Rule Dispute Leads to Name-Calling
Last night, for the second time ever in Greg's poker game, someone got angry enough at me to resort to name-calling. I made (as Greg called it) "an unorthodox move" to avoid implementation of a controversial rule. While I agree that my move was unorthodox, I don't think it warranted name calling, nor do I think it violated the spirit of the rules, especially given the controversial nature of the rule, the implementation of which I thwarted.
We were playing limit poker ($4/$8 limit HE, O/8 and (of all things) Crazy Pineapple, with a half-kill to $6/$12). I may post specifically about some hands in a later entry, but at the moment, I want to focus on the incident that led to someone calling me a "little bitch". (I'm a pretty portly fellow, so I was a bit surprised I was a "little" anything. :)
The Name Caller was a player whose name I never did end up learning. I don't recall playing with him since the old days at Greg's old place in the $1/$2 and $2/$4 games. Name Caller was among a number of tight-weak limit players who came to last night's game. Greg mentioned that he had the impression that the limits we now play were rather large for their bankrolls, which is confirmed by the fact that they hadn't come often since the $2/$4 days.
The Actual Incident
I was playing an O/8 hand from the SB. I'll give the details of the hand in a later journal entry, but as it ended up, the flop was four-handed, including Name Caller, Ken (a very nice player whom I have more to say about in a later entry), and me. There was one raise on the flop, which three of us called. Name Caller folded to Ken's bet on the turn. I called Ken down, and he showed a winning hand. I threw my hand away into the muck.
As my hand moved toward the dealer, Name Caller announced in a forceful and confrontational tone: "I want to see that hand", pointing at mine. As soon as I heard this, I pushed my hand further toward the dealer and made sure that it was mixed completely with the dead cards (those cards discarded by other players). This made the hand irretrievable.
Name Caller went ballistic, raising his voice to say: "You little bitch!" A companion to his right asked: "What's this all about?" and Name Caller retold the story and ended with: "... and he mucked his hand like the little bitch he is."
At this point, I looked him in the eye and said: "Did you think I was colluding with Ken?" He said: "No, but I have a right to see that hand." I responded, "No, you are allowed to ask to see it, and I am allowed to muck it before the dealer has a chance to respond. But, the rule that allows you to ask is primarily in existence to detect collusion. So, I ask again, do you think I was colluding with Ken?" This only led to more ranting, and Name Caller saying: "I'm going to get him back big". That, BTW, really made me smile, because a cardinal rule of poker is that one should never play for revenge, because you never know who you'll end up in a big, confrontational hand with, and you can't be looking for it to be a specific player.
I noticed, however, that as a result of what appeared to be tight-weak play, Name Caller continued to play hardly any pots and left with a much smaller stack. I think Greg's point was right. I believe that, given that Name Caller and I have no history together, he lashed out relatively randomly, out of poker stress and frustration. I remember feeling that bad about poker at times, and I am simultaneously (a) sad for the fellow that he's picked a hobby activity that makes him feel so bad, and (b) glad for myself that I have grown out of being the kind of poker player. These days, I follow Roy West's rule: "Play happy or don't play".
The Rules Involved
The rule that Name Caller was thinking gave him the "right" to ask to see the hand is as follows (quoted from Robert's Rules of Poker): Any player who has been dealt in may request to see any hand that has been called, even if the opponent's hand or the winning hand has been mucked. However, this is a privilege that may be revoked if abused.
As mentioned in the rule, it's a privilege, not a right. In fact, Mike O'Malley, a columnist for Cardplayer Magazine, wrote an article about the history of this rule, and even wrote a follow-up to clarify things further. O'Malley points out that the rule historically exists only to detect collusion, not to "see if your read was right". Based on O'Malley's points, this is why, I have been, since reading his article, asking people if they thought collusion was going on when they asked to see a mucked "called hand". I agree with O'Malley that the rule should add the text: This rule is intended to detect possible collusion, and the requesting player must be able to substantiate the reason for asking to see a hand.
