Another Harrah's/Jack Effel Snafu

[BartHanson]

I played the $2000 Omaha HL event yesterday and there was another messy situation. Apparently a pot was wrongly awarded to Robert Williamson III. Supposedly his opponent openly tabled bottom set at showdown where Williamson held top two pair. Apparently Williamson, the dealer, and most of the table did not notice the pot was being awarded to the wrong player until after the cards were mucked by the dealer. After the pot was shoved bloody hell broke loose as one or more players mentioned that the pot was wrongly awarded to Williamson. The floor then stepped in and made a ruling that they were going "upstairs" to check the cameras. They came back sometime later and said that the shot was inconclusive and that the pot stood awarded to Williamson.

A couple hours later Williamson came to my table. Jack Effel came over and told Williamson that half of the pot (although there was no low) was awarded to his opponent. 1400 chips to be exact. The floor introduced these new chips into play! The purpose of this post is not to debate who should have been awarded the pot but rather to ask how this decision can possibly be right. How can tournament staff introduce chips into play? We started with 4000 chips. The buy in was $2000 make each chip's value 50c. How can the WSOP add more chips into the tournament without adding money to the prize pool? Aren't they taking money from everyone that bought into the tournament?

[LouKadeez]

Most of the tables at the WSOP do not have cameras recording the action. Of course the shot was was "inconclusive". A more accurate answer would have been, "Sorry, if you think that Harrahs is going to go to the expense of installing 250 cameras, recorders, and monitors for a 7 week event, you're crazy"

[scottc25]

Standard Harrah's line.

RW III is getting a bad reputation over the last few days.

[PokeReader]

Actually, it wouldn't have been the worst decision just to leave it. The dealer messed up, shock, after all, Harrah's pays top dollar to get the BEST dealers. But, it is the players job to catch the mistakes of the crappy dealers, and if you are not paying attention you shouldn't expect it to be fixed later. Once the cards got mucked that was it. the pot was awarded. Over and wrong but done.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
I played the $2000 Omaha HL event yesterday and there was another messy situation. Apparently a pot was wrongly awarded to Robert Williamson III. Supposedly his opponent openly tabled bottom set at showdown where Williamson held top two pair. Apparently Williamson, the dealer, and most of the table did not notice the pot was being awarded to the wrong player until after the cards were mucked by the dealer. After the pot was shoved bloody hell broke loose as one or more players mentioned that the pot was wrongly awarded to Williamson. The floor then stepped in and made a ruling that they were going "upstairs" to check the cameras. They came back sometime later and said that the shot was inconclusive and that the pot stood awarded to Williamson.

A couple hours later Williamson came to my table. Jack Effel came over and told Williamson that half of the pot (although there was no low) was awarded to his opponent. 1400 chips to be exact. The floor introduced these new chips into play! The purpose of this post is not to debate who should have been awarded the pot but rather to ask how this decision can possibly be right. How can tournament staff introduce chips into play? We started with 4000 chips. The buy in was $2000 make each chip's value 50c. How can the WSOP add more chips into the tournament without adding money to the prize pool? Aren't they taking money from everyone that bought into the tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

What was Effel's justification for adding more chips to the event? Did he issue any kind of statement?

[TonyLA]

Adding chips is worse than wrongly awarding the pot! Terrible decision.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
Adding chips is worse than wrongly awarding the pot! Terrible decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I'd like to hear if he has issued an explanation for why he would do this? It seems to me that a TD adding chips to a tourney is out of line and I'm wondering why he would do this?

If Matt Savage is reading this would you chime in with a good reason(s) for introducing extra chips into a tourney? One that can justify the -EV to the rest of the field.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
Adding chips is worse than wrongly awarding the pot! Terrible decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a rather natural happening anyway due to (mis)coloring?

[jacksquat]

i ran into this exact same scenario (wrote about this b4) last summer at the orleans sat. night tourney. the td came back from viewing the tapes and said the same thing, then proceeded to give the agrieved player the whole amount of the pot, about 20k in new chips. i still have not heard any reasonable explanation for adding chips to a tournament.

[Matt Savage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adding chips is worse than wrongly awarding the pot! Terrible decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I'd like to hear if he has issued an explanation for why he would do this? It seems to me that a TD adding chips to a tourney is out of line and I'm wondering why he would do this?

If Matt Savage is reading this would you chime in with a good reason(s) for introducing extra chips into a tourney? One that can justify the -EV to the rest of the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wrote a post on the "Fire Jack Effel" thread in defense of Jack, but this one is hard to defend. You should never add chips into play for any reason. You either award the pot to the correct player or stand by the ruling that it was too late or inconclusive but adding chips IS a mistake.

Matt Savage