In a recent discussion about a particular rules question, I posted the following:

"I have a major problem with rooms or dealers who only enforce rules "in most cases". Rules are rules and they should be enforced ALL of the time. Enforcing them only some of the time only creates controversy."

and got a lot of flack about it. Many players seemed to think it was OK to bend the rules in many situations. Some of these seemed to think it was OK to bend them for regular players. One participant even suggested that it was OK to take a vote among the players involved in the hand in the case of rules questions.

The reason I am posting this is that I would like to take kind of an informal poll and see how many people really think this way.

The particular issue originally under discussion was a case where an individual threw out a single large chip and announced "raise" after the chip had already hit the table. Some people seemed to think that the dealer should have allowed him to raise and there was a lot of discussion of a "no harm no foul" philosophy.

I consider this to be analogous to a play in football where a defensive end takes one step offside a fraction of a second before the flop and the ref throws a flag. The play is run to the other side of the field and the player who was offside is not involved in the play. The referees then get together and decide that there should be no penalty because he was only "slightly" offside and didn't affect the result.

Does anybody really think that would be good for the game of football?

Why do people think differently about poker rules?

"Rule 1" allows the floor to make a decision in the basis of fairness even if the decision is contrary to the rules. This alone says you need context for the situation and a decision may not be a strict interpretation of the rules.

Poker is not football.

If you want to use the football analogy, a better one is where the DB and the WR are jockeying for position on a deep route. PI could be called on either player, but it isn't as they are not gaining an advantage and are both making a play for the ball.

In most games, the rules have to be nuanced enough not to defeat the purpose of having rules. The purpose of the rules is to provide fairness and enable fluid gameplay. Being a rules nit in a case where the players intent was clear and there is little opportunity to angle seems counter productive, both to the game flow as well as to the idea of keeping inexperienced players in the game.

The subject under discussion is not whether or not the rule was violated. The question is whether or not a player should be allowed to take an action that is clearly in violation of the rules.

Question-can you show me these rules? Where can I see the set of rules you are referring to?

The trouble with an approach which ignores nuance is that it inevitably ends up with situations that are far more unfair than simply having an experienced and impartial expert making judgments. Whether or not the average floor is that expert is up for debate but I'd rather they looked at things situationally instead of simply referring to the book no matter what.

As mentioned above though, every casino likely has a rule which says 'we get to decide', so the option to allow that rule to override other rules already explicitly exists.

FYP

Here is one set:

http://www.cardplayer.com/rules-of-poker

Most casinos have a set of rules posted somewhere or a link to a set of rules like the above that they abide by. In most cases, they are very close to the cardplayer set.

I would be stunned if the majority of card rooms have a single, published set of rules. Most of them use a modified version of RRoP or TDA, but often have very room specific changes that are not published anywhere. And even within the same card room, getting a consistent ruling is not a guarantee.

The point is, you believe that there is a universal, well known set of rules. There is not. Not even close.

Given the variance in rules, the variance on interpretations, and the spread of experience levels between players, do you think it is in the best interest of the game to enforce the rules 100% of the time with no allowances given for possible human error? Do you think this promotes maximum fairness or game flow? Do you think that this makes new, inexperienced players feel comfortable and welcome?

I am as big a rules nit as you are likely to find, but I have learned it is usually better to discuss things after the hand then disrupt the hand, unless you suspect an angleshoot or the player in question clearly knows better.

I think some rooms decide what level of strictness they expect dealers to enforce. For example, some rooms that cater to mostly tourists with many beginners and rec players may take that account. For example, if a clear newbie tosses the oversize chip in and says raise a second or two late, the room may want the dealer to give the player a friendly warning. Something like "we'll let that stand this time, but next time make sure you say raise before the chip hits the felt".

I've seen games where there is a straddle almost every hand, and if the guy who is going to straddle is getting a drink from a waitress right as the first card is dealt, and he says straddle after a couple of cards are out, they still allow the straddle even if technically the rule is it must be out before the first card is dealt.

There are sometimes nits whose heads explode when that happens, but overall the tables seem to appreciate the leeway to keep the game fun and the atmosphere light. In some games, and usually all tournaments, things get called much tighter. But I think its ok to have a little latitude based upon the context and situation at the table.

And next time a different dealer will let it stand another time.

