|
|
#31
06-12-2007, 12:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
At some point players have to learn that verbal action is binding, and the best way to prevent misunderstandings is to avoid making ambigious declarations in the first place. Why put that onus on other players, dealers, and floors in the first place? [/ QUOTE ] It is true that cerbal actions are binding, but what would you like the casino to do if they refuse to put the call in. I can rule all day long that someone has committed their chips to the pot, but I have no mechanism to take enforce this rulign if they choose to leave the casino instead. 
|
|
#32
06-12-2007, 01:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] At some point players have to learn that verbal action is binding, and the best way to prevent misunderstandings is to avoid making ambigious declarations in the first place. Why put that onus on other players, dealers, and floors in the first place? [/ QUOTE ] It is true that cerbal actions are binding, but what would you like the casino to do if they refuse to put the call in. I can rule all day long that someone has committed their chips to the pot, but I have no mechanism to take enforce this rulign if they choose to leave the casino instead. [/ QUOTE ] This is not so uncommon. And you are correct that the casino will not/can not forceably take the chips from the player. Every cardroom I have ever played at would bar the customer who refused to put the chips in. And he would stay barred. I have also seen cardrooms make up the amount to the customer who got stiffed, but in most cases that customer was a regular, valued customer. If the cardroom intends to pay the amount of the call to the good customer, they will often tell the angle-shooter that he is barred until he pays what he owes. That allows the cardroom to correct bad behavior, keep a good (or any) customer, and get their money back. Most just simply bar the guy who won't pay.
|
|
#33
06-12-2007, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] At some point players have to learn that verbal action is binding, and the best way to prevent misunderstandings is to avoid making ambigious declarations in the first place. Why put that onus on other players, dealers, and floors in the first place? [/ QUOTE ] It is true that cerbal actions are binding, but what would you like the casino to do if they refuse to put the call in. I can rule all day long that someone has committed their chips to the pot, but I have no mechanism to take enforce this rulign if they choose to leave the casino instead. [/ QUOTE ] Yes you do. As Al C wrote earlier you, as the floor (or senior management - not sure which you are right now), you can tell the player that he can pay the money he owes or he can cash out and get perma-banned. IMO, angle shooters like this would sooner take a bite out of their arm then not be able to play at their local casino anymore.
|
|
#34
06-12-2007, 02:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] At some point players have to learn that verbal action is binding, and the best way to prevent misunderstandings is to avoid making ambigious declarations in the first place. Why put that onus on other players, dealers, and floors in the first place? [/ QUOTE ] It is true that cerbal actions are binding, but what would you like the casino to do if they refuse to put the call in. I can rule all day long that someone has committed their chips to the pot, but I have no mechanism to take enforce this rulign if they choose to leave the casino instead. [/ QUOTE ] This is not so uncommon. And you are correct that the casino will not/can not forceably take the chips from the player. Every cardroom I have ever played at would bar the customer who refused to put the chips in. And he would stay barred. I have also seen cardrooms make up the amount to the customer who got stiffed, but in most cases that customer was a regular, valued customer. If the cardroom intends to pay the amount of the call to the good customer, they will often tell the angle-shooter that he is barred until he pays what he owes. That allows the cardroom to correct bad behavior, keep a good (or any) customer, and get their money back. Most just simply bar the guy who won't pay. [/ QUOTE ] IIRC this is what the bike did last year when one of their regulars refused to pay off in the top section. It's in this forum somewhere's.
|
|
#35
06-12-2007, 02:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] At some point players have to learn that verbal action is binding, and the best way to prevent misunderstandings is to avoid making ambigious declarations in the first place. Why put that onus on other players, dealers, and floors in the first place? [/ QUOTE ] It is true that cerbal actions are binding, but what would you like the casino to do if they refuse to put the call in. I can rule all day long that someone has committed their chips to the pot, but I have no mechanism to take enforce this rulign if they choose to leave the casino instead. [/ QUOTE ] Yes you do. As Al C wrote earlier you, as the floor (or senior management - not sure which you are right now), you can tell the player that he can pay the money he owes or he can cash out and get perma-banned. IMO, angle shooters like this would sooner take a bite out of their arm then not be able to play at their local casino anymore. [/ QUOTE ] That is exactly it, if a player choses to leave (and not come back) the casino has no way to enforce its ruling. Even though verbal declarations are binding I would wait until they put the money in if you are playing for enough money where the player chosing to leave rather than pay could be a real concern.
|
|
#36
06-12-2007, 03:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] At some point players have to learn that verbal action is binding, and the best way to prevent misunderstandings is to avoid making ambigious declarations in the first place. Why put that onus on other players, dealers, and floors in the first place? [/ QUOTE ] It is true that cerbal actions are binding, but what would you like the casino to do if they refuse to put the call in. I can rule all day long that someone has committed their chips to the pot, but I have no mechanism to take enforce this rulign if they choose to leave the casino instead. [/ QUOTE ] I don't entirely buy this. If the player reached into the pot and grabbed chips you could rule that he has to put them back. What if he refused to put them back? Do you have no mechanism to keep him from leaving the casino instead.
