David Singer

[Humble Pie]

Singer was eliminated from the ME on a hand in which his opponent recieved a call and touched his cell phone during the hand. Singer appealed to the tournament supervisor and director to kill his opponents hand. Both ruled against him. Singer now wants a refund of his entry fee because he feels that he has been violated.

WSOP cell phone rule states: "A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table."

Is Singer justified or angle-shooting?

[scottyno]

from pokernews:

video: http://www.pokernews.com/live-reporting/...p;x=24&y=15 (http://www.pokernews.com/live-reporting/video-gallery/?t=33&e=160&k=&z=0&x=24&y=15)

live update:
"David Singer Eliminated, Not Without Controversy

On a flop of {K-Spades}{7-Spades}{4-Diamonds} and facing a bet of 3,000 from a late-position player David Singer moved all from the button for 9,450.

Here's where the hand gets interesting. As David's opponent was contemplating his decision his cell phone rang -- he removed it from his pocket, glanced at it and turned it off. Singer said nothing at first but made a motion to the dealer.

Then his opponent said "I'll just pay you off, I'll call."

At this point Singer said, "His hand should be dead," and requested a ruling from the floorperson. When the floorperson heard the situation she called for the Tournament Director to make a ruling.

After a re-enactment of exactly how the player touched his phone, the Tournament Director ruled that his hand was not dead and he would be allowed to play.

Singer then requested a higher ruling, saying, "I have a drawing hand here and I obviously don't want him to be allowed to call."

This request was denied and the players' hands were tabled, with Singer showing{4-Spades}{5-Spades} for bottom pair and a flush draw and his opponent holding {K-Diamonds}{J-Diamonds} for top pair.

The turn {10-Hearts} and river {8-Diamonds} did not help Singer and he has been eliminated.

As he left the table he was asking for a refund, saying, "Ever since I have been here, I have been told that if you touch your phone during a hand then your hand is dead."

At this point we don't know if that request will be considered but we do know that David Singer will not be playing Day Two of the Main Event, and he's not happy about it.

David Singer is still meandering around the Amazon Room, trying to resolve the cellphone controversy surrounding his elimination from the tournament.

Here's the latest:

Jack Effel wants to investigate whether or not the player in question was using his phone for text messaging purposes; Singer believes that fact is irrelevant.

Here is the official cellphone policy, as stated in the 2007 WSOP rulebook:

"82. Cell Phone Rule: A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table."

Singer, who is a lawyer by profession, has requested a refund from tournament staff and is seeking the opportunity to play in one of the remaining Day Ones. We're also told that he intends to speak with the gaming commission about the situation.

PokerNews has conducted a video interview with Singer regarding the controversy and it will be available for viewing momentarily. Stay tuned."

[shaniac]

Without being there, none of us will really know what happened and if or how the rule was violated. Certainly speaks to the absurdity of having rules that are almost impossible to evenly enforce. I'd like to hear more of Singer's version of events and also the floor's justification for its ruling.

I assume that Singer wasn't angle-shooting and (I hope) that he called for the judgement as soon as he saw the violation, not after he lost the hand.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
from pokernews:

video: http://www.pokernews.com/live-reporting/...p;x=24&y=15 (http://www.pokernews.com/live-reporting/video-gallery/?t=33&e=160&k=&z=0&x=24&y=15)

live update:
"David Singer Eliminated, Not Without Controversy

On a flop of {K-Spades}{7-Spades}{4-Diamonds} and facing a bet of 3,000 from a late-position player David Singer moved all from the button for 9,450.

Here's where the hand gets interesting. As David's opponent was contemplating his decision his cell phone rang -- he removed it from his pocket, glanced at it and turned it off. Singer said nothing at first but made a motion to the dealer.

Then his opponent said "I'll just pay you off, I'll call."

At this point Singer said, "His hand should be dead," and requested a ruling from the floorperson. When the floorperson heard the situation she called for the Tournament Director to make a ruling.

After a re-enactment of exactly how the player touched his phone, the Tournament Director ruled that his hand was not dead and he would be allowed to play.

Singer then requested a higher ruling, saying, "I have a drawing hand here and I obviously don't want him to be allowed to call."

This request was denied and the players' hands were tabled, with Singer showing{4-Spades}{5-Spades} for bottom pair and a flush draw and his opponent holding {K-Diamonds}{J-Diamonds} for top pair.

The turn {10-Hearts} and river {8-Diamonds} did not help Singer and he has been eliminated.

As he left the table he was asking for a refund, saying, "Ever since I have been here, I have been told that if you touch your phone during a hand then your hand is dead."

At this point we don't know if that request will be considered but we do know that David Singer will not be playing Day Two of the Main Event, and he's not happy about it.

David Singer is still meandering around the Amazon Room, trying to resolve the cellphone controversy surrounding his elimination from the tournament.

Here's the latest:

Jack Effel wants to investigate whether or not the player in question was using his phone for text messaging purposes; Singer believes that fact is irrelevant.

Here is the official cellphone policy, as stated in the 2007 WSOP rulebook:

"82. Cell Phone Rule: A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table."

Singer, who is a lawyer by profession, has requested a refund from tournament staff and is seeking the opportunity to play in one of the remaining Day Ones. We're also told that he intends to speak with the gaming commission about the situation.

PokerNews has conducted a video interview with Singer regarding the controversy and it will be available for viewing momentarily. Stay tuned."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

1) If they refund him his buyin, that's one thing, but I'd be totally aghast if they let him back in the tournament. The floor ruling, no matter how good or bad, should be final, and players should never be allowed to find legal loopholes after-the-fact in order to get a second seat in the same tournament. He already got an appeal, there is no way he should ever be allowed to get back in the tournament.

2) What Singer's opponent did is technically penalize-able, but really falls into a grey area that isn't explicitly defined in the rule (which is why it's a bad rule).

3) In a more perfect world, there is no question that this guy's hand should NOT be declared dead, especially if he was just silencing the ringer. However, given the way the rule was established and enforced throughout the Series, it's not at all unreasonable for Singer to think the hand should be dead. Still, the ruling was laid down, and Singer should have no recourse--if Harrah's decides to refund his money, they should absolutely not take it out of the prize pool.

[robracing]

Singer explains his position in very level-headed fashion here :

http://www.pokernews.com/live-reporting/...mp;x=23&y=5 (http://www.pokernews.com/live-reporting/video-gallery/?t=33&e=160&k=&z=0&x=23&y=5)

[shaniac]

also,

[ QUOTE ]
Singer then requested a higher ruling, saying, "I have a drawing hand here and I obviously don't want him to be allowed to call."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of loathsome--either stand up for the principle, or ignore the minor violation, don't make your appeal to the floor conditional on the strength of your hand wtf!?

[shaniac]

Meh. The way he described the action, the dude's hand should definitely be dead. But I stand by the rest of what I said.

[shaniac]

Yeah, my head is spinning. The dealer should have declared the hand dead right away, but, again, this is why you need to have rules that are easy to enforce and dealers and floorpeople who are trained to enforce them correctly and thoroughly.

We've all been screwed by bad floor rulings before, though.

[timex]

1) He should definitely not be allowed into the tournament, but I do feel he should get a refund
2) David Singer is one of the most baller(not in the throwing around money sense, but in the not caring about money sense) person I have met, and I don't think he is trying to angle-shoot for 10k.

[shaniac]

If they do give him a refund, it shouldn't come out of the prizepool, and it sets an awful precedent, as people will be constantly trying to get their buyins refunded after bad floor calls.

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is sort of loathsome--either stand up for the principle, or ignore the minor violation, don't make your appeal to the floor conditional on the strength of your hand wtf!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think the hand strength is relevant. The point is, once he suggests that the proper thing to do is kill the hand, he has given away information to his opponent about his hand strength. When he does so, he is trusting that the rule be enforced.

Put another way, his argument is not conditional on his hand strength, but on the fact that he has given information away.

[Exitonly]

wow,david singer is such a nit (mostly based on this, and his interview). this is definitely an angle shoot. if he had top set, he's not calling this guys hand dead. The guy was turning off a ringing phone? come on, this is [censored] nitty.

