Another Harrah's/Jack Effel Snafu

[Tuco]

The old man couldn't see very well. He thought RW3 had a better hand than he did. As the dealer was mucking his hand he looked over towards RW3's hand to see what beat him. A couple of seconds later and we were all telling the dealer he f'd up.

Tuco.

[BDHPlayer]

The old man ended up at my table later. He was still fuming and was going to take it to the gaming commission. He almost busted out before they brought him the additional chips.

[FatalError]

RW3 was in the lounge after the hand and i overheard him talking about it, he constantly claimed he was sure it was his pot and that the only reason the other players said it wasn't is because he is so good and people don't want him to have more chips

[ZeeJustin]

(The following is copy/pasted from my blog)

A bunch of people have been asking me about the Robert Williamson angle-shot so here it is. I was not going to post this at first, and when I first told the story, I left his name out, but since then, Negreanu has named him, and I have been told by three separate “big name pros” that this was not a one of a kind occurrence.

The stakes are 1,000/2,000 Omaha Eight or Better in the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E event. On the turn, I was out of small chips, so I put out a 25,000 chip and said bet. He called. In live split pot games, the bets are left in front of the players rather than pulled into the pot. This is done because so many pots are split, and it’s much easier if the players can just pull back the bets that are in front of them.

Anyway, on the river the board is 27J9J (in that order I think) with no flush or low possible. I point to the 25k chip in front of me and say bet. The dealer turns to Robert (so that I can’t hear her) and says check. Less than a second later, Robert taps the table indicating a check.

INSTANTLY, I say, “No. I said bet.” Three people at the table including Doyle Brunson and Bill Edler confirm they heard me say bet. Robert argues that he shouldn’t have to pay since he already checked. We call the floor over.

The floor man rules in my favor. It’s a bet. Robert can call, fold, or raise. While the floor man is talking (before his mind is officially made up), Robert exposes his hand (for the first time). He lies and says that he turned his cards over when he checked, before I said it was a bet, and claims he should not have to pay 2,000 to call because of that.

Robert obviously does not like this ruling, so he calls over Jack Effel. Robert tells the story (including his lie about when he flipped his hand over), and Jack rules that the dealer said check, therefore my action counts as a check.

Jack never asked me or even the dealer if the story was true, so I interrupt and tell him I have three problems with his ruling.

1) Robert is lying. He never exposed his cards until after the first floor man came over.
2) Even if he did expose his cards, it’s no penalty to him to decide whether or not to call or fold. A raise was obviously never considered, and the table can confirm that I originally said bet and am not angle-shooting trying to bluff now that I know his hand is weak.
3) I did nothing wrong, and should not be penalized.

Jack, who I now assume is friends with Robert doesn’t acknowledge my three points and basically just says, “The dealer said check. It stands as a check.”

For those of you that don’t play live poker, this ruling is obviously wrong. If you don’t want to take my word for it, take Negreanu’s word for it. He was watching it all go down and posted on his website about how [censored] the situation was.

The craziest part is Robert had nothing but A9 for a pair of nines, and was willing to spend all that time lying to the floor men just to get a free showdown in an obvious fold situation.

For what it’s worth, I had a straight and it was good for the whole pot.

[shaniac]

ZJ,

this is [censored] sick if you ask me, not just because of RWIII's initial actions, but because he was able to manipulate the decision by going to Jack Effel after one floorman had already ruled on the situation. Really sickening. During the part of the story when Jack Effel was pandering to Williamson's angle, what were the other players who saw the true action (Doyle, etc.) doing/saying, or had they lost interest by that point?

[vendbien]

You are aware that Effel gives more decisions to 'Poker Personalities' than any other Director in WSOP history, aren't you?
That is because he is so in the pocket of ESPN and their onsight producer, Dave Schwartz, that they can't make change of a quarter (two dimes and an Effel is the norm).
Effel knows that ESPN will back his continued tenure if he can get more 'Names' at the final tables. A friend of mine swears he has a picture of Effel getting stooped by Schwartz in one of the port-a-poddies.

[sd_ace]

Just to wrap up this issue. I'm the guy that got burned in event#44. Last week the NV GCB awarded me my buy-in which the RIO refunded. The major point was rule #68 of the WSOP, which follows:
"68. A dealer cannot kill a winning hand that was turned face up and was obviously the
winning hand. Players are encouraged to assist in reading tabled hands if it appears that
an error is about to be made."

We in CA do not have a GCB to monitor indian gaming. I'm grateful to the GCB. The little guy does win occasionally.

[The B]

[ QUOTE ]


The floor man rules in my favor. It’s a bet. Robert can call, fold, or raise. While the floor man is talking (before his mind is officially made up), Robert exposes his hand (for the first time). He lies and says that he turned his cards over when he checked, before I said it was a bet, and claims he should not have to pay 2,000 to call because of that.

Robert obviously does not like this ruling, so he calls over Jack Effel.

[/ QUOTE ]


ZJ,

this is wrong on so many levels...how did Effel "over-rule" the decision made by the original floorman?? sux that doyle, edler, and original floorman didn't stand up for what is right and for the integrity of poker

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The floor man rules in my favor. It’s a bet. Robert can call, fold, or raise. While the floor man is talking (before his mind is officially made up), Robert exposes his hand (for the first time). He lies and says that he turned his cards over when he checked, before I said it was a bet, and claims he should not have to pay 2,000 to call because of that.

Robert obviously does not like this ruling, so he calls over Jack Effel.

[/ QUOTE ]


ZJ,

this is wrong on so many levels...how did Effel "over-rule" the decision made by the original floorman?? sux that doyle, edler, and original floorman didn't stand up for what is right and for the integrity of poker

[/ QUOTE ]

It is standard that the supervisor's decision is final, meaning the supervisor can overrule the floor. Generally the supervisor is more experienced than the floormen, this doesn't have to be the case at a Harrah's property. Also there is a good chance ZJ will not see your comments as this is an old thread.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, on the river the board is 27J9J (in that order I think) with no flush or low possible. I point to the 25k chip in front of me and say bet. The dealer turns to Robert (so that I can’t hear her) and says check. Less than a second later, Robert taps the table indicating a check.

INSTANTLY, I say, “No. I said bet.” Three people at the table including Doyle Brunson and Bill Edler confirm they heard me say bet. Robert argues that he shouldn’t have to pay since he already checked. We call the floor over.



[/ QUOTE ]

To bet just put chips into the middle like everyone else.
You must share blame for causing confusion.