Is It Time to Change the Rules: Negreanu Fired up Twitter Before Xmas

What Poker Rules Changes Negreanu Is Ready to Vote for?

On December 21st, 2024 Daniel Negreanu posted on X (ex-Twitter) his own list of poker rule changes he would vote for:

Poker rule changes I would vote for:

1. No face covering of any sort.

2. No Sunglasses.

3. If a player bets 90% or more of their stack, it is an all in.

4. No card protectors allowed on the table.

-Improve player/viewer experience

-Protect the game

— Daniel Negreanu (@RealKidPoker) December 21, 2024

All these changes are needed to “improve player/viewer experience” and “protect the game”.

For the most part, players agreed with Rules #1 and #2 although even this wasn’t unanimous. For example, Dylan Wiseman noted that sunglasses must surely stay as they are now:

“No sunglasses rule is brutal for venues that have bright lights. During Bahamas the main table stage would shine bright lights in your face which is not exactly great for people with light sensitivity.”

Negreanu suggested that people can wear “the ones where you can still see your eyes, RA Optics or whatever else” but Dylan didn’t agree with him:

“Even those aren’t great for people with legit migraines / light sensitivity. Also would be terrible for FTs”

A few players were surprised to see “no card protectors” on the list. They asked Negreanu what the problem with them was, only for him to explain it as a way to prevent cheating:

Tiny cameras can be placed inside card protectors and see the cards being dealt.

Nothing outside of chips and cards should be on the table.

— Daniel Negreanu (@RealKidPoker) December 21, 2024

With Rules #1 and #2 mostly cleared up, it was time to debate Rule #3, where the most fiery discussions flared up.

Literally Everyone Became Pissed About Rule #3

When poker players saw the “If a player bets 90% or more of their stack, it is an all in” rule — they became almost furious in their attempts to explain why Negreanu is wrong here.

A lot of players noted that this change doesn’t make sense for the No Limit format — and Negreanu rushed to respond that stirred some of them up even more:

No limit Hold’em isn’t actually no limit.

If the big blind is 3000, you are not allowed to bet 2000 on the flop.

If a player bets 5000 on the flop, you are not allowed to make it 8000, unless you are all in.

We call it no limit… but there are limits.

— Daniel Negreanu (@RealKidPoker) December 22, 2024

People were instantly baited: they started posting tweets such as “No limit up to how much you have in front of you. There are minimums though” or “No-limit Holdem with restrictions just doesn’t have a ring to it” and even “Almost no limit holdem“.

Luckily, this discussion didn’t attract as much attention as Rule #3. Contrary to what you might think, it wasn’t just poker trolls but even well-respected players who spent some time commenting on Negreanu’s offers. A few were even concerned enough to start a real conversation with Negreanu. We selected to most interesting back-and-forths.

Jason Koon vs Daniel Negreanu

One of the most respected modern poker players Jason Koon couldn’t pass by this discussion and brought his 5 cents:

Koon: You will see a lot of river bets that equal 89% of the effective stack.

Negreanu: That’s still quite an improvement because angles will be more difficult to shoot if a player has to leave a few chips behind rather than one on their cards that is easy miss.

Koon: I haven’t seen people angle in this way, they are just making a higher EV play. I understand your sentiment but you can’t expect players to not make the bet that wins the most money, right?

If people are hiding a chip it’s a problem. If they are leaving it in plain sight it’s their opponent’s responsibility.

Negreanu: What about a chip on their cards?

That’s what happened with the pro example. 

Mario kept a chip back on his cards, Jaffe didn’t see it. 

Turned his hand up. Rivered the best hand. 

To Mario’s credit he 100% wasn’t shooting the angle and put the chip in on the turn but didn’t have to. 

Currently, there is no situation where you shouldn’t leave a chip back (unless you have the nuts), even in level one if you get the freeroll free look occasionally.

