PokerTDA
POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: EvilWeenie on June 24, 2012, 08:59:34 AM
-
Here's the scene:
Player moves all-in and is called by a shorter stack and two others.
All-in short stack player has the best hand and wins the main pot.
All 3 remaining players muck their hands before a showdown for the side pot.
Who gets the side pot?
My first instinct was to award to the last player to muck as technically they had the last live hand.
Problems: I didn't witness the hand and the last player to muck was a known relative of the dealer. While I trust my dealers' integrity, there's too much room for ethical discrepancy from the other players perspectives.
My second thought and eventual solution was to split the side pot evenly amongst the 3 players.
-
Hi EW:
This unfortunate situation could easily have been avoided if your dealer called to see a winner for the side pot first, before considering who might have won the main pot. Determinations regarding the main pot should be left for last.
In this case, if none of the three remaining players have tabled their hands and they all have mucked with none of the hands being clearly identifiable and retrievable, I think your decision is probably a fair compromise under the circumstances.
K
-
Hi Weenie,
K-Lo gave you the perfect answer. The problem comes from unclear rules pertaining to all-in's at the showdown. I've been trying to get the rule changed for two years.
Face Up For All-ins, needs some work.
-
Nick: I beg to differ with you. I don't think TDA Rule 11 needs any work at all. What is needed are dealers who have at least a few working brain cells left. It is very simple, forget about Rule 11 for a moment. What would you teach your dealers to do in a cash game where more than one player is all in and one or more side pots are created. I believe it is very simple, pots are determined in the reverse order in which they are created. In other words, the last side pot created is the first to be decided, the next to last is the second to be decided and so forth until you get to the main pot. Only the hands applicable to the pot being decided are turned face up. It continues in order until the main pot is decided.
I know the rule doesn't specifically say this, but is there no common sense left? Do we need a rule for each and every minute detail? If dealers and floor people can't use their remaining brain cells, then kick them out and go to electronic tables (Jeez, did I really say that.)
Chet
-
Chet,
To answer your question I would say: What is the purpose of the rule? My guess is to prevent stalling at the showdown. Telling the players to turn their cards face-up without delay, means what? Isn't there still an order of showdown that needs to be followed? If the intent of the rule is to insist all players in a hand table their cards if any player is all-in, then write it that way. The way I see it, it is one of the TDA rules that needs clarification. Sorry, in my opinion, rules should be clear and easy to understand. Face up for all-ins omits the order of showdown that needs to be followed any time there is a side pot.
I guess I have no common sense because I don't understand the purpose of the rule. Can you break it down for me and explain it's purpose?
-
Re: Order of showdown
This is a little off topic, I know, but it was brought up.
When a dealer calls me over because no one is showing their hand and the players asks me "who has to show first?" I always repsond "whoever wants to win the pot". I also inform them that if the other guy mucks they still have the option to ask to see the hand.
As a dealer when players are hesitant to show me a winner, I used to tell them "alright guys, if no one wants this pot I'm just gonna drop it all."
I hate playing the "I called you" or the "left of button" games with players. Don't hold my game up for childish nonsense. I generally don't give them the satisfaction of "well there was no action on the river so left of the button.. blah blah blah NO."
-
Also, yeah, I'd just chop the last side pot in your case.
-
Brian,
We've had this discussion on another post. It may not be important to you but, there is a proper order of showdown that should be followed. If I call your bet, I promise that you will either muck your bluff, or show your hand first. When I'm dealing, I ask the bettor to expose their hand first. If they don't comply, I call the floor. There is nothing wrong with asking players to follow rules for the game.
A player holding an exclusive nut hand might showdown his hand quickly, this would be reasonable and would speed up the game. Players with powerful hands often show their hands out of order, but that's up to them. Rules of etiquette should be followed by everyone.
-
Didn't think this would happen to me, but it did last night. Dealer was distracted by one of the players going off all night. That player turned out to be the short stack, and upon flipping over the winning hand, everyone else mucked, leaving the side pot unaccounted for.
