so apparently, you already had made up your mind that it was ok, and just wanted others to back you up on it, and ignore the majority of us who are letting you know that it is not ok.

Why start the thread?

Not at all. I have my opinion and I wanted to know what others thought. I'm not sure if there is a right or wrong. In my opinion, it was good for the game and wasn't hurting anybody, so why would I say anything? (If a player was upset by it, they should have spoken up -- it's a players' responsibility to know what is in their opponents' stacks.) I should check the rules to see if it's even mentioned, but I highly doubt it (not the max, but the players' responsibilities to police other players).

I'm amazed the dealers didn't notice / say anything, though. There is no way they could have missed it.

There is a right and wrong. I'm not saying that it is detrimental to anyone or even that anyone should care, but there certainly is a right or wrong.

It's very easy for complacent dealers to miss things like this. They shouldn't but they do. They have a whole array of things they're trying to do as correctly as as quickly as possible and it can especially be hectic in a larger game like this where they are counting pot and are under fire from all the 'high rollers'. Sometimes a dealer can go a whole down without even knowing who is even at their table. It's not unheard of for a dealer to miss someone adding a single chip to their stack especially with so much money on the table, so it should absolutely come down to everyone to help police the game. I'm sorry your opinion is that you need a specific passage in a rule book to explicitly state that you have to do the right thing for you to want to do the right thing.

Here's one:

The guy next to you is swearing like a sailor, but keeping it low so that the dealer can't hear him. You know he'll be asked to leave if the house finds out. You know that swearing at the table is against house rules, but this guy is donating a ton of money to the entire table -- everyone loves him and is having a great time because they are making so much money and he just keeps buying back in. Do you speak up? Be honest.

Is the sailor's swearing compromising the integrity of the game? That determines whether we have an obligation to speak up, which feeds into whether we do.

As worded, no I don't say anything. It wouldn't even cross my mind to say anything. Why are you asking?

Because the whole point of some of these responses is that a player should speak up when the casino's rules are being broken. You think this example doesn't compromise the game, which is fine. However, it could be affecting the shy newbie on the other side of the swearer who is afraid to speak up, but how would you know? You leave it up to them because it's their responsibility if it's affecting their play -- even though the swearer is clearly breaking the rules.

I don't think the guy buying in over the limit compromises the game -- I think it makes it better. It might be worse for another player, but shouldn't the onus of speaking up fall on that player? Anybody paying any attention, which they should obviously be doing, knew that this guy's chip stack never dwindled but kept getting bigger, even though he kept losing.

A player's going south compromises the entire table, which is why I would speak up.

Dude, you are 100% right. Selectively ignoring the rules so you can exploit players, as long as you say it is 'good for the game' is super ethical and you are not at all scummy. There, can you let it go now?

I am definitely not a dude, and if you have nothing to contribute and/or don't care, don't read the thread.

And thanks for agreeing with me. I do love being 100% right.

I had contributed, but since it did not validate your idea that it is OK to selectively enforce rules as long as it helps you, you ignored it.

Ignoring rules to gain an advantage is unethical. There is no way around that. You don't care, fine, but can we let a thread where you have no intentionof listening to anyone die.

Bending the rules to get an advantage doesn't bother you. I get it. If you are comfortable with that, cool. But quit asking other people to say that this isn't scummy. It is.

If we're going to start making analogies that don't really apply to what we're talking about when it comes to the integrity of the game, then let me present an analogy that shows where yours breaks down.

No one is saying you should help the casino enforce their patron rules. We're talking a bout the poker game and the integrity of the game. If I'm playing a game of basketball at a gym, it would be protecting the integrity of the game to call out fouls or when a ball goes out of bounds. It would NOT be about the integrity of the game if I point out that someone has brought their dog in or was smoking a cigarette on the sidelines which both happen to be against the rules of the gym. Your analogy about casino policy on swearing isn't the same about the rules governing the game itself.


It's okay to admit that you want to selectively apply the rules if they benefit you. I'm fine with that. Everyone is actually fine with that, but you're having a problem admitting that it's wrong. Like, this isn't that hard...

But I considered it good for the entire table. So, to me, pointing this guy out would have been bad for the game -- seriously. I am pretty sure it would have upset the majority if the players. (Train is coming to a halt so I have to stop taking.)

In a zero sum (actually, with the rake, a negative sum) game, how can something be good for the entire table?

maybe it's good for the entire table except the person doing it, and he can stop doing it any time he wants.

obviously, it won't always be this way, so the rule should be that it's not allowed. but that seems to be what JN is implying here.