Koon: That’s on Jaffe and I’m sure he would agree. Like I said I sympathize with what youre expressing but people aren’t making these bets to angle people to turn their cards over, they are making the bets because they win the most money.

Negreanu: They sure do. Especially when you get an amateur to turn his cards up and get to play perfectly!

Definitely makes the most money haha. 

If everyone thinks this should be a part of the game, well ok then, I’m in!

New poker training video idea: “Always leave a chip behind in case your opponent misses it and you get to fuck him” 😂

I got dibs.

Brian Rast vs Daniel Negreanu

Brian Rast started the discussion by supporting three of the four rules from Negreanu excluding Rule #3 because “don’t like this rule. Think status quo is better”.

Negreanu tried to explain his position with the following response:

“Twice in 3 days I saw #3 used as essentially a legal angle. 

1. On turn player bets 2 million leaving back a 5k. Other player doesn’t see the chip back, calls, turns hand up. Hits the river, guy gets to save the chip

2. FT guy jams all but a chip. BB calls and shows his hand. Flops the guy dead, he gets to keep his chip and play for a bb ante

It’s a total freeroll and typically exploits the non pro.

Just feels icky.”

It became a starting point for even more detailed discussion:

Rast: I hear you,  but there are very good reasons to leave something back that has nothing to do with angling. I think there is a responsibility on the dealer and other player as well here.

I think you create an artificial line at 90% that people will try to use, and now things are more complicated.

It’s much easier for dealers and players to learn whether someone is allin and not make the change you advocate.

Getting burned here once also isn’t that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. And sometimes life teaches lessons.

I think this is a bad way to change the game – and I can also see complications around the 90% line that become annoying in practice.

Negreanu: Other option is to put it on the dealer to announce the player still has chips behind but that feels like it may be a bit too much for the dealer. 

Not sure of the perfect rule but it’s just a freeroll to try and trick someone into flipping their hand.

Rast: With bb ante & ICM the value of saving something, even one chip, is worth way more than betting it. You know this also Daniel.

You know the reason most people save it is not to angle.

Again once someone is burned once here, someone will be careful moving forward.

Don’t think this part of the game tree should be removed. I understand your argument and while it isn’t without merit at all, I have to put up a hard disagree here.

Negreanu: 24 second shot clock didn’t need to be added to the NBA. 

When you had the lead the correct strategy was to just run the clock. 

It wasn’t good for the game so they changed the rule. 

Level the playing field and working towards eliminating this specific strategic play, I think is an over plus for the viewer and especially the casual players who rarely use this ploy correctly if at all. 

Does leaving a chip behind for pay jump stalling make this a better game?

I mean do you think we are ever gonna see viral highlights of a guy holding a chip back and burning timebanks and people being like “Wow what a play! This is really

exciting stuff! He is gonna waste 3 minutes but might make another $1284!”

It’s good strategy but it’s also lame.

Benny Glaser vs Daniel Negreanu

The last tweet from Daniel to Brian Rast attracted attention of Benny Glaser who took over the baton and continued discussion from the point of “lame strategy”:

Glaser: There are several things in several areas that would probably be considered as “good strategies but also lame”.

It’s not like people always have to cater everything to a potential viewing audience.

Doesn’t mean that they should just be removed as an option imo.

Negreanu: I agree with all that. 

But in this specific case there is a victim getting freerolled and is typically a non pro. 

It incentivizes people to take the freeroll by doing whatever they can to make it look like an all in, while hiding that one pesky chip. 

I saw it work twice in the last 3 days there.

Glaser: Do you think that in both of those cases the people left a chip back with the main reason of trying to angle/freeroll someone into possibly showing their hand?

If so then that’s obviously not OK. But really that’s rarely the case. 

I normally make it clear that I’m not all-in.

Negreanu: Main reason or among the reasons?

I am sure in the first hand it wasn’t the case since Mario threw the chip in anyway when he didn’t have to. 