I ended up splitting the side pot as all of the cards were not retrievable and no one tabled their hand; however, the short stack was going on and on about how everyone had folded, suggesting that he should also get the side pot as last man standing even though he was only entitled to the main. Annoyed the crap out of me at the time, but then in retrospect, I probably should have just smiled and said "nice try" - can't blame him for trying I suppose.
-
There you have it! The exact reason why the rule needs to be changed (TDA #11 Face Up For All-In's). How could that clown think he was entitled to the whole pot? That's all we need, and every all-in player will try it!
K-Lo, I guess you held on to your hand, but what if you didn't? What if all players competing for the side pot folded?
-
Hey Nick: I wasn't a player - I was the TD... and that's exactly what happened. All players competing for the side pot folded.
-
K-Lo:
Sorry for the mix-up. I don't know why I thought you were playing? You handled the situation perfectly! The message was sent to the players that should have held on to their cards, (especially the player that should have won the side pot), and you showed any future angle-shooting all-in player that he could never get more chips than he was competing for.
Perfect!
-
I would of handled it rather differently, as splitting pots is a big no no for me, as it encourages collusion. I would attempt to retrieve as many hands as possible for the showdown, and again I apply stiff criteria to card retrieval from the muck, namely both hole cards have to be clearly identifiable by several players at the table, the player has to inform me of his exact holding, and the cards have to be able to be retrieved without upsetting the remaining muck pile. If I can retrieve at least one holding then I can award the side pot, otherwise if I cannot retrieve any holdings, the side pot remains in the middle for the next deal with everyone who received a hand on the previous deal eligible to participate.
Regards
Stuart
-
Hello Stuart,
There is nothing wrong with leaving the chips in the pot for the next deal, if that's your decision. However, retrieving any cards from the muck (DEAD CARDS) is unthinkable. K-Lo said all players contesting the side pot mucked their hands.
Stuart, for someone that is usually on the more "strict" side, when it comes to rules, you surprise me with your answer. Wouldn't you expect players to protect their own hand?
How do they not table their hands when there is an all-in?
-
Because this situation is not explicitly covered in the rules, I can see why opinions will differ. I do agree that pots should not be split as a general rule -- we should always aim to award the pot to a winner. However, personally, between the two evils of splitting a side pot and digging into the muck for irretrievable hands that have not been tabled, I have to say that the former is the lesser evil IMO. The last thing that I want to do is dig through the muck for a hand that hasn't been seen by anyone at the table, and award a player with the "mystery" hand a pot. I don't want to be accused of (seemingly) awarding players for making a good guess at what cards are in the muck, or awarding the pot to a "favorite" player when all three contenders for the side pot are equally at fault. If we start digging in the muck for this reason, players will wonder why we can't do the same thing when, for example, their hand gets mucked through what is primarily the fault of someone other than themselves (e.g. dealer error).
In this particular situation, I also think that the chances that three players would collude to get their bets back from a side pot is extremely, extremely unlikely. The last person to "muck" always has the incentive to simply show his hand to win the whole side pot, and I think he would do so rather than muck for a split. I would prefer to split the side pot amongst the players eligible, and I see that as the fairest solution overall; if I truly suspected collusion, that is an independent issue and I could penalize or even disqualify all three for collusion.
I admit that I was a bit swayed in my ruling based on the comments I had previously read in this exact thread. My close second choice of action would probably be to simply remove the side pot from play (i.e. no one gets it). However, I don't think I could justify leaving the chips in the pot for the next deal, because that means players that were not even eligible for that last side pot could win it (and it could have been a significant side pot). The player who happens to have the strongest holding on the next, unrelated hand, would get a free bonus. If I was willing to allow someone that was not even contesting the side pot to receive a winfall, then why wouldn't it go to the main pot winner who actually was involved in the hand? But that doesn't seem fair either.
I don't find myself disagreeing with Stuart often, but I personally would consider his approach my last choice of potential options, in this particular fact scenario.
