MidwestAP
MidwestAP
Joined: Feb 19, 2012
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 1182
December 14th, 2017 at 6:00:13 AM permalink
If this topic was already discussed elsewhere, my apologies, I didn't find it.

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 didnít change the gameís 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.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 248
  • Posts: 12153
Thanks for this post from:
bobbartop
December 14th, 2017 at 6:19:47 AM permalink
The players were extremely experienced ones despite any language difficulties. They know the rules. They know they should follow them.

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.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 66
  • Posts: 11721
December 14th, 2017 at 6:19:55 AM permalink
Technically, 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.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
MidwestAP
MidwestAP
Joined: Feb 19, 2012
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 1182
December 14th, 2017 at 6:43:34 AM permalink
Language 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. 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.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1043
  • Posts: 17445
December 14th, 2017 at 6:44:37 AM permalink
I would prefer to see more details about what actions were left to take place after the prematurely exposed cards were shown. If other words, a card by card, bet by bet, replay of the hand. For me, it comes down the likelihood he exposed cards changed the outcome.

I will say that I predict Gaming will rule in favor of Stations.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 3582
Thanks for this post from:
TomG
December 14th, 2017 at 6:45:37 AM permalink
Did 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.
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 60
  • Posts: 1472
December 14th, 2017 at 6:49:51 AM permalink
Quote: MidwestAP

Language 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.
Don't believe anything until it is officially denied.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1043
  • Posts: 17445
December 14th, 2017 at 6:49:52 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

Did 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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 66
  • Posts: 11721
December 14th, 2017 at 6:53:21 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

Did 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.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 6459
December 14th, 2017 at 6:53:33 AM permalink
I 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?
00111100101100001011011100110101101100101011001010010000001101111011100110110001101100001011100100010000001101100011010010110110101100001001000000110111101110011011000110110000101110010

  • Jump to: