How Strict Should You Be On The Rules With A Fish?

[rivergirl 2]

I don't even know if you can classify that as a string bet, he had the chips in his hand? Anyway, in a limit game i wouldn't even waste my breath especially with a big fish. Let the dealer handle the situation. The dealer was even going to allow it, which means it was iffy as to how it could be interpreted. Personally i would've let the fish bet whatever he wanted. If it was a nl game, it may become a different situation.just my opinion.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I agree that in limit this is less of an issue than in NL. I dont know about pedantry.Barring anything else you may have done to run this guy off, I think its perfectly okay to enforce rules even on a fish. If that caused this guy to leave like that, then he didnt really want to be there anyway. You didnt do anything he wasnt going to do anyway, thats is leave. And since everyone loves euphimisms: There are tons of fish in the sea. Last week some fish at a NL table walked away and tried to pick $700 and leave about $200, thats fine when you go for a walk, but then he came back and tried playing only the $200. I called him out immediately and he looked at me as if I was complete pr*ck. I realize that rule is a bit more important but still, he had no idea of it. My point is they have to learn sometime. Amazingly, the dealer wasnt going to say anything (though a dealer might not notice such a thing) and neither was anyone else.

You could say that.

[mdroc1 0]

Young Turk,I think you're right in your analysis of the situation. As for how to go about it, probably no one has the absolute right answer, but I'd say that letting his cap raise stand and explaining him the rule probably would have been better than insisting that it's called a string bet.Just a correction - one person said that this might not have been a string bet because he had the chips in his hand at one time. Let's just say that in my cardroom, if i did what he did, the dealer would pull me up as would other players at the table. I do notice that sometimes at the WSOP, they let a few things go that would be pulled up in my cardroom so perhaps they enforce the string bet rule a bit more strictly. In any case, in the cardroom i was playing in, I don't think there was a doubt about whether it was a string bet. I think the dealer was just willing to let it go and i was just too over-zealous about enforcing the rule. Perhaps I should have even said to the dealer "I'll let it stand, but just make him aware of the rule" or something along those lines. I'm fully aware that this would be a major issue in no limit, but i don't find string bet errors in no limit all that often. I've been playing no limit for a little while now (switching from limit) and this hand came up a $10/$20 I was playing while waiting for my no limit game. So wasn't a 3/6 game, but wasn't a big game. Though money is money and rules are rules so the question was more how i enforce rather that whether i bother enforcing it on smaller games.Anyway, thanks all contributors.

[NonZeroPossibility 0]

Just remember that a pair of 7's beats a frush

[fleung22 1]

first off, you should not have said a thing to him. You couldn't have known that he was going to leave, but you shouldn't have said anything. Why on earth would you want him to not keep raising pots with a weak hand. don't be so close minded about rules.. you should have done everything you could have to keep him there. Playing boy scout and rules monger with a guy willing to cap with anything is really just stupid. If you weren't willing to play a capped flop with AJ when you limped early position with qj, you shouldn't have limped with itI also think you're leaving out some of the story here, because him getting mad about just calling the rule on him seems wierd.Also, you played your hand really poorly First off, ify ou're going to play the hand, and he's to your left, you should have raised, and hoped he re-raised to get the pot heads up against the maniac. Limping into a maniac, unless you plan on check raising, is a really bad play imo. Second, If he's raising and re raising every pot, every hand AND if he was mad at your, so more likely to argo donk, AND you're heads up with him with top pair, you should have been capping the flop and turn with him. Just calling a crazy agro donk down with top pair is a really -ev play, since he will put in many raises and re raises with weak hands. Yes, do you run the risk of giving him alot of action when his ahead? Yes. But there are so many more hands he could have that are behind your hand than ahead, check calling him is just dumb.

what he said

[DCJ001 0]

And then, there's this from the recent WPT main event at Borgata:

Collusion? Ignorance of the Rules is Not a Defense.In the last hand before the break, Allen Summerville is in the small blind, and Brian Strahl is in the big blind. After everyone else at the table folds to them, they decide to just check it down to the river and flip over their hands face up.What?Haralabos Voulgaris immediately calls for a floorperson, and neither Strahl or Summerville even realize that something is wrong, though they do turn their cards back face down. Voulgaris explains the situation to the floorperson, who confirms that players aren't allowed to collude in that fashion, whether they are friends or not. The floorperson gives them both a warning, and tells them not to do it again.Voulgaris then points out that they already flipped their cards and showed them to each other, expecting them to receive a penalty. But the floorperson sticks with a warning.The hand continues, and they openly check it down as the board falls K92KJ. Strahl shows his A6 and Summerville shows his A6 -- it's a chopped pot.After the hand, Summerville confronts Voulgaris, wondering why Voulgaris can't just let it slide. Voulgaris tries to explain what a serious infraction that is, and how big the implications are now that the field is five players away from the money.