K
-
Gentlemen:
All of the possible solutions that we've mentioned could be debated. Remember, we are looking for a solution to a major "breakdown" of tournament rules, by multiple players. You could add the dealer to the mix, also.
Who deserves the pot? It can't be the all-in, that's for sure. Perhaps, in the best interest of the game, a new hand could be dealt between only those that contested the side pot...or; in order to not slow down the game, shuffle the cards and deal one to each player, high card gets the side pot :-\!!??
Please, let's stay out of the muck ::)please!
What about issuing penalties to those that folded without tabling their cards? They are all in clear violation of tournament rules?
-
Maybe even high card amongst the three side pot players?
I totally agree with you Nick (I can't believe I just said that??? :P) -- Let's not dig into the muck.
-
K-Lo,
We were writing at the same time and came up with the idea for the high card. Might be the easiest solution.
-
It's an option, but is it the fairest under the circumstances? If the side pot is really big, it seems a bit crazy to award it to a winner by lottery.
-
It's a showdown, remember mucking is technically not classified at showdown, and I would certainly not entertain 'digging' into the muck pile, as I have already detailed in my original post, someone has to win the pot - splitting it - IMO not in the best interests of Tournament Poker - not even Cash Poker - what's to say that these three players are not in cahoots with one another and know that an unsuspecting TD will come along and split the pot at the end, I have saw something similar in a Casino I once visited and to be frank I created merry hell until the Card Room manager overturned two floor supervisors decisions to split the pot, If you care to read my post again, you will notice that the chances of retrieving any hands from the middle of the table are slim, and that in all likelihood, the chips would be staying in the middle for the next deal.
Is there a chance that a hand can be retrieved? sure, but I won't be able to complete the showdown with all the hands either, so again it looks like the chips are staying in the middle for the next deal, I should of been more explicit on that consideration.
Regards
Stuart
-
I understand your position better now Stuart, thanks for the clarification.
You don't think that by leaving it for the next hand, that it gives the winner of the next hand (potentially a big) windfall? It seems odd to me that someone who was not entitled to the side pot could subsequently win those chips. If it is a significant amount, that could definitely skew the results of the tourney significantly, especially if the winner of the next pot is a short stack.
If splitting the pot is out of the question, perhaps the chips should simply be removed from play? This addresses at least three issues: no splitting (thus no collusion), no digging in the muck, and no windfall to players not eligible for the pot. This is at the expense of taking some chips out of play, which arguably is a minor consideration, at least relative to the other three.
-
Stuart and K-Lo,
You both have raised valid issues. Why do you not support my idea of a new hand, between only the players that were in contention for the side pot? Like I said earlier, it's a major screw-up that was created by multiple parties. If any of the players squawk, you might remind them that they're lucky they are getting another chance after they erroneously mucked their hands.
I also think that penalties should follow.
-
It's not a bad idea. If we are going to "leave the pot in the middle for the next hand", I would prefer to have only the three players contest it as you suggest.
My concern is the possible delay of the game - redoing the hand between the three people while the clock is still running affects everyone else at the table.
-
To answer your question regarding just the three players playing a hand for the forfeited chips I think it best to list RROP S3 General Rules - Irregularities
5. A player who knows the deck is defective has an obligation to point this out. If such a player instead tries to win a pot by taking aggressive action (trying for a freeroll), the player may lose the right to a refund, and the chips may be required to stay in the pot for the next deal.
6. If there is extra money in the pot on a deal as a result of forfeited money from the previous deal (as per rule #5), or some similar reason, only a player dealt in on the previous deal is entitled to a hand.
In my eyes there is no difference to rule 5 than what is described above, the players knowingly or not who have mucked there hands should not have exclusive right to claim the pot which they have already forfeited, I would consider that a freeroll which again creates the same options for chip dumping and collusion as splitting the pot between the players.
And Nick, yes naturally I would be considering penalties.
