PokerStars say you can break their rules

[Henry17]

Disqualifying them does not mean they will give you your buy-in back as you were requesting. While it is true in this case that you then would have moved up into a cash position you would have then received the prize for second and the person who received second would have received the prize for first.

Under no circumstances does PokerStars have the right to fine someone the amount of an entry fee and give you the proceeds of that fine. They can disqualify him but that would be way too sever for a first offence.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
Disqualifying them does not mean they will give you your buy-in back as you were requesting. While it is true in this case that you then would have moved up into a cash position you would have then received the prize for second and the person who received second would have received the prize for first.

Under no circumstances does PokerStars have the right to fine someone the amount of an entry fee and give you the proceeds of that fine. They can disqualify him but that would be way too sever for a first offence.

[/ QUOTE ]

So after all that you do admit there can be a financial penalty given to the rule breaker. Thank you. Next time try reading the post and understand it before replying.

Yes I think we have established the penalty for a 1st offence would have been too severe had it been financial. I conceded that way back (again had you bothered to read you would have seen that).

In fact the entire thread centred around whether the 1st offence should have been financial or a warning and that is all I asked.

Next time I will make the threads less demanding for you Henry17. Something like "do you think my avatar would look better if it was green?"

[Henry17]

Disqualification is not a financial penalty. While it is true that with a disqualification usually there is also a loss of some funds that does not make it a financial penalty.

I realize this may seem like semantics but it is actually a very important distinction.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
Disqualification is not a financial penalty. While it is true that with a disqualification usually there is also a loss of some funds that does not make it a financial penalty.

I realize this may seem like semantics but it is actually a very important distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious????????

This has got to be my last discussion with you Henry17. Are you honestly trying to imply that PokerStars will disqualify you from a tournament and then refund you your money? Is that what you are trying to tell me?

Have you heard the saying "when you're in a hole stop digging"? Please enough is enough

[Henry17]

Actually no. I never implied that they would refund the person's entry fee.

Despite your constant attempts at taking shots about my ability to understand the topic you are actually the one who does not get it.

Disqualification is a penalty and while (As I clearly stated) may lead to the individual who is disqualified having a financial loss this does not make it a financial penalty.

I think the problem you are having is that to most people the difference between financial loss and financial penalty is not maintained but in a legal context (and I consider PokerStars or any gambling establishment's rulings to be similar to a legal context) it does very much matter.

Had you requested that the individual be disqualified, his entry fee forfeited and everyone moved up one spot I would probably argue that it was too server but certainly within your rights. You did not request this. You requested that PokerStars fine him the amount you spent on your entry fee. PokerStars does not have the right to impose financial penalties for rule infractions. The options are disqualification or warning. There is no fine option.

[typically]

OP's point is that the response to such an violation should be explicit, and not arbitrary. This policy seems arbitrary to me; either you are permitted to announce your putative hand holding are you aren't. If the policy is that a first-time offense may be excused with a warning, this should also be made explicit. The point is we have all agreed to play a game according to a particular set of rules and when these rules are broken by an opponent there should be a compensation for this.

I personally agree that Stars handled this well given their existing policy; however as a matter of policy there shouldn't be such ambiguity in the first place.

[MicroBob]

poker rules are arbitrary and are always subject to interpretation and the discrpency of the adjudicator.
That's life. And that's how it is practically everywehre in poker.

Furhtermore, this ruling is pretty consistent with what anyone experienced in live play would expect in such a situation.

In a live tourney it is not uncommon for there to be inexperienced noobs making stupid mistakes. If this happened in a live tourney then the violator would most likely get a warning not to do it again.
If another player started clamoring, "Violation!! Give me a refund right now!" the floor-person would likely laugh in his face.

If the floor-person could still look at both players' hole-cards he might do that to ensure that no blatant collusion was going on. That's what Stars did here.

Their first inclination is to give a warning. But they checked the cards just to be sure.


I disagree with your idea that the rules should somehow be different on Stars then everywhere else in poker.

[kslghost]

I'm pretty damn sure they reviewed the cards to make sure no collusion went on here. It's likely folder had 5 high and winner had quads :P

[housenuts]

if this is against the rules, it shouldn't be.

[typically]

[ 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. I do take your point that there will always be situations where the interpretation of the rules is ambiguous, and thus must be decided upon by an arbitrator; this happens in law as well as almost any multiplayer game. There is also always the possibility of rules being too strict, which threatens to deaden the spirit of the game, and in particular the spirited conversations that make it interesting.

Still, I think there must be limits on things you can say which affect the information available to opponents; in particular, information that is relevant to the decision making process of the hand in play. As the Stars rule quoted above says, players should not be able to reveal their hand to opponents if this information has some impact upon the other players in the game, as in the present case. 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...