Station's withholds bad beat jackpot
Article from Las Vegas Review-Journal
Unless there is more than is being reported, I think this is a bad look for Station's. Though I disagree with the initial decision to withhold the bad beat jackpot, I can to a degree, understand. By the rules, exposing the hand on the river before the action had closed, could be considered communication about the jackpot, thus invalidating the payout. Again, I don't like the ruling, but Station's could reasonably argue that they needed to protect other players, not currently in action, who might dispute the payout.
But after "Control Board investigator Bill Olliges conducted the review and determined that the players should be paid. He indicated Schreter violated traditional poker etiquette by exposing his hand, but his action didn’t change the game’s outcome" why in the world would they continue to fight it? The money is already collected and it looks good to make payouts like this. They look stingy and even somewhat corrupt in fighting this, imo.
The rules also allow a gaming officer to show up and make a decision, if the amount is over five hundred dollars an appeal to the full board is allowed and if made requires a formal calendared hearing and representation by counsel.
Did the accountants or lawyers or poker big-wigs want the hearing? I don't know.
Were they suspicious when professional poker players do something that is clearly wrong... well I would hope so.
Not good for public perception perhaps but good for business. I'd say its the right thing for a suspicious casino to do. Its like waitng for a photo finish ... don't rush the photographer.
I will say that I predict Gaming will rule in favor of Stations.
Quote: MidwestAPLanguage difficulties or experience shouldn't make a difference. In my opinion it goes to the intent of the rule, which I presume is to prevent collusion, in this case for the purposes of chasing and pocketing the jackpot. And I can understand it, at any time before the river card is exposed. But once that happens, there isn't a player alive who is going to lay down a straight flush to a river bet. The article seems to imply that the player (who had the nut straight flush) influenced action by exposing his hand on the river. For what? So the other lower straight flush wouldn't fold? He was calling (or more likely raising) anyhow.
Better luck next time.
Quote: DRichDid I miss something? It says he flipped his cards over after the river card was exposed. Was there an opportunity for betting before he showed his cards? If he exposed them before the other player had an opportunity to bet or check, his hand should be dead. If the betting action concluded it shouldn't matter who showed first.
I suspect whoever wrote that article isn't a poker player. He could have done a much better job investigating the details of what happened after the river, which the case hinges on.
Quote: DRichDid I miss something? It says he flipped his cards over after the river card was exposed. Was there an opportunity for betting before he showed his cards? If he exposed them before the other player had an opportunity to bet or check, his hand should be dead. If the betting action concluded it shouldn't matter who showed first.
Even if the player exposed his cards to one player not in the hand, the hand should be declared dead and mucked.
Quote: DRichDid I miss something? It says he flipped his cards over after the river card was exposed. Was there an opportunity for betting before he showed his cards? If he exposed them before the other player had an opportunity to bet or check, his hand should be dead. If the betting action concluded it shouldn't matter who showed first.
Well that brings up a whole other topic, IF the pot is heads up (and I don't know this one was), I think players should have the option of exposing any hole cards they wish to without killing the hand.
Quote: IbeatyouracesEven if the player exposed his cards to one player not in the hand, the hand should be declared dead and mucked.
This has happened in the WSOP before. And it didn't matter if it was exposed to one player or the whole table. The hand is declared dead.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThis has happened in the WSOP before. And it didn't matter if it was exposed to one player or the whole table. The hand is declared dead.
Tournament is different than cash. Presumably in a tournament, you are presenting information to only those at your table, so the rule is put in place to protect the field, since in reality you are playing against those players as well. Agree or not.
But in a cash game, this dynamic doesn't exist.
Quote: MidwestAPTournament is different than cash. Presumably in a tournament, you are presenting information to only those at your table, so the rule is put in place to protect the field, since in reality you are playing against those players as well. Agree or not.
But in a cash game, this dynamic doesn't exist.
True. I still say that if it's specifically in Stations rules that players cannot expose cards, then the hand is dead and gaming should side with them.
When I won mine, I thought it was going to be quashed for the same reason. On a A, A, 7, 5 board, the two others in the hand were in a raising war while I held A, 10. I showed my neighbor my cards while wondering what these guys had. The river A sealed the pot for me with the other two holding 8, 8 and J, J respectively. No issues arised and we were promptly paid. 😁
Quote: IbeatyouracesTrue. I still say that if it's specifically in Stations rules that players cannot expose cards, then the hand is dead and gaming should side with them.
Yes, it is going to depend on what is written in their house rules. When a bad beat is involved I could imagine a rule saying that even heads up that you can not disclose the hand prior to the betting action.