Regards
Stuart
-
Okay, final answer!... Quick deal; no wagers, flop, turn and river...winner gets pot and on to the next hand ;D
Oh, one more question worth mention; Stuart, why would you oppose a split in a cash game? I think that would be the easiest, and most fair way to divide the side-pot.
Stuart, I just read your excerpts from RRoP, although similar, the situation is different from ours. Let's just hope it doesn't happen again, and it might not.
Remember, I did not object to your decision from your first reply;... "the side pot remains in the middle for the next deal with everyone who received a hand on the previous deal eligible to participate." K-lo and I merely pointed out the down-side.
Good call, and certainly within the rules.
-
IMO whilst in cash games it is just the hand that matters, that would not preclude the possibility of several players forming a ring, where they could legitimately gang up with each other and create scenarios such as this where they could split pots in cash game poker, colluding with each other, with effectively the Gaming Inspectors permission to do so, as they have the knowledge that they can create the situation and the Gaming Inspector is just going to order the pot split between the remaining players.
Regards
Stuart
-
I think what these differences in opinion illustrate is perhaps a need to address those rare situations where multiple players have, for whatever reason, forfeited their right to the pot, and we are unable to identify a "last person standing" to award the pot to. It appears that the following options are possible:
1. Carry over the forfeited chips to the next hand.
2. Remove the chips from play.
3. Play a hand between players who would have been eligible for the pot had they not folded on the most recent betting round.
4. Draw a high card between the players in (3), or deal out a hand without betting, or some similar random assignment.
5. Split the pot between the players in (3), effectively allowing the board to play, and returning chips to the bettors.
And presumably, there could be others, such as:
6. The person in the best position (or conversely, closest to the button) is deemed to be the last person standing, if otherwise indeterminable.
7. ...?
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating necessarily that we should be splitting the pot specifically (it wasn't my idea in the first place). In my view, this problem and related ones appear to me to be highly situational, and it is plausible that different situations might warrant a different solution. I don't think we should discount that possibility.
With respect to "abandoned pots", I think a broader debate on this issue with more input is necessary, because I don't think any of the existing rules are on point. Perhaps it's something that can be discussed at the next Summit.
-
...
Stuart referred to RROP S3-Irreg #5,6. These rules certainly suggest that the chips could be carried over in some situations. On the other hand, #4 (fouled deck) and #5 (".. the right to a refund..") also clearly suggests that a "refund" of bets in other situations is possible. And both situations, it turns out, are quite different from the scenario that we are talking about.
I understand the "freeroll" situation described in RROP #5 to refer to the act of an individual, knowing that the deck is fouled, attempting to win the pot by forcing others to fold. Then, in the event of a failed attempt, he points out that the deck is fouled hoping for a refund. That is the "freeroll" attempt. This rule is not about collusion. This is about an individual using private knowledge to try to get two chances to win the pot, and the chips forfeited act essentially as a penalty for that unethical behavior. RROP provides that the forfeited chips may subsequently be used to "juice" the pot for the next hand.
My problem with the carryover method generally, is that it can create its own unique strange incentives. In a tournament setting, with a carried-over pot of any reasonably large size, you can guarantee that changing the effective pot odds for any decision made in that next hand is going to affect the natural course of how that hand is played out, and this affects the tournament as a whole. For example, the carried-over part can be so significant, that it can make it correct for one or more players to move all-in to try to take it down, when they might not have otherwise done so. Moreover, the free 'dead money' could potentially give a player (e.g. one that is now all-in in the blind) to now get a huge windfall.
In this regard, I don't see how it could ever be fair -- in a tournament setting -- to potentially allow a player to win more chips from a pot than (his contribution * the number of active players in the pot + antes/blinds). In a cash game, it is fine if one player happens to get a "bonus" from a juiced pot -- the extra cash, however obtained (from the house or another player) goes in his pocket. But in tournaments, IMO, relative chip balances always matter and carried-over pots can throw off that relative balance. For example, if the blinds are 500/1000, and the Big Blind is all in for 200, but there is a carried-over portion from the last hand of 20,000 in the center of the table, how can it possibly be right that the Big Blind could win and come out with more than 2K in chips at a ten-handed table, let alone 20K+? This certainly is going to be unfair to other short stacks left in the tournament at other tables.
