Another Harrah's/Jack Effel Snafu

[FatalError]

RW3 was in the lounge after the hand and i overheard him talking about it, he constantly claimed he was sure it was his pot and that the only reason the other players said it wasn't is because he is so good and people don't want him to have more chips

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, wtf is the point of having cameras in a poker room if the cameras almost never (do they ever?) yield conclusive information. Do they use much crappier cameras than the ones out on the casino floor or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason they have cameras is to catch stealing. Since there's no money at tournament tables, there's nothing to steal.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, wtf is the point of having cameras in a poker room if the cameras almost never (do they ever?) yield conclusive information. Do they use much crappier cameras than the ones out on the casino floor or what?

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason they have cameras is to catch stealing. Since there's no money at tournament tables, there's nothing to steal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]About right, but I can vouch for the fact that the cameras in MGM certainly cover the cash tables. Last year new guy at the table manages to take one of my stacks along with a $200+ pot he'd just won. HE and the dealer claimed that it wasn't a full stack, more like $80, I insisted it was a full stack, but left the floor to deal with it as I was confident I was in the right.

10 minutes later the floor comes back to confirm I am right and asks the guy to give me a full stack, at this point he went mental claiming no way, he got a very dirty stare, and a gruff Scottish warning and paid me and stfu thereafter.

I was impressed that the cameras were so sharp they could tell the difference.

[Phntm]

How does a guy take one of your stacks while dragging a pot? WTF?

[ZeeJustin]

(The following is copy/pasted from my blog)

A bunch of people have been asking me about the Robert Williamson angle-shot so here it is. I was not going to post this at first, and when I first told the story, I left his name out, but since then, Negreanu has named him, and I have been told by three separate “big name pros” that this was not a one of a kind occurrence.

The stakes are 1,000/2,000 Omaha Eight or Better in the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E event. On the turn, I was out of small chips, so I put out a 25,000 chip and said bet. He called. In live split pot games, the bets are left in front of the players rather than pulled into the pot. This is done because so many pots are split, and it’s much easier if the players can just pull back the bets that are in front of them.

Anyway, on the river the board is 27J9J (in that order I think) with no flush or low possible. I point to the 25k chip in front of me and say bet. The dealer turns to Robert (so that I can’t hear her) and says check. Less than a second later, Robert taps the table indicating a check.

INSTANTLY, I say, “No. I said bet.” Three people at the table including Doyle Brunson and Bill Edler confirm they heard me say bet. Robert argues that he shouldn’t have to pay since he already checked. We call the floor over.

The floor man rules in my favor. It’s a bet. Robert can call, fold, or raise. While the floor man is talking (before his mind is officially made up), Robert exposes his hand (for the first time). He lies and says that he turned his cards over when he checked, before I said it was a bet, and claims he should not have to pay 2,000 to call because of that.

Robert obviously does not like this ruling, so he calls over Jack Effel. Robert tells the story (including his lie about when he flipped his hand over), and Jack rules that the dealer said check, therefore my action counts as a check.

Jack never asked me or even the dealer if the story was true, so I interrupt and tell him I have three problems with his ruling.

1) Robert is lying. He never exposed his cards until after the first floor man came over.
2) Even if he did expose his cards, it’s no penalty to him to decide whether or not to call or fold. A raise was obviously never considered, and the table can confirm that I originally said bet and am not angle-shooting trying to bluff now that I know his hand is weak.
3) I did nothing wrong, and should not be penalized.

Jack, who I now assume is friends with Robert doesn’t acknowledge my three points and basically just says, “The dealer said check. It stands as a check.”

For those of you that don’t play live poker, this ruling is obviously wrong. If you don’t want to take my word for it, take Negreanu’s word for it. He was watching it all go down and posted on his website about how [censored] the situation was.

The craziest part is Robert had nothing but A9 for a pair of nines, and was willing to spend all that time lying to the floor men just to get a free showdown in an obvious fold situation.

For what it’s worth, I had a straight and it was good for the whole pot.

[shaniac]

ZJ,

this is [censored] sick if you ask me, not just because of RWIII's initial actions, but because he was able to manipulate the decision by going to Jack Effel after one floorman had already ruled on the situation. Really sickening. During the part of the story when Jack Effel was pandering to Williamson's angle, what were the other players who saw the true action (Doyle, etc.) doing/saying, or had they lost interest by that point?

[vendbien]

You are aware that Effel gives more decisions to 'Poker Personalities' than any other Director in WSOP history, aren't you?
That is because he is so in the pocket of ESPN and their onsight producer, Dave Schwartz, that they can't make change of a quarter (two dimes and an Effel is the norm).
Effel knows that ESPN will back his continued tenure if he can get more 'Names' at the final tables. A friend of mine swears he has a picture of Effel getting stooped by Schwartz in one of the port-a-poddies.

[sd_ace]

Just to wrap up this issue. I'm the guy that got burned in event#44. Last week the NV GCB awarded me my buy-in which the RIO refunded. The major point was rule #68 of the WSOP, which follows:
"68. A dealer cannot kill a winning hand that was turned face up and was obviously the
winning hand. Players are encouraged to assist in reading tabled hands if it appears that
an error is about to be made."

We in CA do not have a GCB to monitor indian gaming. I'm grateful to the GCB. The little guy does win occasionally.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Williamson's a jerk. The dealer sucks. Still it's 100% the player's fault. You online players better learn live rules. NEVER surrender the winning hands until AFTER you have been awarded the pot.

[The B]

[ QUOTE ]


The floor man rules in my favor. It’s a bet. Robert can call, fold, or raise. While the floor man is talking (before his mind is officially made up), Robert exposes his hand (for the first time). He lies and says that he turned his cards over when he checked, before I said it was a bet, and claims he should not have to pay 2,000 to call because of that.

Robert obviously does not like this ruling, so he calls over Jack Effel.

[/ QUOTE ]


ZJ,

this is wrong on so many levels...how did Effel "over-rule" the decision made by the original floorman?? sux that doyle, edler, and original floorman didn't stand up for what is right and for the integrity of poker