Tweet
i figure it wouldn't hurt to start a dialogue about this early-on, so that by the time con rolls around we have all rules fleshed out and pretty nailed down. this thread can serve as a discussion spot for parts of the poker game that are sometimes gray areas at friendly tables but should be standardized for a tournament.
a few things that come to my mind at the moment...
binding verbalizations
in most casinos, a player must speak their choice of action out loud and whatever they first say is binding... call, raise, or fold. in other words, no one can say "i call your $50, and raise you another $50." (this act, known as a sting raise, is considered improper since you could attempt to read other player's reactions when you said you were just calling, but then you raised.) i would include the requirement that people verbally say the word "check" if they're checking. feel free to knock the wood or tap the felt or do a dance or whatever other horseshit you want to... as long as it's also accompanied by the word "check" coming out of your mouth. most of the time that i'm guilty of hanging up the action is because i can't tell if a person is checking, thinking, or scratching their ass.
also -- and this is just a personal preference of mine as opposed to something you see all the time -- dollar amounts should be expressed verbally. i get kind of irritated when people splash a stack of chips in the pot and i'm next to act, then i have to stare at them like "you wanna tell me what the fuck amount i'm calling here?"
betting structures
just about every friendly game i know handles betting differently. as far as i understand it, in a NL Holdem game, the large blind is the minimum bet for the round, and no subsequent bets can be smaller than any previous bet. another healthy rule to add, i find, is to force all increase amounts to be at the interval of the last raised bet. you wouldn't believe the ridiculous raises i've seen...
player one: i'll call $50 (equalling the large blind on the table before him)
player two: raise you to $100 (seeing the $50 and raising another $50)
player three: let's make it $125 (seeing the $100 and raising an additional $25)
me: *whack* (slamming my head into the table)
if the small blind is $50 and the large blind is $100, i typically think the action should proceed as follows...
player one: (in for the small blind of $50)
player two: (in for the large blind of $100)
player three: call. (he puts in $100)
player four: raise to $200 (the minimum he could raise)
player one: (he must first see the $150 he still owes, then he is free to raise in increments of $200, since that was the last amount to which the bet was raised) call (he only puts in $150)
player two: raising (he first puts in $100 to call what is outstanding from #4's bet) to make it $400 (he raised on a $200 bet by an additional $200... the smallest value he could raise)
player three: (he must now see the $400 and any raises must be in increments of $400) raise another $400 to make it eight (he puts in $400 and an additonal $400)
player four: call ($800 right into the pot)
player one: call (already in for $200, he puts in $600 more)
player two: call already in for $400, he puts in $400 more)
player three: (the action stops here with no betting from player three since his was the last raise and everyone else called it.)
... the dollar amount you speak (and someone should correct me on this if i'm wrong) should be the total amount to which you are making the stakes. if you're raising an additional $50 and this makes everyone's burden in the pot to be $250, you're not "raising $50" but rather "raising to $250"... i could be wrong about that. i suppose it's proper to mention your raise amount, but in addition you should also make known the total that this makes things. "raising another $50... that makes it $250" (so the next guy can easily look at his segment of the pot* and know what he needs to add in order to call)
* i realize that most people don't play this way either, but i am fan of keeping the pot in the center of the table but also clearly segmented for each player. splashing the pot all over the place not only makes a mess but it slows things down if you have to do split pot winnings or double-check math.
a few things that come to my mind at the moment...
binding verbalizations
in most casinos, a player must speak their choice of action out loud and whatever they first say is binding... call, raise, or fold. in other words, no one can say "i call your $50, and raise you another $50." (this act, known as a sting raise, is considered improper since you could attempt to read other player's reactions when you said you were just calling, but then you raised.) i would include the requirement that people verbally say the word "check" if they're checking. feel free to knock the wood or tap the felt or do a dance or whatever other horseshit you want to... as long as it's also accompanied by the word "check" coming out of your mouth. most of the time that i'm guilty of hanging up the action is because i can't tell if a person is checking, thinking, or scratching their ass.
also -- and this is just a personal preference of mine as opposed to something you see all the time -- dollar amounts should be expressed verbally. i get kind of irritated when people splash a stack of chips in the pot and i'm next to act, then i have to stare at them like "you wanna tell me what the fuck amount i'm calling here?"
betting structures
just about every friendly game i know handles betting differently. as far as i understand it, in a NL Holdem game, the large blind is the minimum bet for the round, and no subsequent bets can be smaller than any previous bet. another healthy rule to add, i find, is to force all increase amounts to be at the interval of the last raised bet. you wouldn't believe the ridiculous raises i've seen...
player one: i'll call $50 (equalling the large blind on the table before him)
player two: raise you to $100 (seeing the $50 and raising another $50)
player three: let's make it $125 (seeing the $100 and raising an additional $25)
me: *whack* (slamming my head into the table)
if the small blind is $50 and the large blind is $100, i typically think the action should proceed as follows...
player one: (in for the small blind of $50)
player two: (in for the large blind of $100)
player three: call. (he puts in $100)
player four: raise to $200 (the minimum he could raise)
player one: (he must first see the $150 he still owes, then he is free to raise in increments of $200, since that was the last amount to which the bet was raised) call (he only puts in $150)
player two: raising (he first puts in $100 to call what is outstanding from #4's bet) to make it $400 (he raised on a $200 bet by an additional $200... the smallest value he could raise)
player three: (he must now see the $400 and any raises must be in increments of $400) raise another $400 to make it eight (he puts in $400 and an additonal $400)
player four: call ($800 right into the pot)
player one: call (already in for $200, he puts in $600 more)
player two: call already in for $400, he puts in $400 more)
player three: (the action stops here with no betting from player three since his was the last raise and everyone else called it.)
... the dollar amount you speak (and someone should correct me on this if i'm wrong) should be the total amount to which you are making the stakes. if you're raising an additional $50 and this makes everyone's burden in the pot to be $250, you're not "raising $50" but rather "raising to $250"... i could be wrong about that. i suppose it's proper to mention your raise amount, but in addition you should also make known the total that this makes things. "raising another $50... that makes it $250" (so the next guy can easily look at his segment of the pot* and know what he needs to add in order to call)
* i realize that most people don't play this way either, but i am fan of keeping the pot in the center of the table but also clearly segmented for each player. splashing the pot all over the place not only makes a mess but it slows things down if you have to do split pot winnings or double-check math.
Comment