Also, if you apply the carryover method, what happens if the players that were eligible for the side pot were all-in in that last hand? Is it right to eliminate all three of them from the tournament because they are left with no chips at the end of the hand, even if we know that at least one of them would have survived had the dealer kept the hands out of the muck? Or do we deem them still in despite having no chips from the last hand, and deal them in as if they were all-in for antes? A possible solution, but highly unconventional.
And finally, if we are OK with allowing "forfeited" chips to carry over, why wouldn't we extend this concept to situations where a player goes all-in (remember that chips bet in turn are supposed to stay in the pot), but his hand gets accidentally mucked by the dealer? Isn't the existing rule that says we return the 'uncalled portions' of the bets inconsistent with the carry-over approach? If the carry-over approach was ideal for tournaments, why don't we then just eliminate the player, and carry-over the uncalled portion in the pot to the next hand instead? (Maybe we should!)
I don't expect all of us to agree, and I would respect Stuart's decision if I was playing in his venue. From a player's perspective, it is my fault for not tabling my hand, so I'd be prepared to take my lumps, whatever they may be. But from the POV of someone trying to keep things fair to all players not just at the table in question but in the tournament as a whole, while I am fine with the carryover method for cash games, it does not make sense for me in tournaments. The carried-over amount referred to in RROP #5 and #6 is basically a penalty that can go to the winner of the next hand as a "bonus"... in a cash game, this is fine. In tournaments, IMO this can be problematic especially when the carry-over amount is large. I would rather take the chips out of play than carry-over chips, as that also solves the chip dumping and collusion concerns. We do take chips out of play when players are disqualified, so this wouldn't be completely foreign. But I also can't criticize the Original Poster's approach of splitting the pot, effectively allowing the players eligible for the side pot to play the board.
With respect, I think the "ganging up" scenario is unrealistic in the OP's particular scenario, because the situation is not completely controllable by the players -- it requires a total procedural failure on the dealer's part to not force the all-in hands to be shown. The participants in the "ring", to succeed, would need to be certain that they could collectively get around the fact that the dealer/floor will insist on their hands being turned face-up, and they need to be certain that the Dealer will not intervene by physically preventing at least one hand from getting mixed into the muck. If somehow they manage to avoid the dealer from intervening (and if the dealer is in on the gig, you have bigger problems), practically they are not going to be able to get away with this 'play' looking accidental more than once, and if they do try, then the case for disqualification for collusion is clear.
I guess this is my usual long-winded way (and I apologize for that) of saying -- I think we need to debate this further, and perhaps take a poll. Ultimately, I am willing to defer to the majority on this one.
-
K-Lo:
First of all, I'd like to nominate your post as the best "post of the year" 8) Your contribution to this Forum is immense. If I may add a bit, to support your suggestion for further discussion; how about the effect that a carry-over pot would have in a pot limit game?
Another reason why I am not in favor of a carry over for players that were not competing for that side-pot from the previous hand.
I have been an avid fan of both poker and horse racing, throughout my life. I am mentioning this "other" fascinating game of chance and skill because of the similarities for "carry over" pools. Anyone familiar with the exotic bets, that have gained popularity in recent years, will understand the correlation.