David was at my table in the 1kr and 'baller' was not my impression, more like grumpy nit (though he did gambool once open shoving 32s on the button!)

edit:

definitely no refund out of the prizepool, maybe a refund of his entry fee/rake. and if they let him play again, massive protest!

[yingyang0]

Details Regarding the Singer Investigation

(Information provided by Chris Hanel of ExpertInsight.net)

Steve Frezer, one of the lead floor supervisors here at the WSOP, confirmed the results of the investigation into David Singer's elimination from the tournament.

Surveillance cameras confirmed that, A) the player in question did not look at his phone, and B) his only action was to silence the phone's ringer and quickly put it back into his pocket.

The tournament staff then took the investigation one step further, and temporarily confiscated the man's phone to test whether or not it was possible for him to receive a text message, by the way in which he handled his phone. The additional test concluded that the man would have had to press three buttons in order to receive a text message.

Based on the results of the investigation, the tournament staff is standing by their ruling. Singer, who has since left the premises, is still planning to consult the Nevada Gaming Commission regarding the ruling.

[SuperUberBob]

This is angle shooting. He waited until the call was made before saying anything. If his opponent folded, David would have quietly mucked his cards and nothing would have happened. It was only because he was called that he made a big fuss.

[Cornell Fiji]

Shane/Timex, I am surprised at you two.

Singer's actions are deplorable. The only reason the guy touching his phone might have influenced the hand is because Singer tried to shoot an angle and have the guy's hand killed.

These rules are in place to protect the integrity of the game. This player was not getting information via his phone but rather Singer tried to call his hand out on a technicality. It is a shame that great players and renowned players resort to bush league tactics to take the game off the felt.

[TheFilmGeek]

[ QUOTE ]
This is angle shooting. He waited until the call was made before saying anything. If his opponent folded, David would have quietly mucked his cards and nothing would have happened. It was only because he was called that he made a big fuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he made a motion to the dealer that the action with the phone was out of line, then the player called, then David had the floor called. What he said when he originally motioned is unclear, though.

[Aleo]

Cmon, a guy pulls a phone out, looks at it and pushes a button. It doesn't matter if he's getting texted or not. What's singer supposed to think? Look at it from his perspective. He doesn't know what the guy is doing. And he trusts that what he is doing is enough to kill his hand when he points this out. Otherwise he's not going to give info away like that.

I'm not saying Singer is right, just that angling isn't the right word for it either. He believed that the rules were pretty clear. He had a hand killed already because of it.

Edit:

[ QUOTE ]
Surveillance cameras confirmed that, A) the player in question did not look at his phone

[/ QUOTE ]

Awwww, ok. So Singer probably knew the guy wasn't actually cheating or anything, but he still has to think it's against the rules when just having a phone on the table kills a hand.

[FieryJustice]

Ive played with singer twice now and he is a hardcore rule [censored]. He flipped out on a dealer once when I tried to raise to 275 or something preflop and only 250 made it pass the line on the table. The dealer said 275 and he flipped cause it "should" have been 250. Anyways, I wouldnt be the least bit suprised if he said the same thing if he had top set here. I really dont think hes trying to angle shoot but he does love to make sure even the most retarded rules are enforced.

[Aleo]

He's an ex-Lawyer isn't he? It's in his blood

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Shane/Timex, I am surprised at you two.

Singer's actions are deplorable. The only reason the guy touching his phone might have influenced the hand is because Singer tried to shoot an angle and have the guy's hand killed.

These rules are in place to protect the integrity of the game. This player was not getting information via his phone but rather Singer tried to call his hand out on a technicality. It is a shame that great players and renowned players resort to bush league tactics to take the game off the felt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I agree with most of this, except for the fact that according to the way the rule had been enforced throughout the entire Series, and the letter of the rule, the man's hand was dead.

There was never any distinction made between people who were using their phones for innocent actions like silencing the ringer vs. potentially problematic ones like receiving text messages. They said that if you touched your phone during a hand, your hand was dead. One time, a dealer tried to have my hand declared dead even though I stepped away from the table (abiding by the rules) in order to use it, totally complying.

Really, in this case, the dealer should have declared the hand dead and/or called the floor over and/or AS SOON AS the guy touched his phone--that's how the rule had been administered throughout the entire WSOP. If the dealer and floor had done their job with consistency, there wouldn't be room for any potential angle or any debate related to it.

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
There was never any distinction made between people who were using their phones for innocent actions like silencing the ringer vs. potentially problematic ones like receiving text messages. They said that if you touched your phone during a hand, your hand was dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Improper enforcement of the rule in the past is not relevant. Rule 82, quoted in the second post of this thread, only makes using the cell phone for voice or text messaging a violation, not turning the ringer off.

[wisehandpoker]

David made 2 mistakes:

1) allowing his hand to be betrayed by his reation

2) Not taking the ruling to a higher power. Why tournament poker players accept any ruling they don't like when there's an appeals process is beyond me.

[Exitonly]

isnt there also a rule that exceptions will come up where the TD has to make judgement calls that could 'technically' go against the rules?

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was never any distinction made between people who were using their phones for innocent actions like silencing the ringer

[/ QUOTE ]

Improper enforcement of the rule in the past is not relevant. Rule 82, quoted in the second post of this thread, only makes using the cell phone for voice or text messaging a violation, not turning the ringer off.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not how they presented it, that's not how they enforced it. Verbally, they made the rule super-strict (touch your cellphone, hand declared dead), so they wouldn't have to make these distinctions, and hands were killed left and right over the most innocuous cellphone use in 50+ events. Then, during the main event, they take such distinctions really seriously and rule in the favor of doing the sensible thing? Come on, WTF? How is that fair to people like Singer, who were forced to abide by these absurd restrictions for a month-plus, then see the spirit and implementation of the rule get reversed?

Seriously, this just boils to another case of F* Harrah's--they create a half-assed rule with no real gameplan on how to implement it, and it creates disasters when people like Singer get involved.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
David made 2 mistakes:

2) Not taking the ruling to a higher power. Why tournament poker players accept any ruling they don't like when there's an appeals process is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, what's the appeals process? I've never seen or heard of any such thing outlined. For the longest time, I thought the first floor ruling was final. Anyway, it sounds like Singer DID get an appeal here, so that's not one of his mistakes.

[Cornell Fiji]

re: David getting the gaming commission to give him a refund

[ QUOTE ]
26. Harrah’s employees will use reasonable commercial efforts to consider the best interests
of the game and fairness as the top priority in the decision-making process, with the
understanding that “best interests of the game and fairness” shall be determined by
Harrah’s, acting in its sole and absolute discretion. Unusual circumstances can, on
occasion, dictate that the technical interpretation of the rules be balanced against the
interest of fairness. Harrah’s decisions are final and can not be appealed and shall not
give rise to any claim for monetary damages, as each participant understands that, while
poker is primarily and largely a game of skill, the outcome of any particular hand or
event is dependent on many factors, including but not limited to the cards dealt, the cards
retained and the actions of other participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/docs/doc_591_58.pdf

[fizresh]

it's the equivalent of billy martin pointing out the pine tar on george brett's bat.

it's a cheap technicality and beneath the stature of someone like singer. or so i thought.

[Syntec87]

I dont think its unethical at all, and I WOULD do it with his hand. I wouldnt make a fuss if he folded, cause its unnecessary (and in case the ruling goes the other way, I would bring it up only after a call). Its a rule, and so what if it is stupid, if he has to follow it, he has the right to use it to his advantage. Once they make it part of the tournament rules, it should be adhered to, strictly.

[fleece_me]

Singer's hand should be ruled dead as well since he talked about it and told the truth. When the floorman was called over both hands were still live.

[Alex Jacob]

i can understand singer asking to get the guy's hand dead as a desperation move, but i personally wouldn't do it. to actually believe that the guy's hand should be dead and to continue whining about it is absurd. as are most of the responses in this thread.

pressing a button on your phone to stop it from ringing during a hand is completely standard. i guess i have been lucky because i personally have done it in tournaments and in the world series a bunch of times. i have never dreamed that i could get my hand killed for doing this and no one has ever tried to get it killed.

you guys are saying the guy has to let the phone ring through while he's trying to make his decision? the rules are in place to protect fairness. killing a hand should only be done as an absolute last recourse.

