Call the Camera

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be technically possible to come up with reasons why "player C did nothing wrong," but that certainly doesn't make it RIGHT. Player C failed to abide by any standard whatsoever of true fairness, human decency or good sportsmanship. The worst part is that his atrocious behavior was rewarded by the floor having no balls or common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

He made a wager and welched. He wasn't broke or he could not have bought in at another table. There is no doubt that he owes and if I was the floor, no way he plays a hand of poker in my room, until he is square.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be technically possible to come up with reasons why "player C did nothing wrong," but that certainly doesn't make it RIGHT. Player C failed to abide by any standard whatsoever of true fairness, human decency or good sportsmanship. The worst part is that his atrocious behavior was rewarded by the floor having no balls or common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I skipped over the part about the guy playing at another table in the same room an hour later -- and that makes him a little worse, but...

The fact is the dealer screwed up, the player screwed up and the floor screwed up. Player 3 (or Player C or whatever) did nothing wrong. The chips were given to him when the pot was awarded. When controversy ensued, the chips should have been set aside. Player 3 was allowed to continue to play with chips (apparently without warning) that may not have been his. That changes everything going forward. Would he have bought in again had he lost the controversial pot? Would he have walked away from the table? Who knows.

Unless it is spelled out clearly to the ONLY FAULTLESS PARTICIPANT in the original controversy, he cannot be made to pay for the cocky inattentive player, the careless dealer and the ineffective floor. (Now if the floor had warned him by saying: "You can continue to play but you will need to return the chips if the camera proves Player A bet blind." as an alternative to impounding the chips... at least he would have been on notice.)

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]

He made a wager and welched. He wasn't broke or he could not have bought in at another table. There is no doubt that he owes and if I was the floor, no way he plays a hand of poker in my room, until he is square.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you play in a big hand that you believe you won despite complaints to the contrary. A half hour later, after you have continued to play and lost a significant portion (or all) of your session bankroll, the floor comes back and says --

"Remember that big hand you won a half hour ago? The hand where the dealer was oblivious? The hand where the guy claims to have bet out but had no chips in front of him? The hand where I listened to the guy for a few minutes, told him I would come back, but never told you that I might take your chips away?

"Well we checked the cameras and determined that the nice young man over there actually won the hand. Now I see you don't have enough chips in front of you, so please open your wallet. If you do not have enough cash, we have an ATM just outside the poker room where you can get some more for a small service fee."

Quick decisions [or actions to maintain the status quo] are very important in a poker room. Justice delayed is justice denied.... to someone...

[Al_Capone_Junior]

There's always one. No matter how many words you wanna mince or how many reasons you wanna come up with, the guy clearly, knowingly and intentionally pulled a fast one. He proved himself exactly the kind of scumbag that's trying their very best to make sure poker has an unsavory reputation. If this happened in vegas I'd lay 10 to 1 he was local.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
There's always one. No matter how many words you wanna mince or how many reasons you wanna come up with, the guy clearly, knowingly and intentionally pulled a fast one. He proved himself exactly the kind of scumbag that's trying their very best to make sure poker has an unsavory reputation. If this happened in vegas I'd lay 10 to 1 he was local.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see, that is where you are reading something that is not there. From OP, the "villain," Player C, was relatively clueless. On the hand, Player A was a moron. He threw in his bet early and allowed the dealer to scoop it in without protest. He likely threw it in when the dealer was pulling in chips from the other side of the table and did not see. There is no indication that Player C had any idea what was going on when it happened or that a bet had been made blind. In fact, if Player C was knowledgable and knew that player A had bet in the dark, he might have not called what he believed was player B's bet. There are many times I am willing to call a bet that I believe will be heads up but not overcall in a three way pot.

Player A deserves the lion share of the blame for what happened, closely followed by the dealer and floor.

My opinion would be complete unequivocal if Player C did not go play on a different table. Nevertheless, he was given $144 without restriction or warning (at least none we have been told about). At the time he was awarded those chips, there was no way of knowing whether he would have taken more money out of his pocket to play on or call it quits. To come back a 1/2 hour later (and likely 10 to 20 hands later) and tell him to give back a pot -- even if a proper ruling -- is poor management by the floor.

Now, I do believe the floor should have explained the situation to Player C, apologized for the problem, offered him a comp, and ask him to give the money to Player A. He can also be persuaded that it would look very bad if he was to play on. But that is as far as it can go.

