David Singer

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 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.