Ruling Inconsistency

As all poker players will be aware, every poker room has its own slightly different versions of very similar types of rules. I have personally played in many different casinos in both the UK and America and seen similar occurrences been ruled completely differently depending on where I was. For instance there has been a lot of discussion on what information you can disclose about your hand while still involved in a pot. This issue came up I believe during WSOP 2011 and there was a lot of debating between Daniel Negreanu & Matt Savage (probably the best known tournament director in the world) about it. Daniel’s argument was that a lot of the mental side of poker is lost by not allowing you to “prod for information off your opponent” and Matt saying that he feels it makes for a “more even playing field” if the rule is just straight down the line that NO information may be disclosed during a hand.  I’m sure people can probably understand both sides of this argument but will always lean one way or another. Apparently the rules have always stated the latter but have just never really been enforced in that way until WSOP 2011.  However, at least in this case the rule has been brought to the forefront of people’s minds & publicised heavily and is being enforced on the back of that.

 

Having said all of that, if you were to play in your local tournament I’m sure you would get away with this kind of talk during a hand. However if you repeatedly did it I would expect a card room supervisor or tournament director to be called over at some point although which way they would rule is anyone’s guess.

 

Another example of rules being interpreted differently includes talking on a mobile phone whilst playing a hand.  I was recently in a pot where my opponent was in a conversation on his phone from when the cards were dealt until the river.  I think he bet the flop & I called, the turn was checked, then after I bet the river he chose to raise.  Now in this example I knew my opponent and knew he was simply on the phone to his girlfriend but I asked for a ruling mainly for future reference. I was told that as long as the person wasn’t slowing the game down or obviously discussing his hand then it was fine for him to be on the phone.  I was stunned, I have never known this rule be interpreted in this way before at any casino anywhere. They told me it was a company ruling now so they are just following head office procedure.

 

Now this brings me on to the purpose of this whole article.  Whilst playing in a North-West  casino about a month ago, the following happened:-

I was involved in a hand with a guy I have played poker with a lot. I have top pair/top kicker & we both go all-in on the flop. At this point I’m pretty certain he has me beaten from the way the action has taken place. Before the turn card is dealt he announced he had ‘a set’ & as the river comes down I release my cards. However, upon seeing the river had given me "Broadway" (and the nuts) I reached towards my cards to show them as the winning hand. My cards were not in contact with any of the cards on the table, nor had they been "mucked" by the dealer. As I had my hands on my cards to turn them over and show the winning hand, the dealer said to wait while he asked for a decision to be made by the card room supervisor.  Unfortunately he was not in the room at the time so his understudy came over & his ruling was that "any forward motion of cards is classed as a muck". I explained that I did not believe this was the case as I had personally seen it happen in that casino on several occasions where people had released their cards then turned them over & the pot had been awarded to them. At least two other people on the table confirmed that they had also seen people release their cards before then turning over their hands & winning the pot.

 

At this point I asked for the card room supervisor to be called over. He arrived & ruled that he was agreeing with the "forward motion" theory. Still unhappy, and with various people backing me up on the inconsistency the casino was displaying, I then asked for one of the casino managers to come down & give his ruling. He again concluded with the forward motion ruling! However I was still unhappy with the decision so I asked to see a copy of the rulebook which specified the ruling. Now if they had shown me a ruling in black and white regarding forward motion then I would have simply bitten the bullet & gone home cursing the fact that I had bore the brunt of their inconsistency but safe in the knowledge that they had indeed followed what were either ‘head office’ or possibly ‘house’ rules in this instance. Whilst I stood waiting for two of the people who had made the forward motion rulings to look through their own rulebook, I had at least two more of the poker room's regulars come over & say they had also seen, recently, examples of people releasing their cards then tabling them & being awarded the pot. After originally saying there was nothing in the rulebook specifically regarding that rule, and the casino manager and I going round in circles, the original decision maker eventually came over to prove his point with their rulebook in his hand. Unfortunately for him the rule he chose to show me simply confirmed that I was in fact correct. The rule stated (and I quote) “cards offered face down over the action line are considered mucked as soon as the dealer touches them”. There was not even any wording in the rules referring to forward motion. Therefore, as the dealer hadn’t touched my cards, my hand was still live & I should have been able to table my hand & win the pot. Furthermore, there is no action line in this particular casino, so it is unusual that their ruling specified an action line at all. However, despite their own rulebook supporting me, the staff & manager still wouldn’t back down.  I was starting to become angry at this point but then I felt like they also started to belittle me somewhat.  As the value of my pot was £250 (250 Big Blinds though), they decided to tell me about how a regular player at this casino (who I believe is also a casino manager elsewhere and/or poker tournament director), had lost a £1500 pot after he was also not allowed to table his hand after releasing his cards. At this point I left the casino as I was too angry to stay. It felt like they were trying to say that as this other man had not been awarded a pot, of much higher value, then I should just accept the decision & get on with it.

