A very interesting ethics situation and a Bellagio Floor ruling

[Garland]

Post this without the "Preliminary situation" (hand #1) and the "frustration" or "angleshooting" commentary on hand #2. [Just the facts, ma'am]. See if you get different results. I'll bet you do.

Unfortunately, some posters seem to think that what happens in the past hand should affect the decision in the current hand and that's simply not the case. They are independent events and should be treated as such. If someone was trying to tell the floor about the misannounced Kings hand for this current $2000 bet situation, the floor needs to drown it out for what's happening in the now (just like the readers need to drown out hand #1).

Yes, it seems like karma got him in hand #2 (but in general, karma seems to strike much later), but did he really deserve what he got? I don't know if I could bind him to $2000, and would probably bind him only what would be considered a "normal" bet, which is the size of the pot with the disclaimer that I'm not a dealer or floor or anyone in authority so I have no idea if this ruling would be correct.

Garland