If the first time the dealer says "That's a call. You need to announce
raise before tossing an oversize chip, or it's a call." maybe he learns...

Actually the "rules" are whatever the dealer/floor says they are. Most of the time a general acceptance of how poker is structured and organized is followed in virtually all rooms. But exceptions occur frequently enough and rulings can vary due to many reasons , mostly acceptable ones , and occasionally very sketchy ones. I am not sure what the OPs point really is , but he must understand that there are rules that can sometimes be bent or even ignored as a situation requires , OR as a person in authority (dealers/floors) thinks best. This is not going to change.

Don't know where you got that from. I never said anything of the sort. There are, however, certain rules that are pretty standard and are often abused by experienced players. I have no problem with helping out newbies. I do have a problem with allowing regulars who know the rules to consistently ignore them.

I have been in casino poker rooms three different times when a player asked about published rules. In all three cases, the floor manager was able to show the player such a set of rules. Try asking the floor manager the next time you are in a casino whether he can show you the rules. I suspect you will be shocked.

We'll give you a pamphlet that runs down the basics but you aren't going to see our rulebook. Rule #1 is #1 for a reason. I agree that regulars should not be able to abuse the rules (...#1 allows the floor to to stop this).

Yes, I don't think anyone suggests that regulars should be allowed to routinely flaunt the rules. Rule #1 is not generally used to allow this either. If it is in your room, then change rooms if possible.

Having a "rules is rules" attitude is actually one of the things that allows for this behavior though. If a regular can figure out a loophole in the rules, then repeatedly uses it to angle other non-regulars, a room where floors are empowered to act in the interest of fairness will put a stop to it or the player will be 86ed. A room where rules are rigorously followed even when obviously not best for the game will be more likely to just shrug and say that it's within the rules to do so.

Nobody is suggesting that regs should be favored in any way.

But if you want to talk about what you call "serious rule violations" and then use an example of the oversized chip hitting the felt a split second before announcing a raise, it's hard to take that seriously.

Your football analogy just boggles me. How is it an example of "no harm no foul" to indicate a free play with a flag and then deny the offense their right to accept the penalty? Do you honestly see no harm there?

I'm having trouble reconciling these two stances, unless you mean helping newbies in ways that don't involve relaxing the rules? But then why is that relevant?

Also, what do you think is the purpose of Rule #1? Do you think it's only for situations that have not been codified in these supposed rule books you've seen? If not, why would it ever be invoked if not to go against what is prescribed by those rules?

Look, the issue is that some rules allow for some leeway and some do not. Your example of someone saying raise only a split second after an oversized chip hits the felt is one of those that gives the dealer some leeway. Was it a half second late? Yes. Does a half second matter in this case? No. Did it cause anyone to act before clarification? No. The dealer can decide that it was certainly close enough to call it a raise. We, as managers, give them that leeway. Some things just don't matter in the grand scheme of things. If a floor gets called to the table for this I would expect them to ask if the chip hit first or if the raise was announced first and then make a ruling based on that alone. Then walk away shaking their head wondering why on earth anyone would want a floor ruling for something so juvenile.

OTOH, what if player A goes all in and player B says "call" and then half a second later says "no wait, I meant to say fold!" Is there leeway here? No. Can you see the difference?

Now I do agree with you on all the other stuff about taking a vote and other nonsense.

^^ This is a Casino Poker Forum. So despite the fact that At our home game we often poll the table when something goofy happens to see if we can just let it slide to keep the vibe good and the game moving , I can't see that as a good thing to try at a casino table for likely higher stakes and folks who are mostly strangers.

It's often important to understand the reason for a rule in determiningredients how to enforce it.

You and your big words

haha, that is quite a portmanteau.

The NFL can't even explain what a catch is in terms the knowledgeable player or coach can understand. I'm not sure I want to use them as an example of good rule making.

I think poker should follow the other football, know to the US as soccer. There are rules, but there is also the leeway to rule that the violation did not impact the play. Therefore, everyone is told to "play on" in those circumstances.

Even if you wanted to use American football as a guide, anyone who has played on the line or knows someone who did from Pop Warner to the pros is aware there is holding on every single play according to the rules. There are unofficial rules of what is allowable holding and what isn't.

OP, TBH if it was easy to see that the chip hit the table before the player started saying raise, I'd rule it a call. That means if the player pushed the chip in and released or the chip had time to bounce back up.