A general poker question

[blankoblanco]

I should know this, but I'm actually not sure. If a player is all-in and another player is debating whether or not to call, is the all-in player allowed to tell the player the hand they have? For example if the player said "I have JJ, I swear to God, I'll show it, but I don't want to get sucked out on again so just fold"... would this be legal? This question goes for online casinos as well as real casinos. Is it considered a form of collusion?

Jamie Gold did some of this in the wsop 2006, but I don't know if he ever definitively said that he had a specific hand; he would say something like "I have you beat... I'll show it, etc". So is telling your opponent you have the best hand legal but telling them your actual cards not legal? Or are both legal? Thanks to those who reply.

 

[Egon Towst]

Roberts Rules of Poker (regarded as the standard rules, and used by most casinos) say:

"The following actions are improper, and grounds for warning, suspending or barring a voliator:

........revealing the contents of a live hand in a multi-handed pot before the betting is complete......
........making statements or taking action that could unfairly influence the course of play."

So, revealing your hand is definitely improper, and the sorts of more general statements you describe, apparently trying to influence the opponent, could well be interpreted as being improper also. It`s about determining when banter, which a lot of players engage in, crosses over into an attempt to "unfairly influence" and that would be a judgement call for the Tournament Director.

 

[Kenzie 96]

To paraphrase ET, no.

 

[JimboJim]

The issue was on this last WSOP ME. The tournament director said it is Ok to say your hand as long as you do not show it. Now if you are telling a buddy what you have to help him I'm sure that this would be looked at as collusion.

I really dont think I would push it though because if I was a director I would see it as collusion.

 

[FinalTable]

Another Odd Question

Playing live game at a friend's house. We play about 3 tables in a tourney format.

One guy says he is going to raise the blind before cards are dealt. So he puts 40 (instead of 20) in front. To get in on the hand, he says we all have to call it. To me, that seems like betting out of position. Now, it may be 6 one way, a 1/2 dozen the other assuming he would raise once betting got around to him. But w/out that knowledge it influences who comes in on the hand and who doesn't. Basically raising the blind at his whim (he was BB).

Now - is this legal? Again - I realize he may want to bet after action gets to him - but this is before cards are even dealt. Just seemed odd and irregular. So I was wondering if this is legit. He swears it's allowed in casinos and the host allowed it. It may well be - but then again....

 

[Kenzie 96]

Go to your local hardware store & for between $15 & $20 you can purchase a nice well balanced 3# hammer. Place it beside you on the table & the next time this guy announces his pre deal raise ask him if he would like some aspirin for his splitting pre headache.

 

[FinalTable]

Yeah - I thought it was fishy. But I've never played Hold 'Em in a casino (just table games like blackjack, 3-Card, Let it Ride, etc...). So a few us raised eyebrows and proclaimed we'd never heard of that before. But the host said yeah, you can do that. It was his house. Truth be told, I think the host didn't want to sound stupid and act like he hadn't heard of this before...when I bet he hadn't heard of it because it's BS.

But then again...I don't know. Thanks for the advice...the hammer sounds pretty good. This guy also gets to be an a-hole the more he drinks. He'll bet a big bet...then if someone starts thinking - he'll start saying stupid stuff like "call - go ahead" or the opposite and "you better muck that crap, you can't beat my hand...if you don't have more than 2 pair, you better just muck...I've got XX, I'll show you...muck it". Best yet - is he'll show his "kicker" to you and say you better to able to beat it before you call.

Anyway - ranting. I've gotten good at just ignoring him. But I've always wondered if there were actual casino rules against that sort of behavior...other than just being unethical and annoying.

 

[JAMILE1]

your friend is a kook LOL, it's his house thats why. In the casino if you announce raise it's valid and you must raise it, and if you throw chips in its valid but the rest of the table gets their cards like normal play, and I may be wrong about some of it but my last trip in a casino saw the same as you describe and they made the dude play as he spoke. if I am wrong maybe someone can clarify this though.

and if I can add this is definitely frowned upon in a real casino and can lead to you being ask to never return

It's like wait your turn and chunk your chips right

 

[Jack Daniels]

Well, like everything else in poker, there are no simple answers here. As far as legality of declaring your hand, the general answer is what ET (phone home...lol) posted above. However, tournament rules always take precedence over that. For example, in the National Heads-up Championship, the rules specifically state that a person contemplating calling an all in bet may expose their hand without it being killed in an attempt to get a reaction. Those are the rules. Jamie Gold never actually exposed or said what his exact hands were while in the middle of a hand (at least not in the footage I've seen). He did skirt the rules some, but the tournament director confirmed for everyone (players, commentators, and spectators alike) that, like it or not, Jamie was working within the rules. Again, house rules.

As far as betting out of turn, it is poor ettiquette (sp?) and should be dealt with. Now it would be different if he was UTG, as minraising PF (lol) is basically just putting a stradle on the hand and is perfectly legal. All you are doing then is raising blind (opposed to calling blind). But again that would be UTG. If you act out of turn, your actions are typically binding, but again house rules should decide. I hate to say it, but if your friends are playing like knuckleheads in a home game and the ones in charge refuse to do anything about it or are making insane decisions, then maybe it's time to find another group to play poker with.

