As poker becomes more popular and more mainstream, we should hope that the rules and regulations that govern the game will start to become more uniform and consistent.
One rule that seems to be making its way into the higher-limit sections of poker rooms around the world states: "Any player who has posted his/her blinds will be dealt in for every hand of the following round." Obviously, the wording used in each room might be somewhat different from this, but the gist of the rule dictates that a player who has paid both blinds will be dealt in for every hand leading up to the next big blind, no matter what.
There are a few different reasons why this rule was first put into effect, and there are reasons why it has become quite popular lately. But, in my opinion, the rule is a bad one, and should not be used.
I wanted to find out why some rooms use this rule, so I talked to a few poker room managers and a few floorpeople. The prevailing reason for using this rule is that it eliminates the problem of someone thinking he was going to be dealt in but wasn't, or eliminates the need for the dealer to have to ask if a player wants to be dealt in. Usually this happens after a player has gone broke; the dealer has to ask the player if he wants to be dealt in, which leads to his asking how much the player is playing behind, and so on.
Recently, I was playing in a top-section Omaha game when the following happened: Bob had gone broke, and got up from his chair and tucked a $1 chip under the rail, indicating that he was coming back.
The dealer dealt the next hand and did not deal Bob in. Jim (a regular in this poker room) told the dealer to stop dealing, as she had to deal Bob in. The dealer, realizing she had made a mistake, brought the cards back and started to shuffle again.
Chris, a semiregular in this poker room, said Bob wasn't to be dealt in because he didn't leave any money on the table. Jim said he did in fact leave $1 on the table, and because he left money on the table, he was supposed to be dealt in. Realizing that this was a ridiculous argument, the dealer dealt Bob in (I later found out that she was supposed to do so).
Jim told me the rule states that if a player leaves money on the table and walks away, he shall be dealt in. I mentioned to him that the $1 chip was there only to lock up the seat, and that $1 chips didn't play in the game we were in. He told me that it doesn't matter – as long as there is any money on the table, the player shall be dealt in.
I simply didn't believe this to be true, so after I mucked my hand, I called the floorman over and asked him about the rule that they used in this situation. He told me the rule simply states that every player who posts both blinds will be dealt in every hand during the following round up to his next big blind.
This made sense to me and I understood the rule that this particular room uses, but I still didn't like it. Why should a player who has no intention of playing the hand be dealt in?
It is my opinion that a player who is not seated at the table when the first card is dealt should not be dealt in to the hand. There are too many problems that can arise from a player walking up behind someone who's in the hand and seeing that player's cards; also, it slows down the game when everyone has to wait for a player to look at his hand because he wasn't at the table.
The only logical reason to deal someone in who isn't at the table is to allow them to come back to the table and play the hand. To me, however, this isn't a good reason to deal someone in.
I am not always set in my beliefs on certain rules, and I believe this is one of those rules about which I could be persuaded to change my mind – but it would take some good arguments to convince me.
If you have a reason why this rule is good, send me an e-mail and let me know. Until then, I am all for "not dealing to nobody."
Editor's note: Michael O'Malley can usually be found playing online at partypoker.com as Rzitup. To learn more about him, go to www.rzitup.com.