The card room I play it is mostly lax with the rules. They must have them formally laid out somewhere.

One time a player was away and missed getting his first card. He returned and was able to get two cards off the top because the floor ok'd it and he did only just miss his first card. Questionable. I wouldn't allow that.

They are also much more lax about the betting-line. Comparatively, a lot of places will get up in arms over string bets or people whose money crosses the line even if it is as they just check whilst holding a couple chips. I'm grateful for this, I find most of the string-betting rules to be pedantic and the players who expect them are constantly irate people.

Not necessarily. Its not unusual for rules to develop over time through the interpretation and application in a less formal method then actually amending the rulebook.

It could be formal in that the manager may send around a memo or email, or it may just be discussed among the floor people....

For example suppose a room has a rule that says the betting line is a hard betting and that any chips put over the line must be bet .....

it very well be that informally the staff has modified this rule not to apply to a chip that is apparently unintentionally dropped and rolls over the line. This exception doesn;t appear anywhere in the rule book. Its based on the interpretation that a chip that accidentally rolls over the line isn't "put" over the line. All the floor people know and understand thsi is how it is to be applied but nothing in the rulebook actually states it.

Sometimes the interpretation could be inexplicably contrary to the written rules.

For example (and I know i have told this story before) I opened up a new poker room in a new casino. before opening we had a week of "training". At one meeting we were given the rulebook and we went through the rules one by one followed by discussion if anyone had any questions.

The rulebook looked like most of the other rulebooks I had seen (as I understand it was basically the old Hilton rule book which has been passed around copied and pasted so the language and structure was nothing I hadn;t seen before)

interestingly the written rule for string bets in No Limit games was the old rule where a player could keep going back and forth adding more chips until the hands came to rest outside the betting area.

Well we read this rule allowed and then the manager said "this the standard string bet rule ... you only get one motion unless you announce the amount of your bet.

So I spoke up ..... I pointed out that the written rule was not what he had just stated..... he looked at me and said "Don't you know what a string raise is?"

So rather than change the written rule to be the modern rule he simply declared that words mean whatever he says they mean and the written rule was to be applied his way..... even if the language was clearly the opposite.

My original statement was meant to apply to people who were aware of the rules they were violating. If a newbie really does not know the rule, it is OK with me if they are given some leeway the first time they violate it as long as they are informed about the rule and expected to comply with it in the future.

IMHO rule #1 should only be applied when there is some question about whether or not the player violated the rule. If the management of a room continuously applies it to approval of player actions that clearly violate a rule, I would quit playing there.

A player cuts out a stack large enough for a raise. As he is pushing it forward, the stack catches on the felt and tips forward and a few chips cross the betting line first. He continues to push the whole pile forward. By the rules this is only a call.

Blinds are 75\150, the SB reaches out with (2) 100 chips and pulls back their (3) 25 chips to make a call and get more change. They do it in one motion, but the (2) 100's cross the line before they pull back the (3) 25's. By the rules, this is a raise.

A player raises all-in on the river. The other player tables the nuts before indicating action. By the rules, this is a fold.

The blinds are 100/200. Action limps to the SB. He grabs a t500 chip, reaches out and picks up his T100 chip, and throws them together in front of him. By the rules, this is only a call.

Would you think it is fair or in the best interest of the game to enforce the rules tightly in any of the situations above?

Personally, don't really care for super strict rules enforcement, especially what it is doing is likely actually slowing things down and making it less friendly at table.

Example1: Blinds are 100-200, lets assume blinds were 50-100 and have just moved up. Person says raise to 250.
There is now an argument about whether he can raise, what the raise should be, the whole 9 yards. Noone else has acted, if he wants to make 450, 400, or just call now...I wouldn't care. My vote here would be to say, "Who cares, let him/her do what they want."

Example2: Original example....same blinds, tosses in a 500 chip......we hit 2 mississippi and he says "raise....500". I wouldn't give a crap. I don't care if the next person asks, or if the dealer asks...are you calling or raising? I wouldn't care what the answer was, or the ruling was, since noone has acted. I'd have same reaction, "Let them do what they want."

People have every right to want the rules applied strictly. Go ahead....just realize you accomplished 2 things when you get the floor involved. 1) You just made something that should have taken 1.3 seconds take 3 minutes. 2) You just made someone likely feel foolish, and if they weren't that good, not going to help them stay at the table.