Now, there is a way to avoid allowing someone to exercise this oft-abused rule to see the hand: always make sure your the cards are fully mixed in with other discards. You thus take advantage of a another rule from Robert's rules: Looking through the discards or deck stub is not allowed. So, if you cards are mixed in with other discards, no one, even the dealer, can go through and find the hand. Since reading O'Malley's article, I have been particularly careful to get my hands squarely mixed in when possible, but had not been as careful with this at Greg's game, since it used to be less like a casino. As I've written about before, since Greg's place has become more like a casino, I've been doing my standard casino play more often.
People have, over the years, discovered that asking to see a "called hand" (more on that in a moment) is a great way to confirm reads. They've stretched a rule beyond its intent, as O'Malley points out. I believe stretching the other rule in my unorthodox way counter-balances the other rule stretching. I hope that O'Malley's suggestions will be adopted in more places (he mentions one Las Vegas casino has already done so), and then we can declare a truce and end the rule-stretching on both sides. I urge Greg, in particular, to adopt O'Malley's modified rule.
I should note, finally, that I question whether or not the rule, even as written and notwithstanding the changes O'Malley proposes, actually allow one to see any hand that makes it to showdown. It specifically mentions a "called hand", but I find no definition in Robert's Rules of what a "called hand" is. Prima facie, I would assume a "called hand" was one whose holder was the last to take aggressive action. This would mean the rule would apply only in very rare cases -- when the caller (the person who called the last bet or raise) showed her hand very quickly and the aggressor mucked her hand before showing it. Of course, this isn't the current interpretation of the rule; most players and dealers these days believe that a "called hand" is defined as "any hand that is still in play at the showdown". I'm going to write to O'Malley and Ciaffone to ask about this point and see what they think.
A Rule That Warrants Careful Compliance
There are, however, some hand-showing rules that I think are very good. I urge players to go above and beyond the requirements to comply with this particular rule: If there is wagering on the final betting round, the last player to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show the hand. This rule says, in other words, "if you were the last person to be aggressive on the last betting round, you show first".
I think this is a great rule. Part of poker is catching bluffs, and when you are "caught" over-betting your hand, you should be "caught" having to show it. Many players try to angle-shoot a bit by avoiding showing the hand until others do, even if they were the last aggressor and are thus required by rule to show first. Indeed, some players will even call out a entire class of hands, like "one pair", and see if anyone tables two pair, a straight or a flush. Thus, they can muck without showing despite their final aggressive act.
I think such behavior is annoying, but should be reluctantly tolerated. However, being myself someone who really looks for ways to interpret the rules that are in the best interest of the game, I try to act in a way that seems to be in its best interest. People should be allowed to muck without being asked to see their hand, but I believe we'd have less of this "let me see that hand (to confirm my read)" crap if everyone in the game always knew that the last bettor just won't get away with mucking. Strict observance of the showdown rules can actually have a great preventative measure, and that's why I try to observe them, even if I get a bit unorthodox when someone exercises the controversial "show all called hands" rule against me.
For me, it all goes back to Kantian ethics: "make every action as if, by acting, you were to will it into universal law". If everyone asked to see every "called hand", the game would grind to a halt, and, as O'Malley points out, a lot of the interesting deception aspects would be gone. Meanwhile, if everyone tabled their hands in perfect order at showdown as outlined by the rules of poker, the game would run faster, and the need to make use of the controversial rule would diminish.
Perhaps an Online/In-Person Cultural Mismatch?
I should make a quick final note to point out that part of this controversy may get worse as the worlds of online poker and in-person poker clash. Most online sites will provide upon electronic request from any dealt-in player a full hand history, which includes the details of all mucked hands that made it to showdown. I presume that online sites do this since the only "online way" to comply with Robert's Rules; the dealer is "virtual", ergo the "let me see that hand" request is a mouse-click.
The cultural clash occurs when online players, who are used to the fast-paced nature of online information, enter live games and feel like their usual tools aren't handy. The best we can do to mitigate this problem is educate players that online poker and live poker, while sharing many important similarities, still have huge differences and must be treated differently.