Quote: MidwestAP
But in a cash game, this dynamic doesn't exist.
But it can make a difference when a bad beat is involved. It will be what is written in Stations house rules that determines the outcome.
The article didn't mention this aspect, it only mentioned that is may void the bad beat . "According to Station’s Jumbo Hold ‘Em Jackpot official rules, “discussion of hands during the play by players, at the discretion of management, may void a Jumbo Hold ‘Em Jackpot.”
I know in poker rooms I've played in, discussing the bad beat during a hand, even if the player isn't involved, is discouraged so the casino can't use it as a reason to void the payout.
It's not their money, it's a pot funded by the players. They should've done what is right from the beginning. Rules are rules, but from the article the exposure of the hand had no bearing on anything.
Quote: SM777Bad look for Station's.
It's not their money, it's a pot funded by the players.
Technically, all money a casino pays out in all casino games are funded by losing players and not the casino. This excuse doesn't fly.
Quote: IbeatyouracesTechnically, all money a casino pays out in all casino games are funded by losing players and not the casino. This excuse doesn't fly.
Sure, for a casino banked game. But in this case, it's taken as a separate rake. This separate rake is presented by the casino, as the money that's used specifically to fund their poker promotions (high hands, bad beats, etc). If it's going to be presented as such, I think this argument is valid, at least from a perception standpoint.
Quote: MidwestAPSure, for a casino banked game. But in this case, it's taken as a separate rake. This separate rake is presented by the casino, as the money that's used specifically to fund their poker promotions (high hands, bad beats, etc). If it's going to be presented as such, I think this argument is valid, at least from a perception standpoint.
My point was that casinos never pay winning players with their own money. Other players play the winners.
Say I'm heads up with someone, and we're on the river, and they shove all in. I can literally (and legally) decide what to do with my hand FACE UP since the last action is on me. Some players will do this to see what kind of reaction they get from their opponent when exposing their hand, to try to get a read if their opponent is afraid of what they see, etc. This is even legal in tournament play, and I "believe" at the WSOP... again it's the specific scenario where the person with the LAST ACTION is making their decision. Thus, if this is the case in this case, the bad beat should be hit/qualified for and the players should be paid.
I never quite understood that rule anyways... Most bad beats require Aces full of Kings or better to be beat by a better hand... Why the HELL would anyone ever fold aces full? It's the top boat, so you're only beat by quads... so the player A) will win the hand with the best full house, or B) the player got cold decked against quads/SF, but C) the player will pretty much NEVER fold. There could be an argument for folding in a tournament scenario, BUT here's the kicker... the players KNOW about the bad beat. So if you hit Aces-Full, you're HOPING to get beat in the hand and you're of course again NEVER GOING TO FOLD IT because either you win the hand, or you win the bad beat.
It's an idiotic rule aimed at giving the casino a cheap and sleazy out for paying the rightful bad beat they promote to the players. Pay them.
Quote: RomesSay I'm heads up with someone, and we're on the river, and they shove all in. I can literally (and legally) decide what to do with my hand FACE UP since the last action is on me.
In many poker rooms, this is not allowed and doing so will kill your hand. This is essentially what Stations is doing. Again, it boils down to their specific rules.
The next topic is, why won't they pay? Why all the rules? That extra dollar (or two!) is removed from any large pot (usually a pot of at least $20), and goes into a special fund for the specific purpose of returning it to players involved in a bad beat hand. The casino is merely holding it. Why hold it so tightly?
Some have commented that players who lose fund the casino's ability to pay players who win. While that's true for the regular casino pit, bad beat money has a direct connection from the pot rake to the bad beat payout. It really is the player's money, earmarked to pay other players.
So, again, you gotta ask why the casino seems stingy about paying it.
Some may think the answer is the utility of money. I.E. The ability for the casino to earn interest on the cash while they are holding it. While there is a small amount of truth in that, the real answer is much more basic.
Marketing.
When the bad beat gets large, the casino uses that fact in advertising, to attract more poker players. And it works. And since the money really is the player's money, it's marketing that costs nothing other than the cost of a billboard.
There are countless examples of a casino cancelling all poker tournaments when the bad beat gets high. Demand requires it. They'll have every table runnning, and every seat filled, along with an hours long wait list.
Hell, sometimes free word of mouth and web advertising is so successful, that the casino doesn't even need the billboard!
THAT'S why they look for any excuse to hang on to (and grow!) that money.
Quote: DJTeddyBearSome have commented that players who lose fund the casino's ability to pay players who win. While that's true for the regular casino pit, bad beat money has a direct connection from the pot rake to the bad beat payout. It really is the player's money, earmarked to pay other players.
When you win a pot and an extra $1, sometimes $2, comes out of your winnings, you are certainly LOSING that dollar or two to fund other winners. Personally, I'd rather have no BBJ in the room.
Quote: IbeatyouracesWhen you win a pot and an extra $1, sometimes $2, comes out of your winnings, you are certainly LOSING that dollar or two to fund other winners. Personally, I'd rather have no BBJ in the room.
Well, this is something I can definitely agree with. I'd prefer to play without the additional BB rake as well.
English only even if it just Buenas Diaz or something... ENGLISH ONLY.
Must be heard by everyone at the table to avoid collusion or possibility of collusion.
ANY card displayed must be displayed to ALL players.
Bank behind the line... if you just got change, you put your bet in the circle if you set your other bills/chips down but across the line, its deemed in the pot even though that is obviously not your intent.
What I would like to know is:
If you were a spectator at the game just idly passing the time as your name moves up a list or something, would you have "gasped in amazement" at such an error or would you have not even noticed it? Something inbetween? Would the other players at the table have become immediately worried about a possible casino retaliation? Or is this some mere technical fault equivalent to using a check mark rather than an X in that darned little box on some silly form?
Quote: IbeatyouracesIn many poker rooms, this is not allowed and doing so will kill your hand. This is essentially what Stations is doing. Again, it boils down to their specific rules.
I'm pretty sure that this isn't the rule at stations and also pretty sure that I've never seen it anywhere else. I have some vague recollection of it being against the rules in some places, but having it kill your hand would be crazy.
As to Romes' point, the reason places with BBJPs have this rule isn't so much for the river action as the action leading up to the river. If you know that villain has quads, drawing to a one outer becomes +ev.
I think it's simply easier to have the rule be "exposing cards kills the BBJP" than to make rules about how you can expose the cards in some scenarios but not others.
DJT pointed out the same/real reason for the ruling... casino greed. NOT that the hand didn't qualify... not that someone didn't get a "bad beat" which is the true spirit of the promotion. It's just a slimy casinos attempt to keep a jackpot that it should rightfully pay out. Similar to "if you stand up when you hit a jackpot at the table games, they won't pay you" as if that changes the hand in any way. It's just the casino trying to make rules to not pay you.Quote: DJTeddyBear...Marketing.
When the bad beat gets large, the casino uses that fact in advertising, to attract more poker players. And it works. And since the money really is the player's money, it's marketing that costs nothing other than the cost of a billboard.
There are countless examples of a casino cancelling all poker tournaments when the bad beat gets high. Demand requires it. They'll have every table runnning, and every seat filled, along with an hours long wait list.
Hell, sometimes free word of mouth and web advertising is so successful, that the casino doesn't even need the billboard!
THAT'S why they look for any excuse to hang on to (and grow!) that money.
Of course the other guy is never laying down his smaller SF and all the cards were out so he knew what he had, but the fact that this guy showed his hand is just a bad thing to do in a potential bad beat situation. I bet the winner did not think he was up against a smaller SF but rather an Ace high flush. We would need to know the sequence of the cards and betting rounds to understand that. I think this is a simple case of someone wanted to "go easy" on the river on some guy he may have played against before in the local poker community and it is gonna cost him.
If the rules say discussion/exposing of cards can nullify a bad beat jackpot, the players are going to lose and the card exposer is to blame...I get it that it doesn't seem fair, but neither does someone else having rights to a slot jackpot simply for pushing the button when it is clear the individual sitting in front of the machine put the bet into the machine, but those are the rules, right?
Yeah I started to write up a whole "some rules are right, and some are wrong, and I don't believe it's our responsibility to follow rules that are wrong just because they're rules." Ended up not posting because I thought it was a bit too... eh, serious?Quote: RSIf you're only right due to a technicality, you're pretty much just wrong.
If I had a rule that was a STANDARD T's and C's rule, such as "I reserve all rights to change a promotion as I see fit." Then you came in to my casino, and played in some promotion and won $100,000,000... and I said "Well I'm not paying you. I'm exercising my rule/right to adjust the promotion and now it's canceled because we didn't expect anyone to actually win." What would you say then? TECHNICALLY the rules state I can do that... but is that really what's "right" here?