Relax.

That fundamentally changes your stance. Giving leeway the first time and no other times is still enforcing the rules "in most cases". You have identified and justified an exception to your ostensibly hard stance. Why is your exception more okay?

That is not Rule #1. The wording from RRoP is this:

Assuming that all versions of Rule #1 are similarly written, any discussion about a rule that does not allow management to go against the strict interpretation of the rules is not a discussion about Rule #1. You are talking about some other rule.

1) Where's the JV table at the casino? How do you keep track of said 'first times' between floors/dealers?

2) No question you shouldn't play where you aren't comfortable that in the event of a ruling spot that you wouldn't always receive a fair assessment of the facts.

My view point here has been posted before .. perhaps a twist on words here and there.

Each room should have it's own 'tone' for play .. and I've even gone as far as indicating each stake level in a room should have it's own tone as well. Floors and Dealers have a fine line to walk in an effort to keep the game fair and to provide customer service for it's customers .. both regs and recs. Unfortunately some rooms are so reg heavy that they seem to control more of the marginal things than in a room with substantial rec traffic. A business must do what they feel is best to sustain itself ... sometimes a reg gets a little extra gravy on his potatoes since he's there every day.

We state in many threads that the rules are their to protect both Dealers/Floors from making decisions based on assumed player 'intent' but there are cases (more so in tournaments) where the rules need to be more strictly enforced since they affect all the players entered, not just the ones at a single cash table.

It's impossible to argue that a Floor can remain completely impartial in rulings involving regs since there should be a history there .. and I think that this history should be applied when considering 'Rule #1' based decisions.

Table Tone .. Table has a mandatory straddle until 'that guy' sits down and refuses. The tone at the table has just changed, make adjustments. Where my viewpoint gets in trouble is when a table is moving along at a tone and then gets blindsided by a player suddenly wanting a rule enforced 'to the letter' when they see an open window.

We had a case just like that the other day playing 2/5 ... Players have been 'cut and pasting' bets/calls over the line for 3-4 hours and a player who has been at the table the whole time suddenly challenges a bet by saying everything that crosses the line in a player's hand needs to stay out there. "Sorry son, you've had 3 hours to address this issue and we're going to let the bet stand. But going forward I'll let the Dealers know you have a concern about this practice at this table."

Regardless of which side you are on .. biased rulings are going to happen. Cop pulls over car for speeding ... "Oh, are you Tom Smith's son? (yes) Well you have a nice day and try to keep it in check a bit more." GL

Sounds like he is making a string argument

That was interesting, no doubt rules at a place are cultural to at least some extend based on interpretation or accepted short cuts. Some places definitely seem more by-the-book than others. I do prefer the more casual rules as long as they are reasonable.

I find string bets extra funny because I dont see why players find them so disagreeable. You think your opponent is fishing for tells from you? Thats the name of the game.

Maybe its just me, but I very much support verbal indications of play. Its much more direct and clear than simply shoving some amount of chips over the line. If a player announced a specific raise which was not valid, I would let them take it back since it was not a valid play in the first place. If they had simply said "raise" and tossed in chips, then I would be more hardline on it.

You might see they have them because the floor needed to reference them. They might even let you see the specific rule they are using for a ruling. But I doubt they give you a copy or even just allow you to thumb through their copy. I just have not seen it often.

I have seen a floor go pull the rules to decide a ruling, may have even been the rules nit causing this More than once (but seldom anymore, I just "live with it" these days.) one time I even had him bring me the print out and say 'see it says so right there'. He was not happy when I said yes but if you look down here in item c it gives an exception that is applicable.

There are a few places that publish and or post their complete rules. But most places post a simple, general subset on the wall. I don't know why many places treat their rules like state secrets, but they do.

There is a reason th coaches all called my son Hands. He was really too small to play O line but until his second knee surgery in HS, he played up a level and started every year. Two out of three he was Outstanding O lineman of his level and he had the tackle to his left and the other guard both go on to Div I-AA. Proper holding was a very valuable technique he excelled at.

I was discussing this with a floor person at work today. I generally agree with the OP's post, but we agree that the rules are going to be more strictly enforced at some tables than at others.

To use your football analogy, would you enforce penalties just as strictly in a pee-wee football game with elementary aged children as you would if you were the referee in an NFL game?

