Month: September 2017

In modern day poker we are seeing more and more events, card rooms and poker room managers imposing their individual ideas and procedures on the delivery of the game. The TDA was borne in an attempt to standardize the rules and procedures from a playing and managing perspective but it seems there has never really been a standard set of procedures when training dealing staff. Having said never, however, that’s not strictly true. When poker games are first invented it seems that most of the details on the rules and procedures and how best to implement them were actually fairly well thought out. Tried and then tested with an eventual edited version of the original ideas on the delivery of each game written down and practiced for the years to come. Of course I cannot deny that perfection was ever achieved from the outset, but what I have noticed over the years, as edits are made to the original procedures for these games, is that changes are being made without careful consideration to the reasons the original procedures were laid out in the first instance.

An example of this has recently come to light where a well-known major poker event company has decided to shy away from the original procedure, during stud and draw poker games, of placing the pot in the center of the table and insisting that the dealer now place the pot to the left of center where one might place the pot during a board game. I did speak with an authority at the said poker event during the summer of 2017 and ask why they had decided to change this procedure. To my amazement the answer I was given was that it is to keep the display of the poker table looking “consistent”. In fact, because all of my students were arriving at the audition of this event and placing the pot in the center of the table, during stud and draw games, I received a phone call from the said authority and was asked why I was advising my students to set the pot in this way and why I was ignoring the guideline for this procedure that is clearly printed in their dealer handbook. As I considered their explanation for changing the procedure for Aesthetic reasons I gladly obliged with my response.

First and foremost, I said, the procedure of setting the pot in the middle of the table has been around since these games were invented and it is not something that I decided upon. I simply follow the procedure because I agree with it and it makes sense to do it this way.

Why does it make sense to put the pot in the middle of the table? Well, in stud and draw games, more often than not, there are either 6 or 8 players in the game. That being said there will always be free table space directly in front of the dealer because there is no player sitting there. Therefore there will be ample room for the pot to grow, it will not interfere with a player sitting there and there will be no up-cards delivered over the pot. Whereas with the pot to the left of the dealer it will ultimately be growing in front of the player in seat number 3 or 4 and there will be no room to deliver the up-cards to that player. More importantly, however, placing the pot in the center of a game that does not require a community board will remind a tired dealer not to lay out a flop mid-way through a stud or draw game.

I have seen this done a number of times. In fact one of the most embarrassing times was at the WSOP in a $75/$150 RAZZ cash game with a number of high profile players at the table. The unfortunate, tired dealer at the end of his 14 hour shift had his pot to the left, as suggested by the event, and he proceeded to deliver a flop on 4^th street. I guess he burned the first card, delivered it under the pot to his left and muscle memory kicked in and he laid out 3 cards for the flop. Well needless to say all hell broke loose at the table.

The point of this blog is to raise awareness to those who are in a position of influence to seriously consider all the implications and consequences before engaging in changes that may have catastrophic effect. All too often we see managers wishing to impose their authority and justify their existence, but quite honestly I like to adopt one of these two notions.

“There is no reason to re-invent the wheel”

“If it isn’t broke, don’t go looking to fix it”

 

Good Luck!

 

In poker there are always contentious situations and I’m sure there will always be argument over what is and isn’t the right rule and procedure. However, the Tournament Directors Association (TDA) was born in the attempt to consolidate the rules and regulations in poker and to organize a standard set of rules for the global poker community to abide. For the most part it has been very successful.

However, I do find it ironic that the highest ranking members of the World Series of Poker are also members of the board of the TDA but the WSOP does not implement all of those rules which have been agreed during the meetings held Bi-annually by the TDA. So strong are individuals’ views and opinions of the game, it makes for a very difficult time when trying to fuse all opinions into one notion.

So here I am about to do the same. In this blog I would like to discuss the confusion, misconceptions and alternative opinions of one such rule and hopefully shed an analytical objective based upon reason & logic and not just idea & opinion:

How much should the following player bet if a player in one of the blinds, or the first player to act post-flop, is “all in” for less than a legal and complete bet?

When I teach my students, I constantly hear myself saying to them, “you can always call the bet you face”, as one option. So if a player has not yet acted their options when facing a bet should always be, fold, call or raise. Now the amount the player is permitted to raise will depend on the value of the bet they face, but all options should be available.

However here is where that consistency gets somewhat distorted.

I have dealt poker in rooms and events where either one of these rules or procedures has been applied when faced with the same scenario, and I would like to apply my logical take on proceedings if I may?

