This thread talks about a pretty goofy rule: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...r-seen-359852/ that the OP experienced. Regardless of the discussion in that thread (which I don't want to bring here), the OP is definitely right in describing their kill-last-to-act rule as kind of goofy.

We've got lots of experienced players/dealers/floors/etc, here, and I'm just wondering what are some of the goofiest rules ever enforced (not bad rulings, but actual consistently enforced rules).

Sadly, I don't have any really that I've experienced since I'm pretty new to poker and haven't played in many places. I'd have to say that the 5/10NL with a max buy-in of $100 in Florida sounds like the goofiest thing I've heard of.

1) 6-table underground club I used to play allowed an all in straddle from any position. That was limit poker days and the AIS was performed a few times a nite. Crazy wild game that was.

2) There was a thread last week maybe where a room ruled a guy couldn't pay for his beers with chips because it was taking money off the table.

I wish the buying drinks with chips thing wasn't so standard.

I'm sure it would add up a bunch if every time I stacked someone/doubled up I got an extra $3.

I worked for one cardroom manager who not only believed in the Magic Muck, but he further decreed that "the dealer's hand is an extension of the muck." So forget about trying to retrieve your cards before they hit the muck--you had to retrieve them before the dealer picked them up to muck them.

At the horseshoe in council bluffs,ia that i play at you are not aloud to use chips to buy drinks and i think its a pretty good rule.

I don't mind the buying drinks with chips rule -- every time I see someone not do that, they take forever!

The AIS rule sounds great!

I don't like any casino, that allows IWTSTH by any player, and dealer must do it everytime, doens't even need floor to be present. I like the ones that require floor and an explanation of how invoker thinks cheating is occurring.

Why would you want any rule that somehow impedes your opponents from drinking?

+1

This. Your opponent getting a beer is worth more to you than $3 for the vast majority of opponents.

I just remembered a post on here (not sure how long ago) that talked about a casino that said a pot belonged to a player as soon as the dealer started pushing the pot towards them. So if the dealer misread the cards and started pushing the pot it was too late.

I might be remembering it wrong, but that seems like a pretty goofy rule.

Agreed.

I want a rule that you are not allowed to get coffee or water at the table.

I've always thought that the sevens rule in lowball and the jacks-or-better opening in draw high were very bizarre.

Not the goofiest rule, but last time I played a tourney at Soring Eagle (MI) I noticed that the dealer washed the cards after each hand before putting them in the auto-shuffler. At one point I asked him why and he told me it was a rule.

At Fallsview Casino, on either a premature turn or river, there is an additional (4th) burn card before the final card is faced. Pointless.

That actually makes sense. If you always burn before flipping up a card or cards, then you're doing what the burn was meant to - helping to prevent cheating. Only burning sometimes sort of negates the point, much like burning ahead of time (this happens often in home games, and it drives me nuts).

it's actually pointless because the deck should be shuffled after the action, immediately before the card is dealt.

I agree on the IWTSTH. I want to try to get that rule changed to floor must be called over, but I doubt I'll be able to. It's one of the worst rules ever.

Wait, can you explain that to me in a bit more detail? I think I'm missing something. It seems to me like it's a case where you reshuffle the deck to get a new flop because the flop was dealt out too early. So the deck is shuffled, and now the dealer burns and puts out a flop. This seems far more in keeping with the point of the burn to me than saying "well, the goal is to just remove exactly one card from play before the flop is dealt, and one card was removed earlier, so that's that."

I agree with you on IWTSTH. It's bull****.

IWTSTH isn't just about colluding. That is a great reason to use that rule, but according to the official rule, there is no mention of cheating in it.

I on the other hand think it's a terrible rule and shouldn't be allowed at all. If cheating is suspected, than the dealer (floor) should review the mucked hand and that's it.

The last move in any shuffle procedure is to cut the deck.

Cutting the deck, in effect, "burns" the top card. It just gets relegated to the middle of the deck, instead of the center of the table.

To burn a card after cutting is redundant. You might as well burn a card after burning a card.

But I do get a kick out of the following exchange, which takes place whenever the river card gets shuffled back in:

PLAYER: You didn't burn a card!

DEALER OR FLOORMAN: We don't need to, there are already three burn cards out there.

When I started my last floor job, I thought it would be a good idea to familiarize myself with the room's rulebook. We spread a lot of 7-stud back then, so I started with the stud section.

I found a rule that said when the dealer shuffles the burns (which is sometimes necessary when the stub would otherwise not hold enough cards to complete the hand), he should burn a card after shuffling.

Later in the same rulebook, I found a rule that stated the exact opposite: the dealer should NOT burn a card after shuffling.

I closed the book, put it back on the shelf, and never referred to it again.

Okay. Say the dealer prematurely deals the river card, after burning a card like he should. Players didn't finish acting, yada yada. Now the players act. The river card gets shuffled back into the stub, cut and the river card dealt out without a burn. The burn here isn't necessary because the players never saw the card at the top of the stub before they had to act. They acted on the turn, had a completely unknown river card, and are now acting on the river.

More clear? It's kinda hard to explain when I'm typing it

Here is what Robert says about it in the explanations to his rules.

yeah but maybe they wouldnt buy so many drinks if they couldnt pay for them with chips, and you wouldnt double up as often

dumbest rule i've ever seen is Ft. McDowell's take on the "forward motion" rule. AT the fort (at least as of the last time i played there like 1.5 years ago), if any chips are in front of your cards, regardless of wether it happens because you move your cards towards you or because you move your chips outward, those chips are bet. Somewhat reidic situations arise bc of parralax and you practically need a line judge a lot of times.

The reason that the cards should be quickly scrambled (not washed) before putting each hand in the shuffler is to obscure the down cards in the muck. If a dealer were to pick up the muck to square it up without scrambling it he could expose a player's previous down cards inadvertently.

Cards should always be quickly scrambled prior to hand shuffling so that the dealer or players don't know the location, or approximate location, of any cards.