 

[FinalTable]

Thanks for the info. I may have to put my foot down next time we play. The guys I play with are all in my shop and work for me. He's the only one and most get annoyed, but put up with him. He's a good guy...just gets into this A-hole mood when at the table.

We'll straighten him out next time.

 

[JimboJim]

One guy says he is going to raise the blind before cards are dealt.......

It all depends on how proper you guys play. At our home games we take the rules very loose. We are always going all-in blind preflop, announcing raises out of turn, even as far as peeking at cards. We also make our own little varations like seeing the bottom 3 cards, the river is a no-peek down card, ect. Everybody has fun with it and there isnt any problem. Now if this is really becoming a problem for you just dont play with him anymore. Find another game to play, or start your own if you have to. If you're not comfertable playing then you should not be playing there. You will not play your best when you are worried about things like that instead of worrying about 'your' game.

 

[FinalTable]

Well, it started off pretty small - loose rules.

But the buy-in is now $20 and we run up to 3 tables...raise blinds at certain intervals, breaks - we try to be as proper as we can given the fact everyone usually ends up drunk.

But good points - since I'm one of the founding members, I'll address it. Just didn't know if raising the blind when you are in the BB before cards are even dealt (essentially raising the amount of the big blind) is a de facto rule.

Thanks again - GREAT SITE >> very informative and you guys are real open and responsive to newbie questions. Kudos.

 

[JimboJim]

Rule or not it's bad etiquette. At home games people that do things that other people dont like can be excluded from play. That should be left as the last option but an open option if it risks others not showing up.

 

[buckster436]

To paraphrase ET, no.

I agree its NO,, Jamie Gold got away with a lot of questionable things, in my opinion,,
buck

 

[Irexes]

Sounds like he's trying to make some kind of straddle bet but doesn't know what he's talking about,

From wikipedia

Straddle bets
A straddle bet is an optional (voluntary) blind bet made by a player before receiving his cards. Straddles are only used in games played with blind structures. Straddles are normally not permitted in tournament formats

Live straddle

The player immediately to the left of the big blind may place a live straddle blind bet. The straddle must be a raise over the big blind. A straddle is a live bet; the player placing the straddle effectively becomes the "bigger blind". Action begins with the player to the left of the straddle. If action returns to the straddle without a raise, the straddle has the option to raise. The player to the left of a live straddle may re-straddle by placing a blind bet raising the original straddle.

Mississippi straddle

A Mississippi straddle buys last action before the flop. House rules permitting Mississippi straddles are common in the southern United States. Usually, a Mississippi straddle can be made from any position, although some house rules only permit the button or the player to the right of the button to place a Mississippi straddle. Like a live straddle, a Mississippi straddle must be at least the minimum raise. Action begins with the player to the left of the straddle. If, for example (in a game with $10-$25 blinds), the button puts a live $50 on it, the first player to act would be the small blind, followed by the big blind, and so on. If action gets back to the straddle with no raise, the straddle has the option of raising. The player to the right of a Mississippi straddle may re-straddle by placing a blind bet raising the original straddle. [5]

And if he shows one of his cards while the hand is still live, then rake the pot as he's folded

 

[trescofanno1]

On the first day of the Main Event Jamie Gold was in a three way large pot where first to act went all in after the turn, on a board of Q T 4 J, ( rainbow ). Second to act folded and Jamie asked him if he was folding AA and he admitted he was. Jamie then told the first to act that he had a set ( he had pocket 4's) giving him the set. His opponent complained and the floor manager ruled that as there was only Jamie left to bet and there was no other action, he was within the rules and was not affecting anyone elses decision, therefore he was within the rules. Jamie Gold was about to lay it down but the demeanour of the first to act convinced him to call and first to act showed A Q. Jamie won and was never all in again for the rest of the tournament.
Personally I think the floor manager got it right and Jamies opponent should have had a better 'poker face'. However, if the complaint had been that Jamie had asked the second to act if he was laying down Aces and that he confirmed that he was, I believe that was a breach of the rules as Jamie now had more information prior to his decision than he should have had, courtesy of the second to act.
I know this is a slightly different scenario to your question but I think it adds to the debate.

 

[Egon Towst]

I agree, Tresco. I think the Floor Mngr`s decision was technically correct.

Very dubious behaviour by Gold, though.

 

[Jack Daniels]

However, if the complaint had been that Jamie had asked the second to act if he was laying down Aces and that he confirmed that he was, I believe that was a breach of the rules as Jamie now had more information prior to his decision than he should have had, courtesy of the second to act.

I agree, Tresco. I think the Floor Mngr`s decision was technically correct.

Very dubious behaviour by Gold, though.

To the first point, I also agree that the decision was correct and followed the ME rules.

However, to the second point...if the complaint had been about the second to act divulging his hand, the infraction would not have gone against Jamie Gold. It would have gone against the second to act because he divulged his folded cards and discussed what they were during play of that hand. That is a big no-no. However, there is no rule saying Jamie can't ask the question, just that second to act can't answer it honestly. And, in this scenario (which didn't actually happen), the floor person would not have ruled on it until the hand was complete because the second to act (while he should not be discussing hands while they are going on) would be in much less infraction trouble if he was lying about laying down AA.