-aj

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was never any distinction made between people who were using their phones for innocent actions like silencing the ringer

[/ QUOTE ]

Improper enforcement of the rule in the past is not relevant. Rule 82, quoted in the second post of this thread, only makes using the cell phone for voice or text messaging a violation, not turning the ringer off.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not how they presented it, that's not how they enforced it. Verbally, they made the rule super-strict (touch your cellphone, hand declared dead), so they wouldn't have to make these distinctions, and hands were killed left and right over the most innocuous cellphone use in 50+ events. Then, during the main event, they take such distinctions really seriously and rule in the favor of doing the sensible thing? Come on, WTF? How is that fair to people like Singer, who were forced to abide by these absurd restrictions for a month-plus, then see the spirit and implementation of the rule get reversed?

Seriously, this just boils to another case of F* Harrah's--they create a half-assed rule with no real gameplan on how to implement it, and it creates disasters when people like Singer get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shane, I believe that this is the real crux of the problem. As you said it's just another Harrah's f*up. They make a rule, then they announce to the crowd a different version of the rule that is not written down, then they don't enforce that new version consistently. They've had a year to prepare for this and once again they failed. How hard would it have been to write up a list of rules in advance (in different languages), and include one that bans cellphones from the room entirely so that there could be nothing open to interpretation? I know that banning cellphones would be drastic but when you have an event where people are paying $10,000 to enter in the hopes of winning millions you can't rely on rules that are open to interpretation or rules that are given verbally to a room with 1500 people who are nervous and anxious to begin the event.

As for the Singer incident, IMO if the rule was not written down then it couldn't be violated. From others' posts here the written rule was that he had to have been using the phone, not just silencing the ringer. The other guy doesn't deserve to lose a chunk of his stack if he didn't violate the written rules. Again, IMO verbal rules are worth the paper they are written on.

[MaverickUSC]

Add to fold equity: opp might touch cell phone.

C'mon now. What else is poker going to drop to? Singer is a well known pro. This is such a [censored] line to take in this hand regardless. STFU and play poker. If the guy answered the cell phone, sure. Started texting, sure. But c'mon. This is just absurd to me.

Yes, I understand the letter of the law. But so much of the poker world is your word and the spirit of trust that I have zero respect for somebody who tries to win a pot in this manner, and then handles himself like this after the fact.

Devo

[Kos13]

I don't mind them refunding his money, but can you imagine what would happen if they let him play on 1D, and he ended up winning the tournament? Sticking him back in the field again is, IMO, a mistake.

[NicksDad1970]

I don't know why anyone would think the strength of his hand should determine whether he complains or not. Id David had the nuts he wouldn't be looking for the newly made up World Series appelate system. I'd be a little upset if I was David but he has to ask himself if he thought that cellphone infulenced the outcome of the hand.

What really sucks is if like Shane said that what they said was different from the stated rules.

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind them refunding his money

[/ QUOTE ]

I mind. Why should the rest of the field suffer from a reduction in the prize pool?

David can be forgiven for being upset on the day of the occurance. But if he insists on his appeal to the gaming commission or making a stink, now that the facts are all out, the casino should just ban him from their facility. Anyone willing to pursue frivilous claims against them is a net negative drain on their bottom line.

[Rob999]

It sounds like something Sklansky or Malmuth would stoop to.

[Solitare]

[ QUOTE ]
The tournament staff then took the investigation one step further, and temporarily confiscated the man's phone to test whether or not it was possible for him to receive a text message, by the way in which he handled his phone. The additional test concluded that the man would have had to press three buttons in order to receive a text message.


[/ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the person could access text messaging is meaningless. Most phones show who is calling on the front display. Call from Number A = Call. Call from Number B = Fold.

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The tournament staff then took the investigation one step further, and temporarily confiscated the man's phone to test whether or not it was possible for him to receive a text message, by the way in which he handled his phone. The additional test concluded that the man would have had to press three buttons in order to receive a text message.


[/ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the person could access text messaging is meaningless. Most phones show who is calling on the front display. Call from Number A = Call. Call from Number B = Fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could do it with different ringtones too. The phone never has to leave your pocket for collusion to go on.

[s33w33d]

The biggest part of the story to me seems to be the fact that Jack Effel wasn't even on the floor and needed to be reached by cell phone.

As the situation went, I think the ruling is clearly proper in terms of the letter of the law. I sure as [censored] would have been terrified to touch my phone there.

And anyway, if the /images/graemlins/spade.gif peels off, is Singer going to argue for the guy to get T6,000 back? If so, then he's doing the right thing, but somehow I suspect that's not the case.

[ACG2x]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The tournament staff then took the investigation one step further, and temporarily confiscated the man's phone to test whether or not it was possible for him to receive a text message, by the way in which he handled his phone. The additional test concluded that the man would have had to press three buttons in order to receive a text message.


[/ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the person could access text messaging is meaningless. Most phones show who is calling on the front display. Call from Number A = Call. Call from Number B = Fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could do it with different ringtones too. The phone never has to leave your pocket for collusion to go on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then if we're so worried about that, Harrah's needs to make a no cell phone period in the poker area. Ever. Player's need to be patted down/screened for all electronic communication devices and have them removed from their person.

I'm not even really razzing your post, I'm just saying that if we're worried about collusion in such a way you mentioned, then there should be an outright ban on any communication devices in the poker area period. That would kinda suck for people who use their iPhone to listen to music at the table.

I wouldn't like that rule one bit, but if we're so worried about all these different forms of collusion, maybe an outright ban is the best way? I put a question mark there, because I don't know for sure.

[umistboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Singer was eliminated from the ME on a hand in which his opponent recieved a call and touched his cell phone during the hand. Singer appealed to the tournament supervisor and director to kill his opponents hand. Both ruled against him. Singer now wants a refund of his entry fee because he feels that he has been violated.

WSOP cell phone rule states: "A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table. "

Is Singer justified or angle-shooting?

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy didn't violate these rules. Why is there even any debate? The dealer wasn't dealing when the phone went off.

[PITTM]

this seems like the definition of angle shoot to me. why should singer get his money back? i mean i understand the rule, but a) the guy didnt break the rule by the actual letter of the law. b) this is one of the most juvenile angleshoots ive seen in awhile.

[phiphika1453]

what i find interesting is the difference of standards b/w online and live poker.

online it is accepted that you might be playing against a whole room of ppl sharing ideas, whereas live you cant even mute your damn phone without causing a stir.

[bettyqs]

I am so sick of cell phones at the table. Shut the god dam things off. I would love it if they could use blockers in poker rooms. If the cell phone rings, you should be out.

Making ify rules about cell phone use leads to issues like this....just say no and be done with it.

[flavio321]

don't these people know how to put it on vibrate?

[kerr]

How is it an angle shoot when he was ahead on the flop?

[mtgordon]

I certainly didn't read the whole thread, but you don't need to get a txt message to receive info. You could easily have someone call you every time they think you should call a hand. In which case you could just let the thing ring and make the call. You certainly don't need to look/touch/answer it.

However I'm guessing in this case there was no foul play so I'm fine with the ruling that was given.

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
Add to fold equity: opp might touch cell phone.

C'mon now. What else is poker going to drop to? Singer is a well known pro. This is such a [censored] line to take in this hand regardless. STFU and play poker. If the guy answered the cell phone, sure. Started texting, sure. But c'mon. This is just absurd to me.

Yes, I understand the letter of the law. But so much of the poker world is your word and the spirit of trust that I have zero respect for somebody who tries to win a pot in this manner, and then handles himself like this after the fact.

Devo

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. [censored] lawyers.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Without being there, none of us will really know what happened and if or how the rule was violated. Certainly speaks to the absurdity of having rules that are almost impossible to evenly enforce. I'd like to hear more of Singer's version of events and also the floor's justification for its ruling.

