Bingo Players Should Not Be Banned


There it is.

I enjoy this site because I don’t know any better. I may be stupid, but I make up for it by being really dumb!




Probably the best way to understand an approach to playing poker is to play with that approach.

So, if you don’t get why players shove all-in every hand, try it. Learn from it. Modify it. Incorporate it.

You’re not going to change people’s behavior by appealing to the staff, or by writing about it here. The only way to deal with a strategy you don’t like is to figure out how to beat it. With all in pre-flop every hand, that’s pretty do-able. It’s not a great strategy.


I mean, if you don’t like all-in preflop betting, the other option is to not play NL. Play pot-limit and you’ll never see this problem. Maybe that’s the game for you.


It’s worth contemplating:

Everyone who loses in a tournament will go all-in at least once.

The winner may go all-in, perhaps many times.

But a player who never goes all in from start to finish in a tournament must be the champion.


Apples and oranges @puggywug

All in preflop as a strategy vs All in preflop as bingo.

Very true, except that bingo is not a strategy.

I respectfully disagree. There are many incidents where abusive behavior was changed by appealing to staff, and even by writing about it here. But again, we’re only talking about abusive behavior, not occasional preflop all ins.

Maybe a real life example can clarify my point:
We were playing a tournament at a 9 seat table, when Mr Bingo started shoving all in preflop every single hand. Everybody kept folding. This kept getting repeated for about 15 hands, until one player contacted a moderator who was online. The moderator came to the table and watched the game for another 15 hands where Mr Bingo kept doing the same thing. Mr Bingo was warned and left the tourney. The game resumed and was finally a normal poker game for everyone. Of course people are gonna go all in preflop, winners or losers, good players or bad players. But abusive behavior is just abusive behavior.


Last week I saw this for the 1st time when some guy was doing the same thing every hand and was rocketing up the leaderboard… then all of a sudden he was greyed out for the rest of the tourney…some mod was johnny on the spot and we all appreciated it :slightly_smiling_face:


And now, lets go to our own Norman Chad to pick up on a controversy brewing at one of our outer tables. What’s going on Norman?

Chad: Well, just when you thought you saw all there was to see here at the WSOP Main Event, something new has come up. David Peters has asked the tournament director to come to the table and address what he has called “abusive behavior” by Cheeno Rheem. It seems the Cheeno has been making bet sizes that Peters finds frustrating. Peters is asking that Rheem be removed from the game so that the rest of the players aren’t subjected to what he calls “a clear case of unsportsmanlike behavior”. For his part, Rheem is laughing and muttering about Peters being something normally associated with cats or willows.

I would pay for a years subscription to PokerGo if they could promise me I’d hear anything like this at some point during the year.

@Maya and @GrandyB - I think you are both really nice people and enjoy speaking with you in these forums. However, what you have both described has made me lose a ton of respect for this site. It was bad enough that this rule was written in the 1st place but to find that it was actually enforced makes me ill. I don’t even have the words to describe what I think about this. “Obscene” comes to mind. The thought of the house creating arbitrary standards that directly conflict with the standard rules of the game diminishes this sites credibility, IMO. No one has the right not to be frustrated or to force other players to play the game as they would want them to. That isn’t poker. I get that this type of play is unenjoyable and frustrating but that isn’t a valid reason to ban it.


@Grandy, @1Warlock,

Just to clarify, if a player is showing grey it is not due to any action by a moderator, it is because he is sitting out.

Hope this helps


If a player is doing the same things consistently then it’s a strategy. They may not be thinking about it as a strategy - they may not be thinking about what they’re doing at all. Ultimately we can’t know what’s inside another player’s head so we just have to look at their collected actions and figure out the best way to beat them given what they’re doing.


For all I know the guy just decided to leave (and maybe that’s why he was playing so foolishly).
My point being, I feel there’s a huge difference in being aggressive and going all in occasionally but to simply ruin the game for others intentionally and there’s obviously zero poker strategy (especially at a tourney where you can’t leave) merits a rule.


definitely helps, thanks!


Yep. Same here. He was told to respect others and he decided to leave the game. He wasn’t banned.

I disagree. Repeating patterns doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a strategy. You said it yourself:

That is not a strategy.

I couldn’t agree more. And that is the best possible way to deal with such players.