In the second, you would have to ask @shaundeeb if that played any role. 

Considering it was an FT and stalling for a pay jump wasn’t on the table I don’t think he was ever putting in 700k preflop and folding for 15k even if two players went all in. 

As I said in my VLOG, I don’t think there is anything morally wrong with it and it is a decision that rewards the highest EV. I get that. 

I’m not accusing anyone doing it of being shady in any way, but I would hope smart minds can figure out a better way to handle it so that this loophole isn’t an option. 

When it happens, it can have a major effect on FT play. 

Example:

Player on button left with one chip because other player didn’t see and put it in preflop. 

Now every other short stack is handcuffed from an ICM perspective until this player puts the chip in. 

I am not suggesting it is unfair, it is an option for all to utilize. 

Much like how stalling rewards the highest ROI, but hurts the structure and game, we created solutions (shot clock) to address it to improve the game. 

I don’t have a great solution, but I think there has to be some good idea out there to stop it.

Glaser: ICM-handcuffing situation I wouldn’t say is unfair, it’s (maybe unfortunately) just part of the game.

And it can kind of work both ways.

Just this week for example, on the FT of the $50k PLO, I had 390k left on the flop, and Ben T purposefully bet 385k.

And then we checked it.

Negreanu: I literally said in the post that it isn’t unfair. 

Only that it does affect more than just the player who didn’t see the chip, especially at an FT. 

Has a significant effect on play until that chip goes in.

Glaser: Fair. Yes.

But it sounds like you’re saying that something having a significant impact on play is inherently bad/a negative, and that should be fixed.

Negreanu: Not just “something”

This. 

Another something:

Stalling. We all agree it’s both bad for the game while also being a profitable strategy. 

So, we do something about it by having shot clocks. 

Check raising has a significant impact on the game too, but I’m ok with it.

Chris Brewer vs Daniel Negreanu

Chris Brewer saw Negreanu’s change of Rule #3 somewhat frivolous and even mocked it a little:

New rule proposition for poker, if my opponent plays a strategy I don’t like tournaments have to change the rules to ban said strat. I mean think about the recreationals, poker is meant to be bingo not a strategy game!

— Chris Brewer (@Chris_D_Brewer) December 22, 2024

This tweet started a heated discussion between them:

Negreanu: Stalling is a profitable strategy that nobody likes, and is bad for the game. 

So we work towards fixing it with shot clocks to improve the experience for all. 

No one likes a guy putting 99% of his stack in, then using 5 minutes of the clock hoping for a pay jump. 

It’s both a smart strategy, and also all around bad for the game. 

That is never exciting and a shitshow for a broadcast to explain what they are watching.

Brewer: That’s a different argument than shouldn’t be allowed to leave chips back. Could easily institute a rule that you can never use more than one time bank if you have less than 1bb behind after betting 🤷‍♂️

Negreanu: It isn’t a different argument. It is part of this specific argument that the practice, while profitable, has a few icky issues associated with it. 

A la the angle shooting freeroll on the turn. 

Keeping one back with river bets has no downside. Just smart. 

Keeping one back for pay jumps, is smart but incentivizes stalling.

Keeping one back on the turn or prior, leads to freeroll angle shooting opportunity, which is smart, but kind of shitty.

I would bet a large sum of money that in 2025 I can get at LEAST 5 people to turn their hand over while I still have a chip back. I saw it happen twice in 3 days in Bahamas, first one was two pros.

Brewer: Ok? I could say “I’m calling” everytime I call and prob get someone to fold thinking I jammed. Should we ban verbal action?

Negreanu: If dealer hears you say “I’m calling” the players hand is live.

Brewer: One back on turn or prior has the same utility as river though if vs a chip leader. They are often incentivized to check it down with you to create larger icm pressure on field.

Negreanu: It has the same utility in some, but not all cases. 