I assume that Singer wasn't angle-shooting and (I hope) that he called for the judgement as soon as he saw the violation, not after he lost the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


I asked about this, I was told that if your phone rang during a hand you could turn it off. I don't see how doing this or stopping it from ringing would be possible without touching it. That isn't talking on the phone or text messaging. I'm really confused what the big issue is here. Do we really think its better to just let the player sit there and have the phone ringing until voice messaging picks up?


So anyway Singer's comments about how he has been told that if you touch your phone during your hand, your hand is dead, is not at all what I was told at the event.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly didn't read the whole thread, but you don't need to get a txt message to receive info. You could easily have someone call you every time they think you should call a hand. In which case you could just let the thing ring and make the call. You certainly don't need to look/touch/answer it.

However I'm guessing in this case there was no foul play so I'm fine with the ruling that was given.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah I mean if they are going to go this far, they may as well make it a penalty to even have your phone ring, thus everyone knows to just keep their phone off at all times while playing.

[FireStorm]

1) As usual, a huge debate over a rule in poker which has less than zero relevance to who the better player is, who deserves to win, and who should win. Touching a cellphone, just like the moronic four letter word rule, does nothing to alter the actual play of hands. Perhaps just once in professional poker, skill should be the determining factor in winning and losing. Touching a cellphone has no bearing on this hand, stop angle shooting and move on. Poker makes up asinine rules for televised tourneys in order to make it appear more like a "real" sport. Problem is, none of these rules mean anything. There is a reason pass interference exists in football or the infield fly rule in baseball, they can drastically change the outcomes of plays and entire games. Stick rules like this in the muck. Honestly, no one with a brain can possibly think that more than 1 in 100 instances, cell phone use is connected to collusion etc.

2) Pretend for one minute that Singer is allowed back into the event. He goes on to win, or place deep, or make it into the money and eliminate players in the process. How absurd would this be? For all intents and purposes, the ME is a circus as it is. Should it become more of one b/c someone exploited a dumb rule to get a free rebuy after losing what is essentially a coinflip? Do this, and every John Q Public who loses with 99 to AJs will be looking for a way back in.

[shaniac]

I agree that the design of the cellphone rule was vague and ridiculous, but, the way it was presented, even touching one's phone during the action of a hand (after the dealer deals the first card and thereafter) was supposed to kill your hand. So, it is not at all unreasonable for Singer to expect to see the rule enforced here in the same way.

Fwiw, there were many hands during WSOP events where my opponents picked up their phones during hands against me, and their hands should have been declared dead but the dealers didn't notice or didn't care. Every time, I just let it slide, maybe sometimes offering a friendly warning after the fact. I would have done this in the ME, too, even in Singer's situation, because I hate being the one to enforce rules that I don't agree with in the first place. But, again, the fault doesn't lie with Singer for trying to see the rule observed, but with Harrah's and the way they administer the tournament and its rules.

I bet if Curtains asked four different floor people if he was allowed to merely turn off his phone during the hand, he'd get at least two different answers. Add dealer subjectivity into the equation, and there is no way a halfway-conceived cellphone restriction is going to work effectively.

[Admo]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the design of the cellphone rule was vague I agree that the design of the cellphone rule was vague and ridiculous, but, the way it was presented, even touching one's phone during the action of a hand (after the dealer deals the first card and thereafter) was supposed to kill your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Though this is not the way the rule is written, it is what they announced before the start of each event. (well, at least they did before each of the four I played in)

From first card to dealt to pot being pushed: touch your phone and your hand is dead.

[FireStorm]

All the more reason to not have the rule to begin with. If it rarely (or never) alters actual play of the hand, and can't be enforced effectively and consistently, put the idea in the paper shredder from the get go. Then, in the aforementioned hand, the guy with KJ calls, which I'm sure he would have anyway, and life goes on without threads like this discussing someone angle shooting.

[CaptHomer]

All the the guy did was turn the phone off. Singer is a cry baby. He complained all the time on The Circuit. He was horrible on the show. Glad he is out.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
All the more reason to not have the rule to begin with. If it rarely (or never) alters actual play of the hand, and can't be enforced effectively and consistently, put the idea in the paper shredder from the get go. Then, in the aforementioned hand, the guy with KJ calls, which I'm sure he would have anyway, and life goes on without threads like this discussing someone angle shooting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with this...and you hint at why rules designed to prevent cheating by using electronic devices are only going to become more problematic.

I think it will come down to a rule that bars all electronic use at the table (shudder to think) or a lifting of the cellphone restriction entirely, which will mean 5 people on average will be texting or taking calls at each table, which also sucks.

[mondo]

Simple rule; phones on vibrate or off only; no phones on table. Touch/use phone only after stepping away from table w/out a hand in play. If you're worried it's an emergency, muck your hand. If you can't/won't muck, complete the hand, step away from the table to see who called.

Harrah's sure seems to have a lot of problems running this event.

Just my .02

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Simple rule; phones on vibrate or off only; no phones on table. Touch/use phone only after stepping away from table w/out a hand in play. If you're worried it's an emergency, muck your hand. If you can't/won't muck, complete the hand, step away from the table to see who called.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right, that was my exact understanding of the rule based on four weeks and 13 events played at the WSOP. (btw Admo, Nicksdad and the other person I lost prop bets to, I haven't forgotten).

I was even afraid to reach into my pocket and silence my (vibrating) ringer when I was in a hand, for fear it would be interpreted as hand-killable cellphone use. In any case, it seems there was more room for interpretation during big hands in the main event, and that is the real issue, and that isn't Singer's doing.

[jacksquat]

i remember a circuit event in tunica where they announced before the start of play, that any tableing/playing with/operating/looking at your phone during play would kill your hand.

seemed pretty straight forward to me....turn it off or leave it in your pocket. i suppose that puts alot of responsibilty on the dealers, but like i said seemed fairly obvious as to what the rule was.

i don't remember any such annoucements at the actual wsop.

[sketchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it will come down to a rule that bars all electronic use at the table (shudder to think) or a lifting of the cellphone restriction entirely, which will mean 5 people on average will be texting or taking calls at each table, which also sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

online poker > live poker

[Bingo_Boy]

Surely its irrelevant how much of a jerk the guy is being, whether hes a bad loser or whether the phone was being innocently turned off.If the rule was stated to everyone that if you touch your phone your hand is dead, then your hand is dead isnt it?

However stupid the rule is, it has to be enforced consistantly, which it seems it isnt.

[AJackson]

I feel bad for Singer, but his reaction is making him look like a cry baby and an angle shooter. Taking this to the level he is taking it to is like crying about a bad beat. Just take it like a man.

On a side note, Harrahs is hurting their bottom line with how they are running this tournament. I was planning on playing a few events including the ME, but once I heard about the lines, the tent, and other general incompetence I decided to stay home. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[W brad]

Singer's Main Event refund denied (http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=167245)

[primetime32]

"82. Cell Phone Rule: A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table."

He didn't pick up the phone, he didnt speak to anyone, he didn't receive or send a text and he didn't place the cell on the table.

Honestly, i can't fathom any logical interpretation that would lead the tournament directors to rule in Singer's favor. Perhaps if he quit trying to bluff tournament donks he wouldn't have to rely on a rule interpretation to advance through the tournament.

[joerem]

I think Singer is full of [censored]. It is one thing to be talking on the phone when the cards are dealt. But to reach down and turn your phone off when it starts to ring is such a gray area and for Singer to use that rule in hopes of forcing the guy to fold is really poor sportmansship on Singers part.

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
"82. Cell Phone Rule: or texting a messaging when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table."

[/ QUOTE ]

how can so many of you so blatantly interpret this rule and then speak about your interpretation as though it's not an interpretation at all, but the letter of the law.

The particular passages I am refering to are

[ QUOTE ]
A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
Any player on the cell phone...

[/ QUOTE ]

which so many have reinterpreted to only mean voice conversations.

I suppose by the strictest definition of the rules, this would actually mean that standing on your phone is illegal. Of course it would also mean that to use a phone in ANY way, you have to step away from the table.