So a rule interpretation = a technicality? Under a US legal system I would always opt to be be technically right vs. the alternative. You end up winning so much more often.Quote: RSIf you're only right due to a technicality, you're pretty much just wrong.
Stations believes flipping over your hole cards constitutes communication about a hand and evidently the betting action wasn't closed when this happened. That's a form of communication.
I don't like this no-payment outcome if that is what is decided by NGCB, but if you look at their posted rules, it doesn't look good for the players.. Romes, your rule wouldn't get NGCB approval so that's a hypothetical that isn't realistic. My guess is that Station's communication rule is NCGB approved, Station's wants to enforce it (I am not sure that is a good long term decision for their status in the local poker community, but that is their decision to make) and I bet NGCB sides with Stations interpretation that flipping over your cards before the action is complete equals communication during the hand.
It's the rules they signed up for when they bought their checks...I get it that flipping the cards wouldn't have changed the BBJ outcome, but it likely did change the betting action (the smaller SF likely would have bet/gone all in and lost more $$ to the higher SF). The rule is specifically in play so that the betting action isn't altered, it was in the eyes of Stations, I bet NGCB sees it that way as well, game over.
Quote: ParadigmSo a rule interpretation = a technicality? Under a US legal system I would always opt to be be technically right vs. the alternative. You end up winning so much more often.
Yes, I'd rather be both technically right as well as right in the spirit of the interpretation of the rules.
Quote: ParadigmI don't think a rule like "I reserve all rights to change a promotion as I see fit" is the same as "Players cannot communicate or discuss a hand while there is still action". One is an overly broad and the other is very specific. One has no rationale and the other is enforced so players will play poker and not check down to see free cards or get to a show down without having to bet as they normally would were there no BBJ.
The first is broad, but the second isn't "very specific". I could consider many things communication. I've heard people ask the other what he wants him to do, say he has a good hand, etc. and a fowl wasn't called. Hell, you could even consider going all in as "communication" since you're communicating (which could be true or false) you have a strong hand. I could consider someone's "tell" as communication, even if done inadvertently, perhaps he has a tendency to look down while bluffing or shuffles his chips when he has a strong hand.
While I agree that technically showing your hand before action is completed would violate the rules, I also don't agree with all of this "technicality" bull****. Just look at the intent, which I think should (almost?) always be a key factor. The spirit of the rule is so you don't have a situation where players are truly communicating with one another to hit the BBJ. In this case, where both players have a straight flush, neither of them are going to fold, whether you do or don't know the cards of the other player.
Quote: RSI don't really play poker (I'm good at it though!), but I thought showing your hand prematurely was just bad etiquette, not against the rules? Also, if they are against the rules -- are those the casino's rules or rules set forth by gaming?
Stations had a rule that the bad beat jackpot was voided if there was collusion, probably in an effort to not fold either the winning or losing hand. I can understand their motive. To me, the case comes down to whether or not the exposed cards had a chance to change the outcome, perhaps causing players not to fold who otherwise might have.
Does anyone know the conditions required to win this jackpot? Would make for a good Ask the Wizard question.
Quote: IbeatyouracesTechnically, by exposing his hand, it should be dead and therefore not eligible to win any money. Rules are rules man. Gaming should've sided with Stations.
Accidental exposed hands are not dead at all casinos. Some just consider them exposed and now everyone knows what the player has.
ZCore13
12. Procedure for an exposed card varies with the poker form, and is given in the section for each game. A card that is flashed by a dealer is treated as an exposed card. A card that is flashed by a player will play. To obtain a ruling on whether a card was exposed and should be replaced, a player should announce that the card was flashed or exposed before looking at it. A downcard dealt off the table is an exposed card.
Usually, its quads losing. IE, quads vs quads, quads vs straight flush or SF vs SF.Quote: WizardDoes anyone know the conditions required to win this jackpot? Would make for a good Ask the Wizard question.
Both the winning hand and a losing hand must qualify by having a pocket pair for quads or using both cards for the straight flush. So having A-K with the board consisting of three aces and two small cards won't qualify even though you're using both of your hole cards for your best hand. Similarly, having the bottom end of a six card straight flush won't qualify.
Some casinos set the minimum as quad jacks, then lower it each week that it doesn't hit, in an effort to prevent it from hitting too often.
When the bad beat was first introduced, it wasn't uncommon for the minimum qualifier to be aces full.
Quote: DJTeddyBearUsually, its quads losing. IE, quads vs quads, quads vs straight flush or SF vs SF.
