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 ***