|
|
#38
06-12-2007, 04:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] At some point players have to learn that verbal action is binding, and the best way to prevent misunderstandings is to avoid making ambigious declarations in the first place. Why put that onus on other players, dealers, and floors in the first place? [/ QUOTE ] It is true that cerbal actions are binding, but what would you like the casino to do if they refuse to put the call in. I can rule all day long that someone has committed their chips to the pot, but I have no mechanism to take enforce this rulign if they choose to leave the casino instead. [/ QUOTE ] I don't entirely buy this. If the player reached into the pot and grabbed chips you could rule that he has to put them back. What if he refused to put them back? Do you have no mechanism to keep him from leaving the casino instead. [/ QUOTE ] This is clearly a violation. A floor person's ruling does not carry the weight of law. If the floor rules you have to put $500 into the pot the casino has no way to force a patron to put it in there. If they remove $500 security can detain them until the police or gaming agents arrive (depending on the jurisdiction).
|
|
#39
06-12-2007, 04:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
That is exactly it, if a player choses to leave (and not come back) the casino has no way to enforce its ruling. Even though verbal declarations are binding I would wait until they put the money in if you are playing for enough money where the player chosing to leave rather than pay could be a real concern. [/ QUOTE ] Have we forgotten the Caesars all-in renig event from a few months ago? Someone came on here and posted that in the 2/5 game someone went all-in, he called 'em, turned up a winner, and the other player insisted he hadn't called, pocketed his $1200 (or so) and ignored the floor telling him to stay put and headed for the door. Floor chased him down, got security, and dragged him back in the poker room. Gaming was called and the guy was arrested. Sounds to me like there's at least one place in Vegas that thinks they have the legal authority to do this, and Gaming concurred. Don't recall ever seeing any followup postings to that thread with any resolution. The 2+2er didn't get his money because the chips were basically snagged as evidence, I think. As well, though, can a casino not just apply the "all our chips belong to us" rule and demand the player return the property of the casino to the casino? They may not be able to force the guy to pull chips out of his pockets, but if his chips are on the table, seems like the casino could just confiscate them much like MGM confiscated the $5000 chip from the poker player who said it was given to him by someone rather than having been won or purchased in the casino? And... given renigging on a bet is illegal in Nevada, and the casino would absolutely NOT let you pull a bet back off the BJ table or craps table after it lost, why is poker different? Someone made a wager, lost, and refuses to pay off. They're breaking the law. That's what casino security is good for--to detain such people until the real law arrives to take 'em away. So no, I don't fully buy this "the casino can't do anything about it" line. I think they generally choose to do little about it. If the casino REALLY believes they are unable to coerce payment through threat of arrest, fine, at LEAST threaten the guy with a lifetime ban from all properties. The other poker players do not want to see this guy come back to any table, ever. I'd be ultra seriously pissed if one evening someone renigged on a bet, and 24 hours later they're back playing at my table.
|
|
#40
06-12-2007, 05:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
Have we forgotten the Caesars all-in renig event from a few months ago? Someone came on here and posted that in the 2/5 game someone went all-in, he called 'em, turned up a winner, and the other player insisted he hadn't called, pocketed his $1200 (or so) and ignored the floor telling him to stay put and headed for the door. Floor chased him down, got security, and dragged him back in the poker room. Gaming was called and the guy was arrested. [/ QUOTE ] I remember that and was really hoping to eventually see a follow up post. I am really shocked that they took that position and I am suprised that gaming fealt a crime might have occurred. [ QUOTE ] As well, though, can a casino not just apply the "all our chips belong to us" rule and demand the player return the property of the casino to the casino? They may not be able to force the guy to pull chips out of his pockets, but if his chips are on the table, seems like the casino could just confiscate them much like MGM confiscated the $5000 chip from the poker player who said it was given to him by someone rather than having been won or purchased in the casino? [/ QUOTE ] They could. These games are often played with cash and if someone decided they aren't going to put the chips in they most likely will be putting them in their pockets rather than waiting for the casino to take them. [ QUOTE ] And... given renigging on a bet is illegal in Nevada, and the casino would absolutely NOT let you pull a bet back off the BJ table or craps table after it lost, why is poker different? Someone made a wager, lost, and refuses to pay off. They're breaking the law. That's what casino security is good for--to detain such people until the real law arrives to take 'em away. [/ QUOTE ] I think the bet to compare to is if someone makes a call bet in craps and then refuses to pay. They have signs ssaying they don't take call bets, but they often take call bets from regulars as they walk up to the table. I would really like somone who has experience in pits to tell us what the casino would do if someone makes a call bet and then refuses (or can't) pay.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