But again, when there is abuse, it’s worth pointing it out. It doesn’t have to lead to a ban, but no harm in making it clear to the abuser that everyone at their table is no longer enjoying the game due to their careless behavior. If they decide to leave, so be it. If they decide to stay and play poker, even better. But if they decide to stay and keep doing what they’re doing, well then I guess it’s best to wait for the right moment and bust them out, but it usually doesn’t happen without casualties in tournaments.


Doing the same thing repeatedly is by definition a strategy. It’s not necessarily a deliberate strategy, a thought-out strategy or a good strategy.

If they’re betting within the rules of the game then it’s not abuse. If players at the table don’t like how someone is betting then it’s up to them to show that it’s bad play.



  • a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
  • A method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem
  • A high-level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty.

“Doing the same thing repeatedly” is not a strategy at all by definition. It could, in some cases, be a strategy, if it’s planned (as per the actual definition of a strategy), but when it’s just random, unplanned, and baseless, it’s not a strategy, especially not by definition.

That’s where the controversy is. If there is a timer to make a move, and someone uses it up every single time in a manner that annoys everyone, is it abuse? The option is allowed by the rules, but overusing it could be considered as abuse. The same goes for the all in option. It’s there, it’s allowed, it’s within the rules. But if you overuse it, is it abuse or not? I guess this is where the opinions split. Obviously you and I are at opposite sides on this one.

True. That’s how we’re all dealing with this issue anyway.

By the way, just to be clear, I’m only going by your definition of bingo players, the constant preflop all ins, not the general definition of a weak player who makes bad decisions.


Your opponent’s strategy is whatever process they’re using to decide their actions in the game.

Even taking random actions IS a strategy. If we are playing rock, paper, scissors instead of poker then choosing at random is an unbeatable strategy.

If a player can figure out that always using all their time (or always going all in or whatever else) is annoying to you and may put you on tilt then it actually seems like a reasonable tactic to do it.


True. But when they don’t know what they’re doing, like you said before, it’s not a strategy. Planned random action is a strategy. Unplanned actions where you don’t know what you’re doing is not a strategy. And that’s by definition, not an opinion.

It’s an offense and is subject to moderation, so I guess even by the rules it’s considered abuse and not an acceptable tactic.

You’re basically defending and encouraging abusive behavior by saying it’s a tactic. Many things can irritate and annoy without actually being offenses. The extremes that we are pointing out however, are not acceptable tactics, again not just by personal opinion standards, but by site rules.


I see in the rules that using all your time to provoke someone is against the rules, in which case I agree that it should not be encouraged.

I also see that “bingo” play is against the rules but the rules do not actually define what is considered bingo play.


Why? Why do your feelings matter at all when it comes to playing poker? Even if they mattered, why would they matter more than the other player’s? Maybe he enjoys that style of play? Maybe that’s the only thing he knows how to do? Its his chips so why can’t he do what he wants with them within the normal rules of the game? I’m not trying to be rude but I reject communities where any rules or laws are made because of someone’s feelings. People don’t have the right to be comfortable or happy or unchallenged. People don’t have the right to dictate what others may or may not do based upon their personal feelings. Personal freedom can only exist with personal responsibility.

I’m an objectivist. As such, I don’t place much stock in subjective matters like feelings or beliefs. My happiness is not dependent upon what others may or may not do. I reject the premise that you or me or anyone can be forced by rule to take responsibility for anyone else’s feelings or sense of well-being. I may prefer that you are happy but I don’t accept responsibility for making that so. Does that make sense?

I cannot support any rule that is based purely on subjective criteria. If you are given a 20-second clock, then you have 20 seconds to act, period. Use it all or use some - its your time to use as you see fit. That is a rule made with objective standards and the need to place some time constraints on people to keep games moving along. An add-on rule saying that you can’t use all your clock too often is arbitrary and therefore I reject it. Same thing as betting limits in no-limit games. Once you have established that there is no-limit to what you can bet, any rule constraining the frequency of any bet size is arbitrary. I like rules and think everything works better with rules. I differentiate between rules based upon objective measures and those that are based only on someone’s feelings about what “too much” means.

ADDED: This is one of my favorite quotes because it is so perfectly moral: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” - John Galt in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Objectivity is freedom, which I value greatly. Individuals have an inalienable right to pursue their own happiness based on their own values and they must be free to pursue their own self-interest as they choose. People have no obligations to each other beyond the obligation to respect the freedom and rights of other self-interested people.