If I have a board of 8 9 Q K 5 and a 2-5 NL player who's not in the hand calls out, "Who has the flush?" before the cards are tabled in a $500 pot, I'm going to warn him at minimum and may call the floor to have a word with him. If it's a 2-4 limit player and a $12 pot I'm going to shrug and ignore it.

I would say of your four examples only one is a good one.

In the first, it was all one motion so should be a raise.

Second one is a valid not interpretation

Third is a bad rule if it really it to kill a hand for exposing, especially in a cash game. Penalty or warning after hand maybe, but killing that hand breaks the best hand should win rule. Though I know of rooms that used to have such a rule. All the ones I know have changed to correct this.

The last is even more nitty than the second. So much so that I am not sure you are even technically correct. Again like the first, if this is all one continuous motion, I believe it is a legit raise.

And that is bad. I agree there needs to be and always will be some room for interpretation and flexibility. But the flexibility needs to be minimally used.

In your example, one reason such table talk happens is some players don't know better and sometimes it is because they don't care. In the first case it is an excellent teaching opportunity of what the rule is. In the second it is an excellent teaching opportunity of why it matters and he should care even if he only learns to care out of fear of being sent home, he still learns.

In general, I hear these examples that the low limit folks never want to follow the rules. Then I hear the high limit game we are lax and they police themselves. Maybe neither situation need exist if the house was willing to stand up to them.

Regardless if I am playing 4-8lhe the min stakes game here or a big uncapped 2-5 game with the straddle on every hand, I will at times for significant things speak up, even if after the hand. But I hate that I have to be the one doing it. I have the confidence in my rule knowledge and my game skills enough to speak up, but I much prefer the dealer or floor if necessary to speak up and control the game.

We poker players are much like puppies. If you train us right from the beginning and keep the rules consistent when we get older, we will bahave well and get along with each other. If you let us make up our rules you will see constant boundary pushing and battles to be the alpha. In the long run that is not as much fun.

On further reading of the rules, I agree that the first was a bad example.

Curious as to why you think the second is an invalid read of the rule. I have seen this come up in tournaments all the time, where players cross the line with calling\raising chips first, then pull back the chips that were already in the middle. While this is universally allowed, I don't see how, from a strict interpretation of the rules, this is any different than crossing the lines with a handful of chips, then only releasing a fraction of those chips.

The third scenario assumes that the room will kill hands exposed while action is still pending (there are still some places that do that, though it is rare). I have never seen them enforce the penalty in this situation where the player tabling the nuts obviously is intending to call.

The last scenerio is very nitty, and I have never seen it challenged. Picking up chips already out there and combining them with a single oversized chip seems to negate the one chip rule. My point is that I am not sure, based on a strict reading of the rule, if that is correct or just convention.

1) One motion = One bet/raise
2) Robert's (cash game) doesn't directly (or indirectly) address chips already over the line. TDA only comments that they 'may' impact the bet/wager.

3) Player's who expose hands 'can' be penalized, but the hand is rarely declared dead .. room rules would apply of course.
4) Another 'one motion' spot with the 'may affect' caveat in the rules.

The "Whose got the flush?" line is pretty lame and although wrong pretty much falls off to the side unless it happens 'a lot'. GL

You're not doing me any favors.
I'm gonna tell him "One player to a hand please.".

Here's another example of me routinely not enforcing a rule when I deal. This probably comes up about 1 or 2 times a month. 1/2 NL and a player bets all if his red and green chips in a single motion (call it $160). Then he realizes he has $3 in white and he adds that to his bet to complete his all in.

I'm never calling a string bet in this situation.

If someone did object to the $3 going in, I'd ask them what hand they would have that they would call $160 but fold to a $163 bet.

What would you do if he had a single green chip that he didn't see originally and then adds that to his bet?

Well if the player has bet
all in , I would think the green chip should be added don't you?

My understanding was that he did not say "all in". If he did, of course it woule be added.

You need to learn what's important and what's not. Pick your battles. Example:

There is a rule in many houses that people can't straddle after the first card has been dealt to any player. Is it enforced? Usually not.

Now if you decide to be the police on this then you will just come off as a huge nitpicking dbag who's killing action at the table prevent people from straddling and EVERYONE will hate you.

I know because I used to be THAT GUY. Do not be THAT GUY

Technically you're in the right. But is this a wise thing to do?

Hopefully, this example shines some light for you.