 

As if this was not bad enough, the following day I was told that this particular player (in the £1500 pot) HAD been allowed to show his hand & HAD been awarded the pot! I contacted this player directly to ask for his version of what happened to him without specifying what had happened to me the previous night so as not to bias his answer. What he told me was exactly the same as what happened to me, except the casino had awarded him the pot (his words were “I threw them face down but they went nowhere near the muck, therefore not mucked and therefore they were still live”).  I cannot begin to explain how furious I was at this point.  Members of staff & management had used an example of another hand to try to back themselves up when in fact it was a blatant lie.

 

The very NEXT night I was told about a hand happening in the same casino.  Both players had Ace King and by the river they both had Ace high, one guy throws his hand face down over halfway to the dealer and the other guy turns over his AK to scoop the pot. At this point the first guy then reaches in & turns his hand over and they split the pot. It was the same dealer as in my pot & it was the night AFTER my issue.  I was told this by probably the casino’s most frequent poker player.

 

I had posted something on a social networking site regarding what had happened to me and had various people agreeing they had seen the same thing happen in both that casino, and other local casinos, where similar incidents had occurred and the ruling had gone in favour of the person in my situation.  I think partly because of this social networking conversation the casino in question had one of its Management team e-mail me a day or two later asking me to either give him a call or send him an email explaining the situation whilst he had a discussion with the casino staff who were involved on the night. I emailed him back explaining everything I have mentioned above and that I had evidence of the conversation with the person who had been awarded the £1500 pot and, although I didn’t particularly want to get other people involved, I had also had at least 5 or 6 of their most regular players approach me and say they were happy to speak to the casino management regarding this situation as they had all witnessed examples of similar things happening in there where the person in the same situation as myself had been awarded the pot.  

             

From that point it took the casino 6 days to reply to me and invite me in for a conversation about the incident.  So a couple of nights later I drove the 25 minute journey to discuss it with the manager.  We sat down and he clearly wasn’t a poker player from the way he was speaking about it, but he explained that essentially he was backing up the original decision.  There was no apology for the lies that his staff had told me, not even an attempted gesture of goodwill.  Baring in mind that I play poker in this casino 4 or 5 times per week on average, I couldn’t believe the chain of events that had unfolded around this incident and how they had reacted to it and attempted to deal with it.  He could have told me in the email that he was taking the decision to back up his staff and therefore saved me the journey of driving down there, staying all of three minutes then driving back again.

 

One thing that I have wondered is whether the different rulings in this particular casino over these "disputed decisions" has anything to do with the fact that some of their staff might favour certain players. It would certainly make sense when you consider that several of their poker room staff are interacting on various levels outside of work with some of the poker players who play in their casino. I'm pretty sure this isn't allowed but it is plain to see when they put pictures of themselves out drinking with players on their social networking pages. Also, another local card room manager has seen one of the supervisors in my dispute & a player from the card room in question together in another casino in the North-West. It just all seems a bit suspicious and would explain what appears to be favouritism when you see several identical situations ruled differently.

I don’t know if there is anywhere else I can go with my complaint but I feel extremely let down by this casino, and felt that I needed to share this unfortunate incident with the poker community to get some feedback (whether you agree with me or disagree) and air my frustrations.  Please feel free to add me on Twitter (@AndyField_07) if you have any views on any of the above.

 

*** To the casino in question, it is not my intention to bad mouth your establishment. Furthermore I have not mentioned the name of the casino nor any of its staff.  I still consider it to be one of the best places in England to play poker despite this incident leaving a very sour taste in my mouth. I have been back in there since and there was no animosity from either myself or the staff in there ***