|
|
#41
06-12-2007, 06:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
I've never seen that happen in poker, but I can't imagine DGE out here would EVER let someone walk out if it was ruled a call. On a blackjack table - a $100 bet someone tried to take off of the table after being dealt a 5 for the first card, lady just picked it up saying they didn't mean it, saying she had to go (had been taking a few shots prior and the pit wasn't going for it).
Security came, literally removed her kicking and screaming after a shouting match, DGE came looked at video upstairs, talked to me and the floor, pit, shift manager (the whole works). All over $100. The best part was that the hand was never completely dealt, a drink got knocked over, partially on the cards (she should have just done that in the first place). I know AC's regulatory environment is much more strict than out west, between DGE and Commission they don't leave much room for BS. 
|
|
#42
06-12-2007, 11:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen that happen in poker, but I can't imagine DGE out here would EVER let someone walk out if it was ruled a call. On a blackjack table - a $100 bet someone tried to take off of the table after being dealt a 5 for the first card, lady just picked it up saying they didn't mean it, saying she had to go (had been taking a few shots prior and the pit wasn't going for it). [/ QUOTE ] This is once again a bet that was clearly placed on the table. What recourse would a player have in a world where the casino can make them take money out of their pocket if the floor rules it a call. With all the horrible rulings I read about on here, I shudder to think of a world where I can have money taken from me without a court order.
|
|
#43
06-12-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
He got up and left after pleading his case and them not doing anything. I'm kind of suprised they didn't offer to make it right with him or tell the guy he had to pay or leave, or something along those lines. He plays there like 2-3 times a week for long sessions, so I would think he's considered a regular by them, he also plays in their bigger money games. Just a bad ruling and even worse customer service IMO.
|
|
#44
06-12-2007, 11:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
Another note on this versus the Ceasar's case. At Ceasar's the player clearly stated call (I am going from memory) so that was a case of the player just not paying as opposed to a case where the player thought the floor was wrong. I think a casino would be very hard pressed to so a player was committing some sort of theft if the floor comes along and tells some player that is sitting back watching TV that he has to put $500 in the pot. I might ask some gaming guys about this the next time I see them.
|
|
#45
06-12-2007, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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). [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sold on the idea that it doesn't constitute a crime to refuse to give up the money after you have verbally committed it to the pot. I think there is strong argument that this is criminal and thus you have the same mechanism . . . have security detain him for the police.
|
|
#46
06-12-2007, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
I have to say, I do not think the player with JJ has called.
He said "I have to call". What does that mean?? I know I sound like Bill Clinton, but "I have to call" is anbiguous. I have spend hours debating the subject with people I work with, and the consensus is that he has not called. He can simply say - I was thinking ouloud and I did not call. In front of most GCB people who would hear the issue, that reasoning would allow the player who has JJ to not pay. Simply the way it is. Some stores are now not permitting a player to expose their cards until the action is complete, and that includes the JJ player making a definitive declaration of his intention. I love the rule - no premature exposure of any cards until all the action is done. It solves a lot of these problems.
|
|
#47
06-12-2007, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
" I should call" is ambiguous....maybe I will, maybe I wont.
"I have to call " is not, there is no "maybe" implied, it implies finality, a final "thought" and if you say it out loud, it is binding. I have cautioned players to use the word "call" only in the context of actually calling a bet... I should call, maybe I will call, I might call, did you call, did he call... Many times all others hear is "call" and that can cause issues, many times to the detriment of the player who used the word. An action or statement that causes action is binding( or can be ruled that way).
|
|
#48
06-12-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
[ QUOTE ]
If I've got what I think is the winner (or the nuts) I don't show until chips are over the line (if it's for any real $ that is). [/ QUOTE ] Unless it's obvious you aren't playing against people who would never try the angle in the OP you want to hold on to your hand and stay silent whether you think you have the best hand or not (e.g., you were on a stone cold bluff). Otherwise you give away exactly the kind of information the verbal angle shooters are looking for. ~ Rick PS Al, this isn't really directed at you but it seemed a good place to make the general point.
|
|
#49
06-12-2007, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
"I have to call" with no further action MIGHT be ambiguous--one could claim "I have to call...don't I?" was coming so if the other player insta-tabled his hand the first player maybe has a case for whining. But "I have to call" followed by tabling your hand is not ambiguous. The two together constitute an unambiguous, obvious result.
But yeah, RR is right about this being hard to hold up in court. The fact we can't get 12 2+2ers to agree that this was an unambiguous call proves that. But the poker staff knows it (or should) and the casino management should back 'em up in demanding the player either pay the wager, or leave forever. I will NEVER understand the 2+2ers who believe the person saying "I have to call" and tabling his hand is not a call.
|
|
#50
06-12-2007, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How should the Poker Room have handled this:
As a dealer, when someone says "I have to call" (and this happens more than you think) I immediately ask him if he is calling to make it very clear either way to protect everyone involved.
I don't deal anymore I am on the floor all of the time and if I came over and had to make a ruling on this, the chips would be playing. But as a dealer I really don't want it to get that far so I ask immediately, and always they give a very fast answer.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