I take it to mean that use of a phone at all requires stepping away from the table, and once you do this, you are 'on' the phone. And this is how it was enforced in almost all other cases. In other words, do anything with your phone, and your hand is dead.

So for those that cannot fathom how this interpretation is possible, stop pretending that you are not also interpreting the rules in your own way.

Bottom line, the rule is poorly worded. Singer just based his conclusion on the accepted and most common interpretation up to that point. And when he called attention to the rule, he trusted that he'd get the same interpretation in that case because he is giving crucial info away.

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely its irrelevant how much of a jerk the guy is being, whether hes a bad loser or whether the phone was being innocently turned off.If the rule was stated to everyone that if you touch your phone your hand is dead, then your hand is dead isnt it?

However stupid the rule is, it has to be enforced consistantly, which it seems it isnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]


Honestly, i can't fathom any logical interpretation that would lead the tournament directors to rule in Singer's favor. Perhaps if he quit trying to bluff tournament donks he wouldn't have to rely on a rule interpretation to advance through the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh....it's not about the way the rule should have been "logically" interpreted, it's about the way the rule HAD been interpreted the entire time.

1) According to the way the rule was described and enforced by many of the dealers/floorpeople at the 2007 WSOP, Singer's opponent's hand should have been dead. Many, many people throughout the series had their hands declared dead for more innocuous cellphone interaction. In this case, the opponent is seriously lucky that the dealer didn't stop the action and kill the hand (or call floor) as soon as the cellphone and his hand entered plain sight.

2) It's an inherently bad rule, but that's not the issue--the issue is that it was never properly explained and that it was enforced on a haphazard basis. Some dealers were overzealous when it came to declaring hands dead, others (like Singer's dealer) didn't even seem to know the rule. Many players also didn't seem to know the rule, while other players like me never touched their cellphones during hands for fear of being victimized by the retarded rule. People citing the "written rule" need to stop, because it's the de-facto way it was carried out that's relevant here.

3) Singer is acting like a huge pussy, and by most practical and ethical measurements, he approached this in the wrong way, but he DOES have a legitimate gripe with the way the rule was enforced. Of course, he didn't deserve a refund.

[Humble Pie]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Singer is acting like a huge pussy, and by most practical and ethical measurements, he approached this in the wrong way, but he DOES have a legitimate gripe with the way the rule was enforced. Of course, he didn't deserve a refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you deem his gripe legit, what DOES he deserve?

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Singer is acting like a huge pussy, and by most practical and ethical measurements, he approached this in the wrong way, but he DOES have a legitimate gripe with the way the rule was enforced. Of course, he didn't deserve a refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's actually kind of an irony here. I agree that Singer handled this badly after the fact, and I definitely agree that he doesn't deserve a refund. To have let him play another day would have been the worst decision in the history of the WSOP

The irony is that what makes all this so obvious is another WSOP rule, which say explicitly that there are no refunds in situations like this.

I guess the moral is, Caveat Emptor.

The wsop has a few bad rules that could screw you at any time, and you have no recourse. ENJOY!

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you deem his gripe legit, what DOES he deserve?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a suggestion. Better rules, properly enforced?

[gaamblor]

from that story
"WSOP Media Director Gary Thompson said one particular scandal in Europe, where a player used a device to send video images of cards to a collaborator outside the casino , was of particular concern to WSOP officials. "

That sounds like a good thing to worry about....

"There was no intent to violate the rule," said Jerome Stone, the Rio's poker room manager. "I believe the sound was hurting his decision and he actually "There was no intent to violate the rule," said Jerome Stone, the Rio's poker room manager. "I believe the sound was hurting his decision and he actually did the responsible thing by silencing the ringer." ."

someone try this at some point and see how it goes....

my 2c

David is technically correct
David was morally and ethically wrong to try and get the guys hand killed
I hope he sues sothe stupid rule gets changed

The entire idea of cellphones in casinos/sportsbooks/pokerrooms needs to be addressed by the NGC because the rules are grossly out of date.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) Singer is acting like a huge pussy, and by most practical and ethical measurements, he approached this in the wrong way, but he DOES have a legitimate gripe with the way the rule was enforced. Of course, he didn't deserve a refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you deem his gripe legit, what DOES he deserve?

[/ QUOTE ]

He deserves nothing except a company that can competently run a high-stakes poker tournament, but, since it's Harrah's, he shouldn't expect or deserve anything. He should have taken up the fight in the name of proper tournament direction and not asked for something as petty as his buyin refunded.

I'd like to point out that the Bellagio uses the same cellphone rules, and they are much harsher and more consistent when it comes to implementing it. If you are at the table, not involved in a hand but handling your phone, Maria or Jon or Jack will tell you that you are not allowed to use it at the table. That way, there are no distinctions made when it comes to a crucial hand-life ruling. I've seen Bellagio floorpeople tell everyone--from superstars to schmucks--to get up from the table if they are holding their phone. The reason for this is that the Bellagio knows how to run a poker tournament and enforce rules even-handedly and consistently, even if you don't agree with the rule itself.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]


The entire idea of cellphones in casinos/sportsbooks/pokerrooms needs to be addressed by the NGC because the rules are grossly out of date.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I fear that when the issue gets addressed, it will be at the expense of our ability to use devices like iPods for personal entertainment. I don't think it's possible for TDs to fairly distinguish between someone using an iPhone for text messaging and for locating a playlist, so they're either going to have to ban electronics entirely or permit their use more liberally. I don't particularly want to sit at a table with 4 people texting and on their phones, so I really don't know what the solution is.

[mattpj]

how about this then, Singer hits his draw and eliminates his opponent. Does the opponent get the right to a refund because his hand should have been ruled dead and he should not ahve been allowed to call?

I think a refund is not correct because its not like Singer got called and didn't get a showdown so could not win. Regardless of his outs

If he picked up the pot I am pretty sure he wouldn't react like this. He might call it the principle now, but if he was still playing he might quickly forget that principle.

I still think that the dealer should have killed the hand if the rule is meant to be that stricht, colluding or not

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"82. Cell Phone Rule: or texting a messaging when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table."

[/ QUOTE ]

how can so many of you so blatantly interpret this rule and then speak about your interpretation as though it's not an interpretation at all, but the letter of the law.

The particular passages I am refering to are

[ QUOTE ]
A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I had only had to read this far to find more fault in your argument. A player who "wants to use a cellular phone." Well, when someone asks you if you used your phone today would refer to instances in which you turned off your ringer? I don't know of anyone that would.

The guy simply didn't use his phone. He turned it off.

And do you think Phil Ivey or Doyle Brunson would be whining like Singer is?

[Crane]

I'll betcha Singer wouldn't have said one word he had the nuts.

[FireStorm]

Well, Crane, Singer wouldn't have been searching for an angle shoot out had he had the nuts and seen an opponent tanking over a call. The whole point here is that Singer shoved in a hand with high FE and tried to claw his way out ONCE said FE disappeared.

[Tom B]

I think it would be funny if Harrah's did an analysis of Singer's equity at the point the cell phone was touched and refunded based on his equity. I am guessing with a stack of 9,450 and a guy likely to call with top pair his equity at that point could not have been much more then about $2,000 or $2,500 at best.

[Crane]

I was at a play, and they announced THREE times to turn off your cell phones or put them on vibrate. Right in the middle of a very dramatic scene this lady's cell phone goes off. I just don't get it.

I was leaving the Bicycle Club one day, and while I was waiting at the light I saw a guy run the red light in the other direction and broadside a car with two little kids in the back--luckily nobody was hurt...yea, you guessed it he was answering a call on his cell phone.

A friend of mine rolled is Mercedes three times, ran into an embankment, and was then hit by another car on the LA 710 messing with his stupid cell phone. His car was unrecognizable. He came out with a broken finger.

I think the rule is stupid. I HATE cell phones. I got along fine for 30 years without one, but this is a different era. Everybody has to be playing with their [censored] phones. Who the hell is everybody talking to all the time anyway? Can't it wait?