Every day, you will find a "Pick-Six" carry-over at one of the major racetracks. The carry-over is derived from unsuccessful attempts to select the winners from six races in succession, extremely difficult to say the least. The amounts of these carry-overs is, at times, astronomical (upwards of $100,000 and much higher). So here is the situation: players that attend the races or bet from simulcast venues around the world pump their dollars into the pick-six, if all six winners are not selected, the pool is carried over to the next racing day! So...the following day, there are thousands of new players, shooting for the "pie-in-the-sky" jackpot, that contributed nothing the day before! I often wondered how they managed to "pull that off," without protest from the patrons who frequent the track on a regular basis. A horse player goes broke, trying to hit the "pick-six" and when the pot gets real juicy, he has no money left to play for the massive jackpot. I'm getting a little long winded myself, but I hope I got my point across. Bottom line, I don't like the "tracks" that carry over my loosing bets, so some player that contributed nothing to the pool, wins it!
If you don't bet horses, I can give you another example that I know you can all relate to...The bad beat jackpot :-X
-
Wow, I just read through all of this...tough situation!
While I think that there are some other valid ways to deal with the problem already stated, I think my answer would be to award the pot to the last player that mucked.
The collusion part bothers me though...If I am the last person with cards for the side pot, and my buddy was the short stack all-in for the main pot, I could then muck my winning hand to give him an bunch of chips. Then I would get the side pot because I was the last one with cards. Hmm...
I guess the last player to muck the side-pot, and then I would give him a round for not tabling his cards in an all-in situation.
-
Tristan, are you gonna just sit him out or the other offenders too?!!
-
Steven:
I can't speak for Tristan but, I can't see how the other offenders should escape without penalty.
Looking back over the options discussed earlier, I look to K-Lo's post #26. Of the six listed suggestions, I prefer:
3. Play a hand between players who would have been eligible for the pot had they not folded on the most recent betting round.
4. Draw a high card between the players in (3), or deal out a hand without betting, or some similar random assignment.
5. Split the pot between the players in (3), effectively allowing the board to play, and returning chips to the bettors.
I don't like the idea of removing chips from play and, the idea of a carry over to the next hand is okay; however, I like the others better.
I can see further arguments if we try to give the pot to the last to muck, when they shouldn't have mucked at all.
-
While I think that there are some other valid ways to deal with the problem already stated, I think my answer would be to award the pot to the last player that mucked.
... But what if you get to the table, and there is disagreement as to who the last person to muck was (dealer is unsure himself), or that the identity of the last player cannot otherwise be determined ...?
-
In the first example in this thread, if one player (other than the friend) had agreed with the dealer, I would have still given the pot to the friend of the dealer because he was the last with cards. If it wasn't clear, I would probably try surveillance, if they were not able to tell I would chop the pot. I would rather see a portion of the money go to the 'rightful' winner than all of it go to someone who didn't earn it. I feel that any random solution (draw cards, put in next pot, play off for it, etc) just risks putting the money in the wrong hands and would place the TD in a position of having too much influence on the outcome of the tournament.
My third option would be to remove the chips from play, as I feel this has less negative impact on the tournament than giving them to someone who did not earn them.
As far as the penalties go...I guess I felt I could give the player who won the pot the tougher penalty because he gained from the foul. The others didn't gain. Still, you are correct...they all did commit a foul. Maybe a warning for the others? ;D
-
Nick: I beg to differ with you. I don't think TDA Rule 11 needs any work at all. What is needed are dealers who have at least a few working brain cells left. It is very simple
Hahahahaha while no truer words have been spoken, also what we need are better dealer instructors. Ones who don't just teach people how to pitch and flop.
I know the rule doesn't specifically say this, but is there no common sense left? Do we need a rule for each and every minute detail? If dealers and floor people can't use their remaining brain cells, then kick them out and go to electronic tables (Jeez, did I really say that.)
Chet
Hahahahahhaha @ (Jeez, did I really say that.). Trouble is Chet, when you make rules, the rules then get dissected and often need explanation. Some things should be obvious, but sometimes the simplest things escape us.
Chet,
To answer your question I would say: What is the purpose of the rule?
Nick, that's not an answer to a question... that's another question!! ;)
The purpose of the rule is simply to prevent chip dumping, collusion and aid the integrity of the tournament by awarding the winning hand the pot in a most expeditious manner. And it makes for good TV too!
