What was his answer?

I might have gone along with it, and then a bit later tried a bluff by saying all in but not moving my chips. If called, point out how saying all in is clearly not a binding bet in this room.

Well, if you went whole hog, and demanded that it count.....

What is going to stop them, no matter what happens, in handing the other guy $XXX that was bet to compensate?

I mean, do what you want, get upset if you want....but when you get exactly what you wished for, and actively fought for.....don't complain.

You can’t even enforce the all-in without just handing the chips to SB because button doesn’t have cards anymore.

Floor could come over and rule that BU has to forfeit his stack if SB calls the all-in, which he didn’t do yet. That might result in SB folding his aces and telling BU that he owes him $30. Or SB taking BU’s chips, getting up and immediately returning them to BU.

In a perfect world, the floor would come over, explain the situation and the players keep playing but without softplaying each other. Unfortunately, that’s highly unlikely to happen though.

Saying those two guys have to play each other the same way they play other players at the table is like saying that you have to have the same river calling range against a nit and spewtard.

That’s true but it will seem really nitpicky to them. They were in a 1-2 NL game, not a 5-10 NL game and just wanted to have fun. If you get involved it just looks like you don’t want them to have fun and you make it clear that you’re there to be really serious. It probably also pisses people off and affects the mood of the table. It may also cause someone to leave earlier than they normally would.

Because a player objected. However, in realpolitik it's probably better to let this one slide, change tables (or rack up) if you must, and talk to the floorperson away from the table about why you don't want to be in a game like this. It's clearly accepted by everyone else, and it's -EV for you to be the guy who's insisting everyone play this like the final table of the Main Event instead of a fun and social way to pass some time.

Technically they shouldn't pass chips at the table. In WA most places would probably enforce this. Obviously no one's going to stop them paying off in cash (or chips) in the men's room, the parking lot, or off premises.

I agree with you, any course of action should depend on the stakes, table mood, stack sizes and the player types. In general, however, if it influences future action it is a tipping point for me.

Another point that is probably relevant: My experience of US live play is limited to Las Vegas and I had the impression that such situations are taken more seriously there.

I would argue that if these guys "clearly don't care about a couple hundred bucks" then they would run the hand and whoever lost could reload. This benefits the other players by having more money on the table. And if they are going to have such a hissy about having verbal binding action actually enforced that they would leave, I don't see that at all congruent with not caring about the money.

And we could play the next on the list game the other way, the next two on the list now are a spewy aggro and a 95/5 loose passive. So now?

The most important points are not really the soft playing. It is that the dealer , laughed and let it slide, did not call a floor, AND the rest of the table did not seem to care what happened according to the OP. This means any attempt to change the ruling is useless likely. Adapt or move on to another room seems the only options.

This happens in every poker room. What doesn't happen is someone making a huge deal about it all of the time.

Maybe it does happen in every room, but not in every game in every room.

In my experience, things like that are limited to games where at least half the table knows each other, the dealer and the floor. I am pretty sure 3 guys would scream ‘floor’ in your average 2/5 game at Bellagio, but what would happen inside Bobby’s Room is a totally different story.

But when playing in a small room full of locals, I am a proponent of ‘play by their rules or don’t play at all’. Everything else makes them unhappy and ultimately will make you unhappy unless you don’t care about money and love to get into altercations.

This.

Madlex you had an okay argument until you "stacked the deck" (pun intended) with this argument that the game will get worse because the next two players will inevitably be undesirable. I would take two random people off the waitlist than two 45 year old regulars who are probably somewhat competent. Remember this is 1/2 where the number of incompetent folks normally out numbers the competent ones.

OP is this at the Horseshoe in Hammond? I've been here a few times and I've seen this kind of stuff happen a couple times there.

You've just described the 8-16 08/Stud8 game at Talking Stick: Smallish player pool w/ mostly regs who talk about the hands in progress, soft play each other HU and w/e other nonsense they manage. I keep my mouth shut for all of it bec the game is usually very good.

Thank you so much for the last 2 comments.
Unfortunately the game is so filled with lifeless rule nits such as OP that it is officially ruined.
Once the fish had fun losing a few hundred, now they have to listen to 22 year olds full of zits telling them what the rules are.

I'm curious where the typical rules nit is 22 or full of zits. Everywhere I've played it's usually older players (or just compulsive people, like me!) with more experience live than online.

So, thinking that clearly stating "all in" in a NL holdem game is a valid, binding bet equals being a rules nazi? Gotcha!

I think that the entire poker room knew that when Player A raised Player B to $30, he has done it 100 times before and everyone (including the janitor, waitresses, 1537 roaches and 4 rats) knew he had aces and the hand was over.

Then why did the button say "All in"? As an inside joke?

My responses above weren't considering the fact that he announced an all-in. That makes this more than garden variety softplay. At the very least it means the dealer (and floors?) aren't enforcing clear verbal declarations. It would make me wonder what other "house rules" I don't know about.


I still think it's not in your interest as a player to make a stink at the table--clearly everyone including the dealer thinks this is just a big joke--but you should definitely ask the floor discreetly why "all in" isn't taken seriously as a binding declaration. Even if both guys know it's a joke and want to pass money in the parking lot, it's HORRIBLE for the game to let this happen because newcomers are going to interpret it as special rules for the clubby regs.

If the floor doesn't take it seriously, you have to decide if it's still +EV to play in a shady room. Probably is. Just be careful!

Look, obviously, this technically "should" be binding.

But, if you're a winning player and these guys are recs....they are your customers. And you want them to remain in the game, having fun, not taking things too seriously, etc. BS like this fosters the type of environment that is most profitable for you. This simply isn't a hill to die on.

Imagine being a 50 year old guy that likes to occasionally come to your cardroom and splash around with a few of the guys. Imagine some antisocial 20-something hoodie starts playing, never talking, and being a hallmonitor about rules in hands he's not even involved in. That guy's gonna get annoyed, think poker's not fun anymore, and take his money off the table and to the golf course or whatever else he can do to spend his recreational time.

(note: I'm not assuming you're antisocial like that, just making an extreme example for the sake of the thought experiment. And I agree that saying "all-in" is binding is not nitpicking...but from his perspective, it may feel that way)

I generally agree but you also have to consider that "clubby" behavior like this can scare off new players. It's more important to make the game friendly to noobs than to make it friendly to regulars not taking it too seriously, although both are important.

two points.

1. They're acting like it's a home game. Why wouldn't you want to let them do that?

2. Being a rules nit is rarely +EV

It's far more likely that a visitor new to the room playing the smallest game would prefer friendly play rather than a rules nit.

Right, which is why it's probably in the interest of the room to make this stop without putting individual players in the position of being rules nits.