Al, you seem to be certain that Player C knew what he was doing at all points in this drama and took advantage of the situation. I can't be so certain or make those assumptions.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
So you play in a big hand that you believe you won despite complaints to the contrary. A half hour later, after you have continued to play and lost a significant portion (or all) of your session bankroll, the floor comes back and says --

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly not the case because player C was seen playing at another game at the same day. If he had access to money to buy into a different game, he had access to money to cover his loss.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. The pot should have been confiscated by the floor until the floor is sure who it belongs to to begin with.

[ QUOTE ]
The floorman said that they couldn't compensate for the mistake. An hour later I see player 3 seated at a different table.

[/ QUOTE ] If I'm the floor player 3 isn't allowed to play in the room until he pays the money owed to player 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you play in a big hand that you believe you won despite complaints to the contrary. A half hour later, after you have continued to play and lost a significant portion (or all) of your session bankroll, the floor comes back and says --

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly not the case because player C was seen playing at another game at the same day. If he had access to money to buy into a different game, he had access to money to cover his loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there really should not be one rule for the player that busts out or leaves the room and a second rule for a player that decides to stay and play longer.

My point in all of these responses is to put yourself in the shoes of Player C. You don't know Player A and you were not aware he bet in the dark. You see Player B make a bet and you decide to put the rest of your chips in as a partial call of Player B's bet. (At this point, you might have already decided to get up if you lose the hand and look for an easier table -- who knows.)

Player A then turns his hand over as if to muck it face up (which happens quite frequently) and the dealer mucks it, pushes the side pot to your opponent and awards you the main pot. It is only at that point that Player A protests that he bet in the dark and that he was turning his hand up for showdown.

At this point, you might think that if you had known that he bet out in the dark you would never have called. So you have already been prejudiced by his failure to speak up earlier.

Even if this is not the case, you don't know if he actually bet out or if he is angle shooting now that he sees he would have had the best hand. He seems believable but there are a lot of a-holes in poker rooms that can appear believable. Until this is resolved you are sitting quietly.

The floor comes over and several players vouch for the fact that Player A had the best hand but no one else saw him bet in the dark (and, if it is NL, no one saw how much he bet). The floor tells Player A that he will check and come back. The floor does not ask that the pot be impounded or even tell you anything about what might potentially happen, so you continue to play with the $144 awarded to you.

As fate would have it, the deck is very cold. About a half hour later, you find yourself all in again and lose the remainder of your stack. As you are about to get up to take a break, hit the ATM, or find a new table, the floor returns and tells everyone that Player A, in fact, did bet in the dark and should have won that other hand.

Regardless of your intent at this point, do you not feel like you have gotten the worst of it and that everyone else f**ked up and you are the one being asked to lose an addition $144?

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
But there really should not be one rule for the player that busts out or leaves the room and a second rule for a player that decides to stay and play longer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly and the rule is, if you make a wager and lose, you have to pay up. You can not continue to play if you haven't paid.

All those circumstances are unfortunete but your way opens the door for too many angleshooters.

Player C was involved in a wager, he lost and he has to pay. He doesn't get to wager any more until he makes good.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there really should not be one rule for the player that busts out or leaves the room and a second rule for a player that decides to stay and play longer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly and the rule is, if you make a wager and lose, you have to pay up. You can not continue to play if you haven't paid.

All those circumstances are unfortunete but your way opens the door for too many angleshooters.

Player C was involved in a wager, he lost and he has to pay. He doesn't get to wager any more until he makes good.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO!!!! You love to oversimplify, but this is not a simple case of failing to pay off a wager. Unless Player C knew for certain that he lost the hand at the conclusion of the hand OR was told that the pot was being impounded, he did nothing wrong.

Player A failed to protect his action, failed to protect his hand. Dealer failed to keep track of the action. Floor failed to warn Player C and failed to impound the pot if he believed that it might have been awarded to the wrong player. Player C played by the rules and gets screwed. The house can make good for Player A or Player A can accept the fact that he screwed up being a cocky a-hole and not protecting himself.

NOW, depending on the nuances of the situation Player C may feel that he owes the money to Player A and may decide to pay Player A back. Or, the floor might suggest to Player C that he pay Player A for the pot and maybe even offer Player C some compensation for doing this -- but this is not something that the house can enforce.

It's like the subsequent action rule, you usually can't unwind the action in the middle of a hand once there has been subsequent action (like when the dealer believes a player has called but actually said raise). Here, there has been subsequent hands relying on the decision (or lack of decision of the floor). It is prejudicial to Player C to unwind the action now and require him to pay Player A unless you are going to force the people who later won the chips from Player C to return them to him.