Apparently it can't, so change the effin rule and forget about it. If you get a call, put em on hold during a hand or something. Everybody and their mother has a cell phone and are using them constantly. I think it's ridiculous, but it's life in the oughts. Come up with a workaround.

Unless you're gonna make people turn in their phones at the saloon door like they did with the guns in the old west, you're going to have problems. Just figure out a way so the cell phone addicts can use em when they're playing or ban them altogether.

[Rekrul]

Wow, imagine if Singer sucked out the allin. You think he;d be demanding the guy get his chips back and singer only win the blinds / whatever was in the pot? Yeah right. What a [censored].

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
I had only had to read this far to find more fault in your argument. A player who "wants to use a cellular phone." Well, when someone asks you if you used your phone today would refer to instances in which you turned off your ringer? I don't know of anyone that would.

The guy simply didn't use his phone. He turned it off.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your interpretation. fine. I and others have a different interpretation. You seem to think that yours is the only possible interpretation, but it isn't. That was my point and I'm not sure how you can argue with it. With imprecise phrasing like 'use a cell', it's bound to happen. I think silencing a ringer is 'using a cell'.

Moreover, the interpretation I am giving is the one that was enforced for the majority of the WSOP.

[ QUOTE ]
And do you think Phil Ivey or Doyle Brunson would be whining like Singer is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said, but this just isn't relevant. Not only that but this is just speculation.

[Rekrul]

The rules are the rules and should be followed completely but sometimes, just sometimes, you need to man up and not act like a whiney little bitch.

[doublejoker]

LATEST INFO:

David Singer will not receive a refund or be allowed to play in another Day One despite threatening to go to the Nevada Gaming Commission over a rule dispute on his bust-out hand early Sunday morning, World Series of Poker Tournament Director Jack Effel said.

Singer, who went all-in on the turn with a drawing hand, asked for a ruling after his opponent twice received phone a phone call during his decision making process and twice silenced the ringer by opening his phone and clicking a button.

Rule number 15 of the Tournament Director's Association 2007 Summit states that "a player may not use a cellular phone, text-messaging device, or other communication device at the table."

Floor officials ruled the player was not in violation of the rule. During the appeal process, officials examined the floor video tape and inspected the cell phone. Effel upheld the original decision after an extensive investigation.

"There will be no refund or re-entry into the Main Event," Effel said.

The "cell phone" rule has been strictly enforced at this year's Main Event and has been part of Effel's tournament pre-amble on each of the Day Ones.

Cell phones and other communication devices have been used in cheating scandals in casinos around the world.

WSOP Media Director Gary Thompson said one particular scandal in Europe, where a player used a device to send video images of cards to a collaborator outside the casino, was of particular concern to WSOP officials.

"There was no intent to violate the rule," said Jerome Stone, the Rio's poker room manager. "I believe the sound was hurting his decision and he actually did the responsible thing by silencing the ringer."

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my head is spinning. The dealer should have declared the hand dead right away, but, again, this is why you need to have rules that are easy to enforce and dealers and floorpeople who are trained to enforce them correctly and thoroughly.

We've all been screwed by bad floor rulings before, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the negative that has been written I want to point out that Effel and Harrah's got this one right. The rule is that you must step away from the table to use the phone. The player did the responsible thing and made his phone shut up while he was at the table. These rules exist for a reason and one of the reasons isn't to kill someone's hand so the guy with a draw doesn't bust out of the WSOP.

[iversonian]

If the draw hits, does Singer go ballistic if the TDs rule his opp's hand dead after reviewing the tape?

[tourney guy]

What a laugh!!!

1st laugh - the rule itself. The cell phone rule is used to stop two things:

1) Cheating
2) Slowing the game

If you don't cheat or slow the game down by TOUCHING THE PHONE, why would your hand be dead??????

It is a dumb cell phone policy - period.

2nd laugh - a so-called 'professional' sees a player touch his phone, thinks it kills his hand, but WAITS FOR THE GUY TO SHOVE ALL HIS CHIPS IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If there is a more low-rent, MIckey Mouse horsesiht move out there, I need to see it.

If this guy is a pro, it gives pros a bad name.

Look, we all know the WSOP is a complete abortion, but they are right on this one.

You cannot reward puke like this.

[BenTurpen]

[ QUOTE ]

I was at a play, and they announced THREE times to turn off your cell phones or put them on vibrate. Right in the middle of a very dramatic scene this lady's cell phone goes off. I just don't get it.

I was leaving the Bicycle Club one day, and while I was waiting at the light I saw a guy run the red light in the other direction and broadside a car with two little kids in the back--luckily nobody was hurt...yea, you guessed it he was answering a call on his cell phone.

A friend of mine rolled is Mercedes three times, ran into an embankment, and was then hit by another car on the LA 710 messing with his stupid cell phone. His car was unrecognizable. He came out with a broken finger.

I think the rule is stupid. I HATE cell phones. I got along fine for 30 years without one, but this is a different era. Everybody has to be playing with their [censored] phones. Who the hell is everybody talking to all the time anyway? Can't it wait?

Apparently it can't, so change the effin rule and forget about it. If you get a call, put em on hold during a hand or something. Everybody and their mother has a cell phone and are using them constantly. I think it's ridiculous, but it's life in the oughts. Come up with a workaround.

Unless you're gonna make people turn in their phones at the saloon door like they did with the guns in the old west, you're going to have problems. Just figure out a way so the cell phone addicts can use em when they're playing or ban them altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because your uncool inless you have one, duh. I am with you on the rant though.

[w_alloy]

I think it's funny people keep using terms like "draw" and "suck out" when singer's hand was the favorite.

To the person who pointed this out earlier, and asked why it was still an angle shoot: Even though Singer is a favorite on the flop, he has much better EV if the other players' hand is just ruled dead because Singer is only a small favorite and there is a lot of money in the pot.

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had only had to read this far to find more fault in your argument. A player who "wants to use a cellular phone." Well, when someone asks you if you used your phone today would refer to instances in which you turned off your ringer? I don't know of anyone that would.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a bad way to phrase the rule anyway. If I want to use my cellphone, but I manage to refrain from doing it, is my hand dead?

I think Harrah's handled this one pretty well. This is a good spot for the TD or the appeals committee to use their judgement and penalize the angle shooter, not the guy who innocently turned off his phone.

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my head is spinning. The dealer should have declared the hand dead right away, but, again, this is why you need to have rules that are easy to enforce and dealers and floorpeople who are trained to enforce them correctly and thoroughly.

We've all been screwed by bad floor rulings before, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the negative that has been written I want to point out that Effel and Harrah's got this one right. The rule is that you must step away from the table to use the phone. The player did the responsible thing and made his phone shut up while he was at the table. These rules exist for a reason and one of the reasons isn't to kill someone's hand so the guy with a draw doesn't bust out of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the verbal admonition given multiple times over loudspeaker by tournament officials that TOUCHING your cell phone kills your hand?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my head is spinning. The dealer should have declared the hand dead right away, but, again, this is why you need to have rules that are easy to enforce and dealers and floorpeople who are trained to enforce them correctly and thoroughly.

We've all been screwed by bad floor rulings before, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the negative that has been written I want to point out that Effel and Harrah's got this one right. The rule is that you must step away from the table to use the phone. The player did the responsible thing and made his phone shut up while he was at the table. These rules exist for a reason and one of the reasons isn't to kill someone's hand so the guy with a draw doesn't bust out of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the verbal admonition given multiple times over loudspeaker by tournament officials that TOUCHING your cell phone kills your hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear things everyday in poker rooms that isn't true. A lot of it is instructions given by the dealers and floor staff.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my head is spinning. The dealer should have declared the hand dead right away, but, again, this is why you need to have rules that are easy to enforce and dealers and floorpeople who are trained to enforce them correctly and thoroughly.