Level 2, leaving a chip back on river has no immediate ICM impact on gameplay, but the chip is still worth more held back. 

It’s worth EVEN MORE if you ever get an opponent to expose their hand prematurely.

Brewer: Leaving a chip back does have icm impact though? Thats why the chip is worth more.

Negreanu: In level 2, it doesn’t affect gameplay significantly. 

No short stacks are waiting for the player with one chip to bust. 

That is a significant impact, that isn’t present in level 2 at all.

Photo Credit: Danny Kim & Hayley Hochstetler

Adam Hendrix Offered His Thoughts on the Poker Rules Changes

Inspired by Negreanu’s ideas, Adam Hendrix posted a list of his own thoughts and suggestions about some rules in live poker:

1. For rule #3 could keep that one preflop…but there are situations people can raise most stack and fold at FTs so to help with that…
2. How about final tables with set number hands instead of time.
3. Would say should be a penalty for people that leave chips behind but try to hide or don’t obviously show the chips left.
4. I would say the rule that you can’t talk about your hand when headsup should be gone. Can use discretion and think ppl can logically tell if collusion is happening. But feel we miss a good part of the game. 
5. In shot clock tournaments if it is clear and obvious a person is covered and been shoved on they don’t get to get a count as a loophole to get more time. (Dont apply this preflop)
6. In shot clock tournaments, time banks shall not be thrown to get reaction (hard to implement).
7. BBA should be reduced when short handed and HU.
8. On the tournament clock add in next payjump feature that shows ie 53rd: 24k, current payout 20k, the time, blind up announcement rather than floor saying and sometimes being delayed.
9. Dealers develop the sliding pitch as too many dealers deal high and ppl low to table can see cards.

Negreanu came to his comment to discuss it a little and this discussion led to an interesting turn:

Negreanu: I saw it used on the turn. 

All in, one chip behind other player assumes all in and calls. Shows his hand. 

He hits on the river. 

Total freeroll to keep the chip behind if there is any chance your opponent, usually a non pro turns his hand up.

Hendrix: Maybe keep it allowed for final tables where these situations are different? Besides that agree.

But yes I absolutely hate that aspect of it. Should ensure floors dont give penalties for players showing hand here either.

Negreanu: It happened in two spots I saw I. 3 days and I know it’s legal but just feels like such a freeroll/angle in the hopes of getting an opponent to prematurely turn their hand face up. 

Just wild that in both cases it mattered.

First one, guy hit the river so he can save a chip.

The second was the flop and guy flopped him dead so he could save a chip.

Hendrix: Maybe allow a rule where if 90% bet, and other player calls. Dealer can confirm if want to call or be all in for the guys last chip? Before going to next action. I dont see ant bad results to this.

Negreanu: Yeah something like that. It often happens quickly. 

It puts a lot on the dealer but if the dealer said “The player is not all in” it helps but it’s a lot to put on them to handle.

Hendrix: Yep a lot of time dealer throws out all in btn cause person somewhat hiding the chip they left behind 😅.

Think what would help with this is to decrease payjump intervals which helps w stalling. Lots of places have useless payjumps players dont care about.

Hendrix & Negreanu Were Heard by Poker TDA

All this fuss was not in vain: after the discussion heated up Twitter, Poker TDA Founder Matt Savage invited Adam Hendrix and Daniel Negreanu to the next Poker TDA Summit in 2026:

Both you and @AdamHendrix10 are more than welcome to attend the 2026 @PokerTDA Summit. Some of these issues were discussed in depth earlier this year and I imagine some of your issues will become even more prevalent in the coming year. https://t.co/NZVnGWttjp

— Matt Savage (@SavagePoker) December 21, 2024

Adam instantly responded with consent, stating that he “had to miss it last. Will try and make it” in 2026.

However, Negreanu didn’t share his plans for 2026 so quickly. So, PokerListings will be waiting to hear more from him about ршы potential participation in the Poker TDA Summit.