Both the winning hand and a losing hand must qualify by having a pocket pair for quads or using both cards for the straight flush. So having A-K with the board consisting of three aces and two small cards won't qualify even though you're using both of your hole cards for your best hand. Similarly, having the bottom end of a six card straight flush won't qualify.
Some casinos set the minimum as quad jacks, then lower it each week that it doesn't hit, in an effort to prevent it from hitting too often.
When the bad beat was first introduced, it wasn't uncommon for the minimum qualifier to be aces full.
Official rules can be downloaded here:
http://stationcasinospoker.com/promotions/
Quote: WizardDoes anyone know the conditions required to win this jackpot? Would make for a good Ask the Wizard question.
Ah fine, I'll bite.
Wizard, what are the conditions required to win this jackpot?
Quote: Zcore13Accidental exposed hands are not dead at all casinos. Some just consider them exposed and now everyone knows what the player has.
ZCore13
Agreed, and even mention that earlier. You'll see it allowed in many tv poker games.
Quote: DJTeddyBearUsually, its quads losing. IE, quads vs quads, quads vs straight flush or SF vs SF.
Both the winning hand and a losing hand must qualify by having a pocket pair for quads or using both cards for the straight flush. So having A-K with the board consisting of three aces and two small cards won't qualify even though you're using both of your hole cards for your best hand. Similarly, having the bottom end of a six card straight flush won't qualify.
Some casinos set the minimum as quad jacks, then lower it each week that it doesn't hit, in an effort to prevent it from hitting too often.
When the bad beat was first introduced, it wasn't uncommon for the minimum qualifier to be aces full.
Quads over quads here at MotorCity Casino is currently $1,010,380.45.
https://www.motorcitycasino.com/PokerRoom.aspx?Page=BadBeat
Quote: WizardTo me, the case comes down to whether or not the exposed cards had a chance to change the outcome, perhaps causing players not to fold who otherwise might have.
Why is the reverse not true? If the player exposed a higher SF, the other player would obviously fold unless this "bad beat jackpot" was involved and he/she profited from same? What am I missing in your logic? Thanks.
Quote: IbeatyouracesMy point was that casinos never pay winning players with their own money. Other players play the winners.
That may be your point, but it has literally nothing to do with the subject at hand.
A bad beat jackpot that is funded by the players, for the players is not equal to a BJ game, or playing a slot machine.
Quote: NokTangWhy is the reverse not true? If the player exposed a higher SF, the other player would obviously fold unless this "bad beat jackpot" was involved and he/she profited from same? What am I missing in your logic? Thanks.
Here is the breakdown of the winnings:
Quote: Rule 11
When the qualifying hand, or better, is beaten in accordance with rules
9 and 10, the following payouts will occur:
a. The loser of the hand will receive 40% of the posted jackpot
b. The winner of the hand will receive 25% of the posted jackpot
c. 3% will be divided evenly amongst the player’s at the table at
which the jackpot hit
d. The remaining 32% will be divided evenly amongst all active
live Texas Hold’em players in all Station Casinos’ Poker Rooms.
The winner and loser of the jackpot activating hand, as well
as the players at the winning table, are entitled to this player’s
share
If I have what could be a qualifying winning or losing hand, and it looks possible somebody else does too, with $120,000 on the line, without this rule I would want to make sure this person doesn't fold.
Quote: WizardBecause all players would profit -- the winner, the loser, everyone at the table, and every player playing poker in any station property.
I don't agree with that. Not all players will benefit, only the ones that were playing at the time. Because it is a "progressive" the money would eventually be given away to players playing at the time of the next bad beat where there was not a rules violation (assuming that there was a violation on this hand). It's not like the casino gets to keep the money.
Quote: DRichI don't agree with that. Not all players will benefit, only the ones that were playing at the time. Because it is a "progressive" the money would eventually be given away to players playing at the time of the next bad beat where there was not a rules violation. It's not like the casino gets to keep the money.
I'm not sure you see my point. If you were sitting at the table, especially with a 40% or 25% stake on the line, you want that money now. You probably are not so selfless that you're indifferent to you winning it and some other schmoe at another property another day instead.
Quote: WizardI'm not sure you see my point. If you were sitting at the table, especially with a 40% or 25% stake on the line, you want that money now. You probably are not so selfless that you're indifferent to you winning it and some other schmoe at another property another day instead.
You are right, I am looking at it from the point of view of a stations poker player that was not playing at that time. If you pay it off and there was a violation, I have no chance of winning any of that money. If you don't pay it because of the violation I still have an opportunity to win it. The casino is not benefiting from this, it is actually hurting them because of the negative publicity.