In a No-Limit, tournament, board game, such as Texas Hold’em or Omaha, Pre-Flop with blind levels at 500/1000 the small blind is in for 500 and the Big Blind is “All-In” for 200; what should be the minimum bet for the first player to act after the Big Blind position?

Some would argue it should be the full Big Blind value of 1000 and others would argue that it should only be the bet currently faced by that player. This would be the 500 bet of the small blind. Logic would dictate that, to remain in the hand, a player must only need to bet an amount equivalent to the bet he currently faces? Is it fair to force a player to bet more than he can win from his opponent to stay in a hand? My view on this is clear.

I believe a player should always be allowed to call the bet he faces to remain in a hand. It makes no sense to me to force a player to bet more than he can win from another player, especially when another player does not have sufficient table stakes to make the complete, minimum bet. One might argue at this point that the small blind will be gaining an advantage because, if no other player makes a bet then the Small Blind can see the flop for less than what it would ordinarily cost him. However, that player already has more money invested than the Big Blind player and so should be permitted to continue the hand with his current investment. Of course if you are thinking that the Small Blind has gained an advantage here, remember there is nothing to stop other players making a raise before it gets to the Small Blind. Equally it is only fair that other players too need only match the bet of the Small Blind to stay in the hand.

If you are going to force other players to come in for the 1000 to equal what would be the current Big Blind what would you have the Small Blind do if all players fold around to the Small Blind? Does the Small Blind need to complete his bet from 500 to 1000 to meet the Big Blind criteria, even though the Big Blind has posted less than the required amount, before he is allowed to contest the remainder of the hand with the Big Blind player, who is all in for 200, or will you allow the Small Blind to simply take back 300 and leave 200 as a call of the Big Blinds 200 All-In? If you choose the latter then surely you cannot deny any other player from simply calling the 500 as the hand plays around the table. If you choose the former and insist that the Small Blind player must first deposit 1000 to meet the criteria of the 1000 Big Blind and then simply return the remaining 800; then this surely is ridiculous and therefore insisting other players make a bet of 1000 is equally as ridiculous?

Consider this next scenario before you make a judgement:

What if play had continued on to the flop before any player had ran out of chips and the first player to act after the flop makes an “All-In” bet of 500. Will you now allow following players to call the 500 to stay in the hand, or do they once again have to make a minimum bet of 1000 to equal the betting level as set by the current Big Blind level? Most games I have dealt and played in allow subsequent players to simply call the 500 if they wish. Or they could raise anything from a minimum raise by applying the current 1000 increment on top of the 500, therefore making a bet of 1500, or raising anything beyond this up to a bet of all-in.

Even in a Limit poker game, if the first player to act post flop was to make a bet of 500 “All-In” with blinds at 500/1000, subsequent players would be allowed to call the 500, or raise. If they were to raise, of course, they would not be allowed simply to raise to 1000 because the 500 is 50% of the current betting level and therefore this bet, even though not complete, is considered the first bet and so a player wishing to raise must first call 500 and then raise by a full betting increment of 1000 making a total bet of 1500 for “2 bets”. (In one motion or a declaration of course, or it would be a string raise).

 

In keeping with consistency, just consider this scenario: With blinds at 500/1000 in a No-Limit poker game, and a bet of 1000 made by player 1 on the flop. Player 2 makes an “All-In” bet of 1200. What options do you give to the following players? They can call the 1200 right? Even though the 1200 is technically an illegal raise, but permitted due to it being an all-in bet. You do not force the next player to complete the raise to what would have been a legal minimum raise of 2000. (the legal bet of 1000 plus a legal raise of the current increment which is 1000 more). In fact in No-Limit and Pot Limit games if the next player wishes to raise he would need to call the 1200 and then apply at least the minimum betting increment on top (The bet/raise increment is still 1000 as the additional 200 did not increase the raising increment). Therefore a bet of 1200 plus 1000 must be made for a legal raise for a player with enough chips to make the bet. So a bet of 2200 for a minimum raise would be made.

So why would you not allow pre-flop bets to be treated in the same way? The largest bet on the felt being less than the Big Blind and equal to or greater than the Small Blind should be allowed to be called or raised in the same manner as we would allow post flop. Should it not? In fact if neither the Small Blind or the Big Blind have sufficient stakes remaining to contribute the full blind amount required by them, the larger of the two blind bets should be allowed to be called by the first player to act, and should a raise be applied it would be rendered, as a minimum, equal to the value of the current Big Blind level (1000 in this case) in addition to the larger of the two bets offered as All-In bets by the Blinds.

What is the logic behind forcing a player to make a bet greater than that he can win from his opponent?