New Tournament Rule Encountered

(I sent this question to a few people, then I thought it might be an appropriate posting for Two Plus Two):


At the latest San Pablo tournament, a new rule, having to do with forced raises, was put into effect.


I do not have the exact text of the rule, but it went something like this: If you have enough chips in your hand to raise when you place chips into the pot, you MUST raise, unless PRIOR TO your hand (the one with the fingers on it, not your cards) entering the pot, (I guess that means "crossing the threshold," wherever THAT is) you say, "Call."


Here is an example: Suppose the bet to me is four chips. If I have six (or more) chips in my hand when I decide to participate and enter the pot, I MUST raise (even if I only drop four chips into the pot) unless I say "call" before putting my chips in motion.


I suppose you could call this a "reverse string raise" rule for lack of a better name. I don’t know what type of abuse the management is trying to curtail with this rule, other than perhaps those players that make motions in order to determine what the players behind them will do, i.e., generate an out-of-turn "tell," or something. But shouldn’t players following be responsible for not reacting prematurely, e.g., folding out of turn?


It can be a bit confusing, especially when the denominations of chips are involved, e.g., suppose the bet is two chips, but the caller throws in a different denomination chip that is worth five times more. Must that player raise? Of course not! The rule there has always been clear: Unless something was said to the contrary, it is ALWAYS a call.


There was a bit of discussion at the table about this new rule, the most interesting being how to take advantage of it, e.g., making the attempt to call with the "nuts," and then being "forced" to raise by the rule, which would then hopefully generate calls from players who were "observant" enough to catch the "sign of weakness."


Also, the dealers did not seem comfortable calling players on this rule.


BTW, Casino San Pablo introduced a "Must Bet the Nut Hand in All Flop Games or Forfeit the Pot" rule last spring, ostensibly in an effort to counter collusion.

Where is this casino so I know to avoid it.


Later,

CJ

Me too, I wouldn't play there. The "must bet nuts on flop" rule is insane. Who knows what the next madness will be ?


Andy.

The more and more I think about that 'must bet nut hand' rule.


The more and more I can't believe a casino could have a rule like that.


Why the hell would I want to bet 4 Aces on a flop if I had them, if I know the bet will knock everyone out. A rule such as this takes an extremely important technique ( slowplaying ) away from the game. All casinos should be discouraged from a rule such as this.. and if a casino imposes a ludicrous rule such as this, the patrons should not support their business till they reverse it.


Later,

CJ

When I have heard of the "must bet the nuts" that mean son the river when you are last to act. IE you are heads up with your friend he checks to you you can't turn over the nuts when there is no posisble action behind you.


Randy Refeld

OF COURSE you can check the "nuts" on the flop. The rule comes into play ON THE RIVER, and if you're first to act, you can check.


But if you're last to act on the river, and you just turn over your hand following a check, or just call the bet, you are in violation of the rule.


It's supposed to be an "anti collusion" rule, and is only used in tournament flop games.

My apologies, I saw the word "flop" and didn't read it properly. It was early in the morning :-).


It's actually quite rare for the last person to act to have the absolute nuts on the end. The casino must feel that they have real collusion problems to go as far as to enforce this.


Andy.

How often does one get a nut flush? That would qualify.


But, "betting the nut hand" rule was not what the discussion is supposed to be about. The question is, who is responsible for acting in turn when an out-of-turn reaction is provoked by the number of chips in a player's hand?

This rule is apparently one of the 14 rules adopted by the tournament directors association (or some such group). During the first event on Saturday, it was clearly announced a number of times at the start of the tournament. It was supposed to be dealer enforced. It turned out that since the dealers were not used to this rule that it was enforced sporadically (occasionally they would notice someone do it and force them to raise, then the next hand they would not notice the same thing and would not call it out). By the middle of the week, it became a player enforced rule, and it had to be called by a player in the hand.


I am guessing that the rule is intended to prevent someone from appearing to be raising by gathering up many chips in their hand and then while making the move looking to the original bettor to see if it looked like they were concerned about the potential raise thereby inducing a tell.


The reaction to this rule was decidedly unfavorable.

Never heard of it!


I see your point, and agree with it. I just don't see why the casino has to have a RULE about this.


I've had the situation where I make a bet, the next player (It was YOU, Yuba City Jim!) grabbed a handful of chips, plopped them into the pot, but before letting go, hesitated. The next player did not wait for the action to be completed, and mucked his hand out of turn. Then, being heads-up, YCJ decided to raise. This is a very annoying transgression of ethics, if not rules, and I admonished the folding player with some vitrol.


But I still wonder: Should it be the casino's job to enforce proper behavior in this instance, i.e., folding in turn? Or should it be the players' courtesy that rules?


It seems the only way this problem will ever be solved is if dealers are removed, and everyone plays via a computer console that has built-in safeguards against such errant behavior.


Now, the "must bet the nuts when last to act on the river" rule makes more sense, as the obvious target is collusion. Whether collusion is that serious a problem to require special rules is another discussion. But players can counter the "forced raise" rule pretty easily, IMHO. All one has to do is give a few "false tells," since tells are what the "unethical" player is trying to generate.


P.S. I played the stud tournament on Sunday, and the dealers went to great lenghts to explain the rule. But, as you say, it was never called at our table. But a player from another table was given a twenty-minute "time out" for expressing, in no uncertain terms, with several utterances of the "f" word, his displeasure with the rule! I've never seen anyone get a "time out" at the San Pablo Tournaments; Is this the result of just one too many rules?


(BTW, I don't agree that any rule enforcement should be limited to those players in the hand. In live games, sure. But in a tournament, every player, whether he or she is in a hand or not, has an interest in every hand, evry pot, and every chip in that room. So, even if they're not in the hand, they should speak up when a transgression occurs.)

I thought I read about the TDA in Card Player, and lo and behold ==> http://www.cardplayer.com/corner/corner.jsp?art_id=8


Now, notice that the neither of the rules we are discussing in this thread are present in the 14 rules listed in the article. I am sure they attributed the stack in hand rule to the new standardized rules. I don't recall the bet the nuts rule being similarly attributed.


Hmmmm.

...rule #6 seems to hint at the "Must bet the nuts if last to act rule" by talking about soft-playing.


And the "must raise" rule seems to be covered by rule #8, "Half-bet rule: If a player puts in a raise of 50 percent or more of the previous bet, he will be required to make a full raise." The only thing is, what is the definition of "puts in"?


At the Capitol Casino in Sacramento, we have a "deadline" drawn on the table. Once a chip goes past that line, it's in the pot to stay. But players have room to stack their chips behind the line, so there's usually a clear indication of a player's intent before the commitment is complete. The "deadline" seems to work well.


Thanks for the link! I didn't know about that!