We've all been screwed by bad floor rulings before, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the negative that has been written I want to point out that Effel and Harrah's got this one right. The rule is that you must step away from the table to use the phone. The player did the responsible thing and made his phone shut up while he was at the table. These rules exist for a reason and one of the reasons isn't to kill someone's hand so the guy with a draw doesn't bust out of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the verbal admonition given multiple times over loudspeaker by tournament officials that TOUCHING your cell phone kills your hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I wrote earlier, verbal rules are worthless. Unless they are written down with no wriggle room the rules will always be open to interpretation. Giving verbal rules to a room filled with 1500 or so nervous, anxious people who speak multiple languages is the height of stupidity.

[SteelWheel]

I have a lot of sympathy for David's position. Here's a similar one that happened to me on Day 1B. How would you rule on this one?

Last hand of Level 3, so a lot of noise and chatter as people are heading out for dinner break. I was in the big blind and got a free play with my K /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif in a three-way pot. The flop had been checked all round, the turn had been bet by the last player and called by me and the other player. The final board was something like KJ986, all black (the cards did not arrive in that exact order, btw--this is just the best I can recall at this point). I checked, the second player checked, the third player bets out. As I'm considering what to do, the second player's cellphone rings. He picks it up, says "Hello, I'll call you back," and puts it down. The dealer declares his hand dead. Player #2 complains about the ruling. Player #3 and I ask the dealer to call a floorperson over. The dealer recounts the situation accurately, and the floor without hesitation rules that Player #2's hand is dead. This made my decision to call much easier--Player #3 had bluffed with some kind of draw that didn't get there, so I won. Player #2 was very upset, claiming that his draw had gotten there, he would have won a big pot, etc.

Unlike the David Singer situation, I thought this one was very clear, and the ruling to be correct and consistent. But how much of a stretch is it from this situation to David's? It's not so different; the player's cell phone rings, and the player reacts to it, by operating the device in some manner. In David's case, for all we know, his opponent was able to read an incoming text during the time he took to silence the phone (without knowing more details, such as what cell phone model, whether silencing necessitates the user to interact with the screen/UI of the phone, etc, it's hard to be sure whether this is a possible situation--but it could happen).

I think David has a legitimate case to be made here, especially since it appears he acted in a very timely fashion to have the hand declared dead, and ran the risk of revealing information about his hand in the process. What will Harrah's do about it? Prolly nothing. But I think it sucks..I would have given him a refund, or a free entry to the 2008 ME, perhaps.

[Rekrul]

I also love how he acts like he had fold equity if he didn't 'give away his hand'....ppl folding top pair day 1 of WSOP? LOL!

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
i can understand singer asking to get the guy's hand dead as a desperation move, but i personally wouldn't do it. to actually believe that the guy's hand should be dead and to continue whining about it is absurd. as are most of the responses in this thread.

pressing a button on your phone to stop it from ringing during a hand is completely standard. i guess i have been lucky because i personally have done it in tournaments and in the world series a bunch of times. i have never dreamed that i could get my hand killed for doing this and no one has ever tried to get it killed.

you guys are saying the guy has to let the phone ring through while he's trying to make his decision? the rules are in place to protect fairness. killing a hand should only be done as an absolute last recourse.

-aj

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm ... what is it with ppl today that just can't stand to let a phone go unanswered? I mean for crying out loud, isn't that what voice mail is for?

So what if it rings, a rule is a rule, and if others hands had been declared dead through out the tourney for only TOUCHING one's cell phone, then this one should of been too.

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The tournament staff then took the investigation one step further, and temporarily confiscated the man's phone to test whether or not it was possible for him to receive a text message, by the way in which he handled his phone. The additional test concluded that the man would have had to press three buttons in order to receive a text message.


[/ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the person could access text messaging is meaningless. Most phones show who is calling on the front display. Call from Number A = Call. Call from Number B = Fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could do it with different ringtones too. The phone never has to leave your pocket for collusion to go on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then if we're so worried about that, Harrah's needs to make a no cell phone period in the poker area. Ever. Player's need to be patted down/screened for all electronic communication devices and have them removed from their person.

I'm not even really razzing your post, I'm just saying that if we're worried about collusion in such a way you mentioned, then there should be an outright ban on any communication devices in the poker area period. That would kinda suck for people who use their iPhone to listen to music at the table.

I wouldn't like that rule one bit, but if we're so worried about all these different forms of collusion, maybe an outright ban is the best way? I put a question mark there, because I don't know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much easier way to handle it, Harrah's should simply just fix it so that they are jamming the signals of cell phones in the Tourney area, and that the only way someone can make or get a call is to step outside the tourney area.

[Syntec87]

I really dont get this guys. THIS IS NOT AN ANGLE SHOOT. What if I disagree with ALL THE RULES of the WSOP??? Should I not use the ones that are good for me to my advantage?

What if I play straights are better than flushes, and that's how my home game plays, should I muck my flush when my opponent shows a straight b/c its a WSOP rule, not something I agree with?

Obv this is retarded and not even poker anymore, but once the rules are out, its your JOB to protect yourself as much as possible with them. You hurt your EV for no reason by not making the complaint he made b/c some guy would make it against him and we can assume some % of the time, the hand is declared dead...The rules are by definition arbitrary in this game, so how can even when we think some are stupid, we use them to help ourselves..

People dont like certain legislation in this country, they protest, but follow the current law while its in existence.
What if I believe in communal property, and steal, are you angleshooting by taking me to court? nobody in the court room will ask the prosecutor if he thinks its wrong to steal...its just a preestablished rule, that we live with until protest provokes change...

I agree with Singer's making the complaint, but upon thinking more about it I think the floor made the right call, and no refund is correct too. Doesnt mean he was wrong to bring attention to it, or be slightly frustrated, he lost a 60/40 to the floor...

lil tired lil drunk now hope its coherent

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
As I wrote earlier, verbal rules are worthless. Unless they are written down with no wriggle room the rules will always be open to interpretation. Giving verbal rules to a room filled with 1500 or so nervous, anxious people who speak multiple languages is the height of stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but the practical, day-to-day way the rules were enforced is not worthless, and that reflected the same policy as the loudspeaker announcements and was not based on the arcane language of the rulebook that no one sees.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a lot of sympathy for David's position. Here's a similar one that happened to me on Day 1B. How would you rule on this one?

Last hand of Level 3, so a lot of noise and chatter as people are heading out for dinner break. I was in the big blind and got a free play with my K /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif in a three-way pot. The flop had been checked all round, the turn had been bet by the last player and called by me and the other player. The final board was something like KJ986, all black (the cards did not arrive in that exact order, btw--this is just the best I can recall at this point). I checked, the second player checked, the third player bets out. As I'm considering what to do, the second player's cellphone rings. He picks it up, says "Hello, I'll call you back," and puts it down. The dealer declares his hand dead. Player #2 complains about the ruling. Player #3 and I ask the dealer to call a floorperson over. The dealer recounts the situation accurately, and the floor without hesitation rules that Player #2's hand is dead. This made my decision to call much easier--Player #3 had bluffed with some kind of draw that didn't get there, so I won. Player #2 was very upset, claiming that his draw had gotten there, he would have won a big pot, etc.

Unlike the David Singer situation, I thought this one was very clear, and the ruling to be correct and consistent. But how much of a stretch is it from this situation to David's? It's not so different; the player's cell phone rings, and the player reacts to it, by operating the device in some manner. In David's case, for all we know, his opponent was able to read an incoming text during the time he took to silence the phone (without knowing more details, such as what cell phone model, whether silencing necessitates the user to interact with the screen/UI of the phone, etc, it's hard to be sure whether this is a possible situation--but it could happen).

I think David has a legitimate case to be made here, especially since it appears he acted in a very timely fashion to have the hand declared dead, and ran the risk of revealing information about his hand in the process. What will Harrah's do about it? Prolly nothing. But I think it sucks..I would have given him a refund, or a free entry to the 2008 ME, perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between the noise you hear when you recieve a phone call and when you recieve a text message.

As I understand it, whenever there is a situation that falls under a "gray area" of a rule/policy, whomever is in charge makes a ruling that they think is fair, end of discussion.