-
Thomas,
I'm a little surprised that with all I've written on this subject, all you have to comment on is my answering a question with another question.
I've been training dealers for over 30 years and it gets more difficult every time a TD, or new rule, complicates a routine situation. I place more blame on dealers than most, but I feel they should be allowed to do the job they were trained to do. There are TD's that had bad experiences with a few dealers so they don't want the dealers to do much of anything. They take away the dealer's authority necessary to control the action at the table.
There are hundreds of situations that have been discussed on this forum, and I will stick my neck out and say that a good dealer would have prevented 90% from occurring.
Rather than stifle them, let the dealers do the job they were trained to do. An inattentive player mucks his hand (when he shouldn't) and the dealer gets blamed for not protecting the hand from hitting the muck! As far as "working brain cells" I'll put most dealers against players any day of the week.
Thomas, if we are so concerned about the integrity of the game, and no chip dumping, and no collusion, then why not have all players, in for all bets, table their hands at the showdown? That is a question. ;D
-
Thomas,
I'm a little surprised that with all I've written on this subject, all you have to comment on is my answering a question with another question.
I really couldn't help myself. :)
I've been training dealers for over 30 years and it gets more difficult every time a TD, or new rule, complicates a routine situation. I place more blame on dealers than most, but I feel they should be allowed to do the job they were trained to do. There are TD's that had bad experiences with a few dealers so they don't want the dealers to do much of anything. They take away the dealer's authority necessary to control the action at the table.
While I agree with your assessment, the problem is that not all dealers have been trained equally. After the poker boom people flocked to get dealer training and there were instructors waiting in the wings to fleece them. Dealers as a commodity in the workplace is over saturated with mediocre to bad workmanship. That's why the TD's have removed some of the dealers authority over controlling the action at the table. Believe me, I'd much rather have a dealer handle a simple premature burn and turn situation than me having to come over and give the dealer step by step instructions on what to do. But so many dealers these days have no clue what to do. Hell... at this years WSOP we had dealers in the box who didn't know what a chip race was. Dealing schools turn out poker dealers like puppy mills. It's very sad, aggravating, and frustrating. I feel very bad for these dealers who come into a situation like WSOP or even just a house job and get told they are the worst dealers ever, repeatedly by players and staff members, when all they are doing is what they were taught by someone. I try and teach them as much as I can in the little time I have with them. As one of the Execs once told me, "We hire the best and train the rest". Which is exactly what we have to do and is why dealers have limited authority over the action at the table.
As far as "working brain cells" I'll put most dealers against players any day of the week.
I think this might be a push. But would be willing to set the opening line at Dealers +110 vs Players -120
Thomas, if we are so concerned about the integrity of the game, and no chip dumping, and no collusion, then why not have all players, in for all bets, table their hands at the showdown? That is a question. ;D
If we did that.... no one would have an opportunity to Slow Roll :D [sarcasm]
[/quote]
-
Lol, you crack me up Thomas! :D Good reads on here today!
Dealing schools turn out poker dealers like puppy mills. It's very sad, aggravating, and frustrating.
So true. We get people who come to audition in our room, they say they attended a school and then dealt the Series. After they got out of the box, all I can think is: "Poor use of the word dealt! I feel sorry for those TDs (and players) in the series that had this 'dealer' on one of their tables."
-
Thomas and Tristan,
Why don't you find some good instructors and train the dealers the right way? Management never ceases to amaze, they spend ten's of thousands on auto-shufflers, tables, bravo systems, etc., etc., but they expect the cream of the crop dealers at $4.50 per hour!
If you need help with your dealer's, I'll straighten them out ;D
-
Hey, they get $7.25 around these parts! :P
In all seriousness, though, we don't generally train them here because we get enough experienced ones auditioning to fill our spots when we have openings.
I'm still waiting for the day when I ask what kind of experience they have, and they tell me they were trained by Nick! ;D
-
$7.25....Holy crap, please mail me an application. ;D
-
Wow, $7.25. That is tough.