Imagine the days when poker was fi rst played. You are probably picturing something out of a western: a smoke filled room either in a saloon or on a riverboat, six-shooters concealed on every player, a couple of professional hustlers claiming to be novices, and at least one player trying to cheat everyone out of their money. I used to think all that stuff from movies like Maverick and The Cincinnati Kid was so absurd, but I’ve since heard some stories fi rsthand from guys like Doyle Brunson.

It’s crazy to think that poker used to be this seedy game full of shady characters who would cheat you over the antes if they ever got the chance. Since then, the game has evolved a great deal. The WSOP fi rst put the spotlight on some of the best players and added a great deal of prestige to the game. As its popularity soared over the years, the stereotype of poker being a game for lowlifes has disappeared. Nowadays everyone and their mother is playing either in casinos or online for real money. However, even though poker has become a mainstream hobby, the rules and standards of the game have not fi nished evolving.

I think sites like PokerStars and organizations like the Tournament Directors Association have done a great job of setting up rules and standards for poker. However, there are still a few areas that are unclear and a few double standards that can be very unfair. In this article I’m going to talk about some of these issues and possible solutions.

Since the inception of online poker, the importance of the ‘1 account per player’ rule has changed a lot. Years ago, PartyPoker set a very poor precedent. In those days, you could only play four tables at a time unless you had multiple accounts. Most players would set up accounts on Empire and Eurobet (skins of Party that shared tables) to get past the four table limit. Even players that only played four or fewer tables created multiple accounts to take advantage of ever-increasing rakeback offers. Finally, Eurobet had a very popular mod that would let you play multiple accounts at a time. A large number of pros set up three or more Eurobet accounts to play twelve tables and get the highest rakeback. At this time there were no high stakes games and thousands of players at every limit. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, had a problem with players using multiple accounts (provided of course that they weren’t in the same tournament or at the same table).

Since then, things have changed drastically. With sites coming out with higher and higher stakes, the player pools are getting smaller and smaller. There are a couple dozen regulars in these games, and they all know how the others play. It would be extremely profi table for any one of them to create a new account with a secret name. They would be able to exploit the other players’ tendencies without being susceptible themselves. Perhaps even more importantly, there are some high stakes heads-up players that are so good that they can’t even fi nd any opponents. They could make up new secret screen names to play against people that would normally refuse to play against them. However, they don’t (for the most part). Why not? Despite being acceptable to use multiple accounts a few years ago, it has become clear that it is no longer okay in today’s games.

The sites, however, are lagging behind on this issue. One high stakes player was banned for this on PokerStars about a year ago. The player constantly used different account names so that he would get action despite being a very tight player. PokerStars gave him fi ve or six warnings. Eventually, they felt they had no choice and decided to ban him permanently. About a year and a half ago, Full Tilt took a different approach. They made a list of all their players with multiple accounts and sent them all an email informing them they were breaking the Terms of Service. (Yes, the sites are more aware than you may think. This is not hard information for them to obtain in over 90% of cases). The players were allowed to keep their original accounts and the rest were closed with all of the money being transferred to their main account.

Around this point in time the high stakes community was generally in agreement that it was no longer okay to use different names, especially to deceive your opponents. Unfortunately, a few players continued to do this. Even more unfortunately, little was done to deter these players from trying it again. Patrik Antonius has openly admitted (and he’s just one of many examples of this) that he created the “Luigi66369” account in addition to his “Findagrind” account in order to get action from players that wouldn’t knowingly give him action. There are several high stakes players that currently share accounts and switch back and forth with each other to constantly make their opponents guess who is currently on the account.

It is my belief that sites need to set up a system of penalties for players to deter them from continuing to use multiple accounts. The key to this is to create a set of mid-range penalties. For example, I talked about the player on PokerStars who was given fi ve to six warnings before being banned. Instead of giving him the fi rst warning, his account should have been suspended for two weeks. Instead of the second warning, his account should have been suspended for two months, and so on. And for FTP, I completely understand not wanting to penalize a well-liked, high-profi le player like Patrik Antonius. However, a short-term suspension would have been an extremely lenient punishment while still making it known that famous players will not get special treatment.

Furthermore, there are many players out there that don’t care much about fair play and ethics. While widespread bannings would be too harsh for a site to hand out, these shortterm suspensions would go a long way towards deterring these actions.

The same problematic penalty system exists in live poker. There are warnings and then severe punishments without much in the middle. I was talking to Barry Greenstein recently and he is advocating a change to the tournament directors’ rules. He (and many others) was fed up with how players would muck their cards out of turn before a tournament break in order to get away from the table faster. This isn’t severe enough for a major penalty, so it’s just ignored. Barry suggested giving the players a one hand penalty when this happens. Personally I think this is a great idea. It’s just a tiny punishment meant to discourage players from constantly acting out of turn. It’s unlikely that it will ever severely screw someone over.

Recently, I was very happy to see that Phil Hellmuth was handed a penalty at the WSOP. He is constantly berating other players and trying to induce action when he’s not even involved in the hand. Both of these are huge no-nos in tournament poker. I have personally called the fl oor on him on two separate occasions where a penalty was 100% deserved, and in both cases the fl oor ruled in his favor. Since I have seen many penalties handed out for far less, I can only assume no penalty was given because of his high stature.

Unfortunately, Phil argued against this recent penalty. The fl oor decided that this behavior had gone on so many times that it was unfair to penalize Phil without fi rst giving him a warning. I’m sorry, but this is an atrocious decision. Phil has played enough tournaments to know that it is not okay to call your opponent an idiot over and over for playing poorly. I have been playing live tournaments for two years straight, and I have never once called an opponent an idiot. I’m practically half his age with a tenth of the live tournament experience he has, but I still have the common sense to decide what constitutes unsportsmanlike conduct.

I am singling out Phil here, but I have seen several other famous players receive some inexcusable leniency. I think tournament directors need to realize that these are the players that are setting examples. They (and I’m willing to include myself in this category) should be held to even higher standards and punished faster. If you have played in a thousand live tournaments, you shouldn’t need a warning for the most obvious rule infractions. By giving these players free passes, the tournament directors are just encouraging everyone to bend the rules.

Part of this problem stems from vague and poorly enforced rules. At a WSOP event last month, there was a rules argument about how much you could say during a hand. Although I was not involved in the argument, I informed one of the players that it is technically against the rules to talk about a hand in progress – AT ALL. You can’t even say, “I have a big hand,” or “I know you have nothing”. The player didn’t believe me, and called the fl oor to ask if that was true. The fl oor informed him that I was indeed correct. That is a rule in most tournaments across the country, including the WSOP. The fl oor man continued to explain that the rule is so often ignored by the players that they intentionally do not enforce it.

To me, this is appalling. If it’s a bad rule, get rid of it. If it’s a good rule, enforce it. Leaving bad rules in place only punishes the innocent players while rewarding the guilty. Clearly this is not a good thing, and unfortunately the rule about discussing hands in progress is just one of many examples of it.

Personally, I believe the key to solving these problems is for the players to voice their opinions. Take the cell phone rule for example. In the past, if you were at the table and received a text message, you would get a penalty just for reading it, even if you weren’t involved in a hand. Fortunately, so many players complained about this rule that at the WSOP this year the cell phone rule was, “there is no cell phone rule.”

Just remember, the poker sites and tournament ruling associations are there to serve and protect you. Next time you hear about an unfair or vague ruling, make sure you voice your opinion. Let them know there is a problem. Many rules have evolved as a direct result of players’ demands. Although the rules have come a long way, there is still a lot of room for improvement.