[DelftDragons 0]

I agree that in limit this is less of an issue than in NL. I dont know about pedantry.Barring anything else you may have done to run this guy off, I think its perfectly okay to enforce rules even on a fish. If that caused this guy to leave like that, then he didnt really want to be there anyway. You didnt do anything he wasnt going to do anyway, thats is leave. And since everyone loves euphimisms: There are tons of fish in the sea. Last week some fish at a NL table walked away and tried to pick $700 and leave about $200, thats fine when you go for a walk, but then he came back and tried playing only the $200. I called him out immediately and he looked at me as if I was complete pr*ck. I realize that rule is a bit more important but still, he had no idea of it. My point is they have to learn sometime. Amazingly, the dealer wasnt going to say anything (though a dealer might not notice such a thing) and neither was anyone else.

Ok, this will make me sound like a major fish, but is there a rule you can't take a portion of your money of the table? It's yours isn't it? I remember an episode of High Stakes Poker where Freddy?? got upset about being accused of this.Could anyone please explain that rule?

[TheDelta 0]

You deny the other players the possibility of winning that money back from you while you on the other hand keep your chance of taking even more, which is seen as unethical. Of course you can always pick up your chips and leave the table, no one can really say anything against that, but to keep playing and take some of your money away is simply bad, bad etiquette.

[babylondonks 5]

I'm far too tired to think one through coherently myself, but somebody should make some sort of sexual/country joke about 'going south'I am now going to fall unconscious for the night and most of the dayContinue with the serious discussion

[DelftDragons 0]

You deny the other players the possibility of winning that money back from you while you on the other hand keep your chance of taking even more, which is seen as unethical. Of course you can always pick up your chips and leave the table, no one can really say anything against that, but to keep playing and take some of your money away is simply bad, bad etiquette.

Ok, didn't know that. Personally I'd still feel though like it is my money, I won it and it's nobodies business what I do with it.

[Dogpatch 2]

Ok, didn't know that. Personally I'd still feel though like it is my money, I won it and it's nobodies business what I do with it.

In a sense, you're right. You won it, it's yours. But imagine this scenario....You and I are playing heads up, we both buy in for $1000. So basically you're risking $1000 to win $1000. First pot, I take $500 off you, but instead of leaving it on the table, I put it in my pocket. After this you crush me and take me down to the felt. Now, you've won $500 but wasn't the agreement that we were playing for $1000 apiece? By taking that $500 of the table, I force you to give me 2 to 1 odds, instead of the 1 to 1 we agreed on.Scenario #2 Again, we both buy in for $1000. Every time I take a pot, I take all my money off the table except for my original buy in. This time I felt you. You buy in for $1000, I felt you again, the whole time going south back down to my original buy in. Imagine you have $5000 invested but all you can win is the $1000 I have on the table. Pretty shitty, huh?That's why you don't do it.

[antistuff 0]

As for how to go about it, probably no one has the absolute right answer,

i have the absolute right answer. ill illustrate it with an example. lets say you're not in the hand and its heads up on the river with a fish and a good player. you know the good player has the fish beat. the fish makes a string raise. here you say something. you will piss off the good player and make the fish like you.now reverse that. there you keep your mouth shut. get it?

[psujohn 0]

By taking that $500 of the table, I force you to give me 2 to 1 odds, instead of the 1 to 1 we agreed on.

It's sort of a bit more complicated than that and directly related to the table stakes rule.Say in your scenario you win the first pot. It's a cash game and you have a 1500-500 lead. You tell yourself I'm no going to go below your original 1000. Now your opponent wins the next hand for 200 giving you 1300-700. If you were allowed to go south after the first hand you'd be able to play all-in for 300. Since you weren't you'd have either leave the table or absolutely refuse to put more than 300 into the pot in order to be guaranteed to no dip below 1000.