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I wrote earlier, verbal rules are worthless. Unless they are written down with no wriggle room the rules will always be open to interpretation. Giving verbal rules to a room filled with 1500 or so nervous, anxious people who speak multiple languages is the height of stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but the practical, day-to-day way the rules were enforced is not worthless, and that reflected the same policy as the loudspeaker announcements and was not based on the arcane language of the rulebook that no one sees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Verbal, written, who cares? If other ppl had their hands declared dead throughout the previous events in the WSOP, for just TOUCHING their cell phones, then this one should of been too.

In other words, if it had been interpreted as such before in previous instances, then it should of been this time to.

Other wise it begs the question now, can all the other players who's hands were declared dead who didn't make the money, can they now appeal to have THEIR money refunded, because they didn't get paid on key hands where their hands were declared dead for just touching their cell phones?

FWIW, I think it's stupid that ppl just can't either turn off their phones prior to starting, or let the damm thing ring until their finished with the hands.

I've done it a number of times, where I just let me cell phone ring, even when I was on call (I'm a Telecommunications Technician by trade) for that week, when it rang when I was in the middle of the hand.

I then simply checked once I was finished with the hand, to see if the call was important enough to call back or wait until later.

Also, everyone I know, knows pretty much when I'm playing in a major event and can't be disturbed. They know if I don't answer my phone, I must still be playing, and that I will get back to them on a break or something.

[daviddaneshgar]

i would like to give my opinion on this,,, i have been in this situation before too... i understand that it is a little difficult to enfore the rule, and the rule is the rule but if someone clicks there phone off and singer right away asks for his hand to be dead i think this is ridiculous... i mean of course he gave away the strength of his hand but i think he did it because he knew he was going to get called and he wanted to just have a no risk win. i mean if the guy just pressed a button and the director had determined that in doing so he could not have send or recieved information then thats the end of the story. u give the guy a warning or penalty after the hand and david is eliminated. i mean he also had a 50-50 shot to win the hand too.. would he be complaining to give the guy his chips back if he won.. i view this as an angle and would literally be disgusted if he were able to play another day 1.. are u kidding me... just my 2 cents

[Crane]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a lot of sympathy for David's position. Here's a similar one that happened to me on Day 1B. How would you rule on this one?

Last hand of Level 3, so a lot of noise and chatter as people are heading out for dinner break. I was in the big blind and got a free play with my K /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif in a three-way pot. The flop had been checked all round, the turn had been bet by the last player and called by me and the other player. The final board was something like KJ986, all black (the cards did not arrive in that exact order, btw--this is just the best I can recall at this point). I checked, the second player checked, the third player bets out. As I'm considering what to do, the second player's cellphone rings. He picks it up, says "Hello, I'll call you back," and puts it down. The dealer declares his hand dead. Player #2 complains about the ruling. Player #3 and I ask the dealer to call a floorperson over. The dealer recounts the situation accurately, and the floor without hesitation rules that Player #2's hand is dead. This made my decision to call much easier--Player #3 had bluffed with some kind of draw that didn't get there, so I won. Player #2 was very upset, claiming that his draw had gotten there, he would have won a big pot, etc.

Unlike the David Singer situation, I thought this one was very clear, and the ruling to be correct and consistent. But how much of a stretch is it from this situation to David's? It's not so different; the player's cell phone rings, and the player reacts to it, by operating the device in some manner. In David's case, for all we know, his opponent was able to read an incoming text during the time he took to silence the phone (without knowing more details, such as what cell phone model, whether silencing necessitates the user to interact with the screen/UI of the phone, etc, it's hard to be sure whether this is a possible situation--but it could happen).

I think David has a legitimate case to be made here, especially since it appears he acted in a very timely fashion to have the hand declared dead, and ran the risk of revealing information about his hand in the process. What will Harrah's do about it? Prolly nothing. But I think it sucks..I would have given him a refund, or a free entry to the 2008 ME, perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things:

First, this post points out the extreme stupidity of the whole situation. How on earth can you declare someone's hand dead in the middle of a hand! Especially in the situation described. It is the equivalent of playing a three-handed pot and having the third man to act fold out of turn. Not only does this take away protection from the bettor, but it makes it easier (as in the above case) for the second person to call.

I don't understand how you can contrive a situation like this to interfer with the integrity of the game.

My first thought in this situation is for floor to say, just continue the hand and I'll rule after it's over. Two people got screwed in this hand--the bettor and the third guy. The middle man got a free dessert. Outlandish.

Second:

Player A bets. Player B is thinking and he sees (or hears) his phone ring. He looks at it and it's a text message saying that the guy is bluffing--call!

Who is sending this text message? Is it a spectator on the rail? Another player? How is this cheating actually supposed to be taking place? I don't get it.

One thing they could do is just announce at the beginning of the tournament--Ladies and gentlemen. All cell phones will now be turned off. Phones that ring will be confiscated.

I know it's probably dumb, but this whole thing is dumb. Dumb and dumber.

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
Verbal, written, who cares? If other ppl had their hands declared dead throughout the previous events in the WSOP, for just TOUCHING their cell phones, then this one should of been too.

In other words, if it had been interpreted as such before in previous instances, then it should of been this time to.

Other wise it begs the question now, can all the other players who's hands were declared dead who didn't make the money, can they now appeal to have THEIR money refunded, because they didn't get paid on key hands where their hands were declared dead for just touching their cell phones?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is why there should be no rules lawyering over interpretations. Every dealer and every floor person may make a different call. There is no way to achieve perfection and consistency in all decisions. Even if improperly applied in the past, they should try to follow the written rules as much as possible.

It was a resonable call, and upon review the reasonableness was confirmed. So the ruling should stand.

We have all been in situations where random circumstances affect the outcome. I get pulled over for speeding, and you going 10 MPH faster do not. Should I cry about it? Should my speeding violation be voided because the two of us were not treated exactly the same?

David Singer should grow up. He took a shot at a freeroll and he lost. Move on.

[MaverickUSC]

[ QUOTE ]
What will Harrah's do about it? Prolly nothing. But I think it sucks..I would have given him [censored], or a two hour penalty in the 2008 ME, perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I wrote earlier, verbal rules are worthless. Unless they are written down with no wriggle room the rules will always be open to interpretation. Giving verbal rules to a room filled with 1500 or so nervous, anxious people who speak multiple languages is the height of stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, but the practical, day-to-day way the rules were enforced is not worthless, and that reflected the same policy as the loudspeaker announcements and was not based on the arcane language of the rulebook that no one sees.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean some rulebook but rather a printed sheet of paper with the standard tourney rules on them (drop an f-bomb and get a penalty, cards on the floor - penalty, chips in pocket are out of play, etc, etc. - like we get here in LA at practically every tourney. Hand them out to every player as they get their seat card and no one can have any complaints when they break a rule. Just make sure that the way the rule is written doesn't leave wiggle room such as "if you USE your cellphone..."

[Moose]

[ QUOTE ]
We have all been in situations where random circumstances affect the outcome. I get pulled over for speeding, and you going 10 MPH faster do not. Should I cry about it? Should my speeding violation be voided because the two of us were not treated exactly the same?

David Singer should grow up. He took a shot at a freeroll and he lost. Move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your metaphor is inaccurate:

I get pulled over for speeding 10 MPH over. I get a $400 ticket. I find out that every other person pulled over for 10 MPH at that exact spot got a $200 ticket. I want my ticket reduced.

[Bingo_Boy]

[ QUOTE ]
Every dealer and every floor person may make a different call. There is no way to achieve perfection and consistency in all decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole point of having a rule is that it can be applied consistently by and for everyone. Otherwise you may as well let the dealers make it up as they go along.

[RainierBob]

Ideally we would have clear rules uniformly enforced. Incidents like this one show up deficiencies in both the clarity of the rule, how the rulebook wording is publicized, and how enforcement. All these things can and ought to be improved.

In the meanwhile a ruling has to be made in the instant case. From the description of the circumstances, I think the ruling made was the best choice. Clearly Harrah's went to some pains to see whether the "use" of the phone entailed any intent to get illegal information or otherwise influence play. The result was negative. On the other hand, we can't be sure whether Singer had an intent to give himself a freeroll, but a ruling in his favor would obviously have had that effect.