Hi All,
Been a while but I'm back just in time before the summit!! (Hope I can make it). So here's a situation that happened recently at the WSOP. The game is 2-7 lowball.
8 handed game. Button is in seat 3. SB seat 4. BB seat 5. Seat 6 is sitting out. Seat 7 folds, Seat 8 calls, Seat 1 folds, Seat 2 calls, action is stopped because Seat 5 realizes he has 4 cards and not 5. You, the supervisor come over and verify that all other players were dealt complete hands and that no other player has less or more cards than a complete hand AND that no cards are on the floor or under the rail etc, etc.
Please vote how you would rule and then please explain why? I have found that most supervisors here at the WSOP are of one mind and I am the lone ranger. I ask them why and they say because "Rule X says" one of the answers listed in the poll. So then I present my case that "Rule Y says" another answer listed in the poll.
So doing the research that I do to found out "WHY" we rule things one way and not another way, I have yet to find ANYONE to give me a good argument against the ruling that was made. Also during this research I discovered another anomaly that "Rule Z says" it should have been ruled yet a different way and for the life of me I can't even imagine anyone today making such a ruling.
In discussing this with Dave Lamb, I expressed my concern for the argument against ruling in favor of "Rule Y" because it seems to me that most poker rules are enforced by assuming that everyone is a card cheat, an angle shooter, or just a dirtbag. I can see that argument being viable in a "Cash" game because there is immediate gratification and possible profitable return in a cash game. In Tournament though, which is my expertise, this is not the case. Any player trying to gain an angle must fade several players and floor staff rulings to make any profit at all. Cash profit. I'm not trying to diminish any chip equity that may be gained, but any that would be gained is extremely minimal, especially here at the WSOP. [STANDING ON SOAP BOX NOW] I don't like we as supervisors sometimes presume players to be guilty of angle shooting in an effort to enforce certain rules. I much prefer to presume the players are innocent and that a dealer simply make a mistake and try to correct errors when at all possible to try and keep action moving.[STEPPING OFF SOAP BOX].
This poll will be up for 30 days. I'll check back and give you my argument for "Rule Y" then. I was going to say something else, but I forgot. Haha.