dealer should go the route of the this being a 5-card game and the best 5-card tabled hand at Showdown wins the pot. There are already a couple of good comments to that affect. GL

This is another one that's being discussed lately. Is the Dealer there 'just' to facilitate the game or give 'added value'? Shouldn't Players know the rules of the game when they sit down? Should the Dealer know the rules or rely in the Floor for 'these things'?

IMO the Dealer should (be able to) indicate whether action is (re)opened to a live hand. A Reg can get to that answer by asking 2-4 other 'legal' questions, so are we to penalize a Rec for their lack of experience? At the lowest stakes in the room .. NO, we should be educating the Players in these spots so they don't feel taken advantage of and want to continue to play the game.

I find it so hard for others to grasp that a 1/2 NL game should be handled differently than a 5/10 NL game in the same room. You can still have consistency while allowing for both additional wiggle room AND less Dealer reliance as you work your way up the stake chain.

We had the thread the other day about a Player wanting to know if they 'had' to show/table their cards (to claim the pot). The Dealer, while matter-of-factly answering the exact question, helped create a spot where a Player will probably not come back to poker .. or at least that room. GL

These threads are fascinating. They make poker come off as a carny scam and not as a legitimate enterprise. TECHNICALLY you asked the wrong question so we're going to give you an intentionally unhelpful answer!

For some people it's certainly about their personal financial gain. But at least equally as often it's just a desire to not only have rules applied in the strictest way possible, because "the rules are the rules" but also to use them in a "gotcha" way to punish people who aren't taking the game seriously enough to bother learning all of them.

That's not even just a poker thing. I recently witnessed an argument between parents at a kids chess tournament about the touch-move rule and whether the piece was touched deliberately or not. Somebody there told me it was a frequent occurrence that parents point out castling violations if the kid touched the rook first.

FWIW, and I've posted this probably 10 times over the last couple years: If I ask people in private games why they don't play at casinos anymore one of the most frequent responses has to do with rules nits (I use the word nits here, they often use a different one with the same first and last letter).

I don't think you're asking the right questions. I would rephrase that to "Should players be REQUIRED to know the rules of the game when they sit down." The answer has to be NO because if it were yes then players would hardly sit at any casino game for fear of losing to ignorance of a rule rather than skill or, in the case of most games, luck.

The second question would be "Should dealers have every rule for every situation memorized?" The answer should be NO but with a caveat. Like any other job when you're not sure what to do, instead of acting without proper knowledge, you should ask your boss for clarification.

I like your modifications .. but I also was asking/suggesting in a bit of a sarcastic overtone that you would only know if you've seen more of my posts or actually heard my inner voice! Prob could use italics for sarcasm? GL

[QUOTE=answer20;58471599]

I find it so hard for others to grasp that a 1/2 NL game should be handled differently than a 5/10 NL game in the same room. You can still have consistency while allowing for both additional wiggle room AND less Dealer reliance as you work your way up the stake.[/QUOTE

This!

The problem is "wiggle room" is subjective.

I have dealt a game where $5/$10 was the highest game in the room with the most "flexibility" in rules enforcement. Most of the time we were directed to let the players run the game unless there was a major problem.

Unfortunately one time there was a major problem.

There was an absolute newbie whale at the game. He didn't have a clue.

I do not remember the exact details, but he did something against the rules that every newbie does. I don't remember. All I remember is that 7 of the other 8 other players were ok with it. Literally everyone else understood his intent. No question.

One player wanted to be a rules nit. He insisted a floor be called. He wasn't even in the hand. Of course the floor had to rule against the newbie. He broke the rules. No doubt or confusion.

It sucked for the game overall, but it is what it is.

My point is that it is an absolute certainty that a $1/$3 game should be handled differently than a $5/$10 game. Absolutely no doubt. However there will still be players that are mad about that even if it is to their advantage in the long run.

This is one of those areas where there seems to be some disagreement among experienced people. Personally, I think the dealer should answer any rules-based question, or if uncertain, the floor should answer. So, the "best five cards" answer is appropriate.

This thread reminded me of something that happened a while back. While in a hand a new player asked me: Does a flush beat a straight? Had I been in the hand, I would have answered immediately. Since I wasn't I pointed to the dealer, who called the floor, who ruled that answering would violate OPTAH. The floor also said that if he looked it up on his phone, his hand would be killed.

While I disagree with these types of rulings, they seem to be common, and the powers that be don't seem to want to change them.

That might be the dumbest floor I ever heard

At that point I would have advised the player to ask the floor to see a copy of the rules of the game, in accordance with gaming regulations.

Now that's brilliant!

What if the other player told her the answer to her question but gave her the wrong answer in order to get her to call? Is the dealer allowed to speak up and say that's not correct?

The Dealer should immediately step in and warn those speaking to cease and explain that discussion of the hand is not allowed, whether good or bad information is being given out.

I don't mean correct .. just state that information/discussion is not to take place in any manner and add some sort of a disclaimer to it for those that remain in the hand. GL

To be fair, the odds of the dealer successfully doing this before a minimum of 3 self-appointed table captains blurt out answers of varying accuracy is borderline impossible.