PokerStars say you can break their rules

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
poker rules are arbitrary and are always subject to interpretation and the discrpency of the adjudicator.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not strictly true. The rules regarding which hands win are quite clear, as are the rules regarding betting order, moving chips over the line, etc. It is also a clear violation if a player out of the hand declares his mucked hand (true or not) to a live table. So the rules of poker are not always arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

but the argument here is not over whether the people involved in the hand broke the rule, but rather, what punishment is due.

Surely you're not suggesting that immediate disqualification from a tournament is an appropriate punishment for:
*a player betting out of turn (betting order)
*a player exasperated when the flop comes 339 and saying "damn, i folded a 3" (declares his mucked hand)

[ QUOTE ]
And if such a rule is in place, and Stars agrees that a player has violated that rule, such violations should be dealt with in a consistent way...

[/ QUOTE ]
They should be dealt with in a consistent way in the same sense that any other justice system works - the full circumstances of the event and the offender should be taken into account.

That certainly means that different punishments can be dealt out for the same "crime" - a regular who has been warned deserves a greater punishment than a newbie in his first tournament.

It is also worthwhile to note that the rule breaker in this situation punished himself by discouraging a call which cost himself some theoretical expected value.

[MicroBob]

I was talking about procedural rules such as talking during a hand or playing out-of-turn which only applies to live-play...stuff like that.
I'm really not an expert in the least on poker-rules or enforcement thereof. I've just learned a little bit here and there. Partly from reading some of RR's posts in the B&M forum because he seems about as close to an expert on such stuff as one could possibly hope to meet.

Everyone agrees that talking during a hand is inappropriate.
Stars handled this pretty much the same way it would be handled in almost any poker-room.
The guy gets warned that he's not supposed to do that.

The idea that a player deserves a full-refund for something like this is laughable. But just in case there was ANY kind of validity to his claim that the chat made a signfiicant difference in the tourney Stars looked into it more anyway.

Stars really impressed mewith how well they handled this one and how well they explained their reasoning to an unsatisfied customer.

My hunch is that Stars for the most part does deal with such infractions in a consistent way.
If it's clear that play probably wasn't affected at that it is a first-time violator then a warning is given and usually a refund is not warranted.
If the player has a history of angle-shooting and trying to chat up other players to collude and squeeze-out other players or short-stacks on the bubble then he almost certainly is going to be dealt with more severely and refunds will be considered for the affected parties.

I really don't see how you can absolutely and definitively make it more consistent than that. Each violation is different and needs to be looked at on its own merits.

Worth noting that others have reported getting refunds from cash-games or tourneys when it was found out that there was collusion on one of their tables even when they knew nothing about it. They just woke-up one day to find a refund from some past hand or tourney where Stars found some foul-play.
This is pretty damn classy if you ask me.

It doesn't take Stars off the hook in all situations. If you feel you have been wronged then absolutely you should question them and their decision.
But in this case their judgement seems particularly good and is also consistent with what I think most would expect to see in a similar situation if it happened in a live-game.

[Sevenfold]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are there so many sanctimonious arseholes on poker forums?

I agree that PS handled the situation well, an the quoted article by Lee Jones articulates their thinking well.

But that's no reason for the all the rudeness to OP.

Different people have different views on various rule breaking and OP was quite happy to accept that his thinking was in the minority here.

Most posters simply gave their views politely, but a few just had to go that little bit further and be objectionable.

Why?


PS. You may well find this post to be self referential!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why indeed?
(copied from a Google search---)

(Quote)Why do people bully?

So, we’ve mentioned that people who bully are usually in a more powerful position than the people on the receiving end of their behaviour. Now you might be asking yourself: “Does this mean that people who bully are powerful?”

The answer to this is “No!". But usually they want to feel powerful and bullying somebody and making them feel scared or small is one way of doing this.
Also, they are usually in a more powerful position than the person they are bullying in the places and at the times where the bullying happens. (End quote).

Here the more 'powerful' people are the regular 2+2 posters.

They do it because they like the feeling bullying gives them. The people who enjoy this feeling usually have a poor image of themselves, but not always.

For those that have no power in their everyday lives, and aren't real comfortable with themselves, they look for avenues in which they can be in control.

So A) If I call you stupid, ergo---
B) I must be smart.

Pathetic, but there it is.

[typically]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] @ Sevenfold

FWIW I am also quite impressed by the general integrity with which Stars conducts its business.

[Greg Miller]

Well, it looks their standard policy is (and has been for a long time) to give a warning on the first offense. I'm sorry you didn't get special treatment, Rek--better luck next time.