Rules

3. Rules

The good player shuns fixed poker rules. He does, however, provide equitable and consistent solutions to poker problems because such a policy—

  • decreases rule problems and arguments
  • increases acceptance of complex games and modifications
  • increases his control over the game
  • improves his image as a fair and desirable player
  • increases his invitations to other games
  • establishes him as judge and arbiter of all poker problems
  • increases his ability to control the house rules.

Poker, unlike other card games, is not subject to rigid rules. Published rules and the various “Hoyles” on poker are merely descriptions of conventions. Strict adherence to any set of poker rules produces an array of contradictions and inequities. By avoiding reference to Hoyle or to any fixed rules, and by consistently interpreting poker situations and equitably resolving poker problems, the good player can gain control of the rules.

a. Modified rules

The rules found in poker books fail to cover many situations, especially in games involving split pots, twists, and other, more complex modifications. To cover the many ruleless situations, the good player equitably formulates new rules (actually, he formulates flexible guidelines rather than rules). He will then consistently follow the guidelines, even when that costs him money. Why would he do something that costs him money? Because in the long run, such a policy delivers major financial benefits by giving him control of the rules. Furthermore, he can from time to time remind everyone of the money he has lost because of his “fairness,” which reinforces everyone’s confidence in him as the controller of the rules.

b. Disputed plays (70)

Because the good player interprets the rules consistently and fairly, his opponents implicitly trust him and depend on him to resolve disputed plays and technical problems about poker. Typical approaches he uses in settling commonly disputed plays are summarized in Table 21.

Note: These approaches are for private games. Approaches for public games (casino and club poker) may be entirely different. See Part six for information on public poker.

The approaches in Table 21 provide clear and consistent solutions to disputes that commonly occur, especially in complex games involving split pots and twists.

c. Inequitable rules

The good player may favor a chronic loser with an inequitable rule interpretation in order to keep him in the game (to everyone’s benefit). Yet, he interprets and applies a rule with favorable bias toward a loser only if the financial value of that loser outweighs the financial value of interpreting all rules consistently and equitably.

d. House rules

House rules are very important to the good player. They concern betting and playing procedures plus any other rules the players wish to adopt. The house rules determine not only the game stakes but also the game pace.

Since most players fail to differentiate between the house rules and poker rules, they often let the good player control the house rules because of his fairness in interpreting poker rules. Important house rules that the good player seeks to control and manipulate concern—

  • stakes and antes
  • games permitted
  • rules for betting (e.g., betting limits for each round, table stakes, pot limit)
  • rules for raising (e.g., pick-up checks, check raising)
  • treatment of discards to be redealt (such as placing unshuffled discards on the bottom of the deck)
  • courtesies (such as showing noncalled hands and hole cards).

The good player avoids well-defined or written rules to retain the flexibility needed to change the rules when advantageous.

In the Monday night game, John Finn verbally insists on adhering to the rules, but he carefully avoids any reference to specific rules. Instead, he mediates all disputes fairly, even when it costs him the pot. In his black notebook, he records his rule interpretations and dispute settlements. As a book of law, he refers to those entries in settling future problems. The entries in which he loses money are marked by big stars and recorded in accurate detail. He remembers those entries, and at every appropriate opportunity he reminds everyone how his honest rule interpretations cost him money. Of course, he never mentions the interpretations that favored him.

With his consistent policy of “integrity”, John wins the confidence of the players. They know he is fair— everyone trusts him. They ask him to settle disputes, and they abide by his decisions. They accept him as the controller of the rules. Failing to realize that the poker rules bear no relationship to the house rules, they let John’s influence spill into the house rules, thereby giving him a key tool for controlling the game.

Using his influence over the rules, John slowly alters and then obliterates the original house rules. In the Monday night game, the original house rules allowed a maximum bet of $1 and permitted only straight draw and stud games . . . $50 winners were rare. Now $100 bets are made in draw. Wild and splitpot games with twists prevail. Thousand-dollar winners are common. After six years of controlling the rules, John increased his edge odds from 35 percent to 65 percent, and his profits soared from $2,500 to $42,000 per year.