Was David Singer Correct?

[FourFlusher 0]

Strip search...only answer. Upon suspicion of having an electronic device hidden on your person, KFL does a cavity search at the table.

[Moneyball16 0]

I didn't read the thread but here is my opinion on the subject:David Singer is a douchebag.

Background?

[Jam-Fly 8]

Wow, some of the things people said in this thread are unbelievable. Ban phones completely?? I'm sorry, but this suggestion is just utterly stupid. Just read what you said again, BAN PHONES COMPLETELY. LOL. If you can't see that the negative impacts of that GREATLY outweigh the positive impacts, then I'm sorry, there's nothing more I can do. I am still sticking with my thoughts that I had from the start. David Singer's opponent did NOT break any documented rule, therefore his hand should remain live, therefore, Singer should take it like man and be knocked out. andIf Singer had a set, he would not have requested his opponents hand be dead and it would threrfore appear that he is a douce/thread

[PrtyPSux 0]

Background?

any form of interaction I've had with david, as meaningless as possible, involved him being a douchebag. Same goes for my friends who've actually played with him.

[suicideking 0]

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/poker-blog/20...n_room.php#more

[Mercury69 3]

Floor might be correct, but I think there should be a total ban on cellphones, Blackberries, Blueberries and other communication devices. Turn the frickin things off. Period.

[Jam-Fly 8]

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/poker-blog/20...n_room.php#more

lol, how does this guy get paid to write that crap??

[qyayqi 11]

If you can't see that the negative impacts of that GREATLY outweigh the positive impacts, then I'm sorry, there's nothing more I can do.

i think i need the negative impact expanded upon, please.

[Jam-Fly 8]

i think i need the negative impact expanded upon, please.

Positive side of not allowing cell phones:A tiny, tiny, tiny percentage (less than 0.001% imo) of cheating will be slightly harder to do Cell phones will not ring in an already loud roomAtm, they are the only positives I can see for banning cell phonesNegative sides:Emergencies are harder to solve. If a message can be got to the TD, then how long will it take the TD to find the player needed. And while this TD is single handedly looking for one person, there is several other issues he should be attending to. This could be avoided if the player could just be rang on his cell phone.Pros such as Daniel Negreanu cannot send updates to be posted on the forumFCPers cannot post on the forumPlayers that have checked out of their room that morning have no place to put their cell phones. They can bring it with them (risking disqualification), leave it somewhere when there is no guarentee it will be safe thereThe simple convenience of having a cell phone is no longer thereAnd I'm sure there's at least 50 more

[sholden 0]

This is Singer trying to win on a technicality. In the spirit of the rule, his opponent gained no advantage by turning the ringer on his phone off, I think it's good for Harrah's to rule in favor of the logical rule rather than the rule as taken as literally as possible by the language.

How do you know he gained no advantage?Maybe he has a friend on the rail who peaked at Singer's cards and they have an agreement where the friend calls him with phone A if his opponent can beat top pair and with phone B is he has air. Maybe he forgot which ring tone was which and had to check the number on the screen and hence decided to take a peak while turning the phone off?Of course he should pick an accomplice who knows about flush draws, but that's besides the point.

[sholden 0]

The guy just checked who the caller is. A stupid thing to do in this situation when he must know that a strict no-cell-phone-rule is in place, but declaring his hand dead because of that would seem excessive to me. Singer should just suck it up and try to play better next time. Whining about rule enforcement almost seems like borderline angleshooting to me, that is just cheap (like Gold last year with that little punk who said "****" or something deep in the main event in a hand against him).

I wouldn't call it angleshooting. He waited until after the guy called because he would have preferred the guy just fold - you don't want to ask for a ruling before the guy calls since if the ruling isn't in your favor the guy is going to get some information you'd rather him not have.That said the angleshoot would be to ask the dealer to declare his hand dead because he you saw him touch his phone, and call the floor over, and the TD... When he did no such thing and you are holding the nuts...

[CBass1724 1]

The laces were in!

[Squirrelmonger 0]

First of all, addressing this specific situation: I can see how people may be split on this issue but to say there is no argument is pretty naive...a few points...1) The spirit of the rule is to prevent players from gaining an advantage through use of information from an outside source. 2) A simple ring of the phone can all by itself give that piece of information to a player. 3) It is obviously up to the floor to determine the interpretation of the rule, but ultimately the rule exist more as a means of deterrence then to actually catch cheaters, otherwise the penalty would be disqualification not a dead hand. 4) In the spirit of deterring people the rule needs to be enforced liberally so that everyone is keenly aware that it is not acceptable. It makes a great deal of sense to enforce such a rule to the point that people police themselves, this alleviates the staff of having to deal with these situations and removes one of the many ambiguities that arise every year.5) The language of the rule is ambiguous and leaves much to be interpreted. The fact is that if Singer had another dealer or floor-men to make the ruling the result may very well of been quite different. The fact that this statement is unlikely to be challenged speaks to the fact that the rule should be made more clear one way or the other.Lastly, more generally regarding potential rules changes for next year....

Not allowing players to have phones is unreasonable.

It may be unreasonable to ban phones but I don't think it is unreasonable to require phones to be turned off when you have a live hand. If you want to text/call someone you can once you fold, but you need to turn the phone off before the start of the next hand or your hand is dead. Any spectators etc.. can walk out into the hallway or to the sides of the room to make calls, they don't need to make calls in the middle of a loud room.Moreover, to all of you who believe that the floor made the correct decision because they showed that the guy received no information from the phone: You have completely missed the point of this rule, and I think the floor hopped into the same misconceived boat along with you. You simply cannot turn this into a case by case investigation type ruling. The standards for how this rule is to be enforced must have obvious criteria that allows for on the spot determinations with no room for interpretation. Not all rules will have the luxury of cut and dry results but this rule easily can with a simple rewording, regardless of which way you would like to take the rule.

[rivergirl 2]

I think they should enforce the out of sight rule with them.....maybe not completely ban them but they should not be seen or heard. I mean, life began long before cell phones were invented for most of us and we all survived....Even if the instances of cheating using a cell phone is rare...there is some chance that someone will take the opportunity.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

First of all, addressing this specific situation: I can see how people may be split on this issue but to say there is no argument is pretty naive...a few points...1) The spirit of the rule is to prevent players from gaining an advantage through use of information from an outside source. 2) A simple ring of the phone can all by itself give that piece of information to a player. 3) It is obviously up to the floor to determine the interpretation of the rule, but ultimately the rule exist more as a means of deterrence then to actually catch cheaters, otherwise the penalty would be disqualification not a dead hand. 4) In the spirit of deterring people the rule needs to be enforced liberally so that everyone is keenly aware that it is not acceptable. It makes a great deal of sense to enforce such a rule to the point that people police themselves, this alleviates the staff of having to deal with these situations and removes one of the many ambiguities that arise every year.5) The language of the rule is ambiguous and leaves much to be interpreted. The fact is that if Singer had another dealer or floor-men to make the ruling the result may very well of been quite different. The fact that this statement is unlikely to be challenged speaks to the fact that the rule should be made more clear one way or the other.Lastly, more generally regarding potential rules changes for next year....It may be unreasonable to ban phones but I don't think it is unreasonable to require phones to be turned off when you have a live hand. If you want to text/call someone you can once you fold, but you need to turn the phone off before the start of the next hand or your hand is dead. Any spectators etc.. can walk out into the hallway or to the sides of the room to make calls, they don't need to make calls in the middle of a loud room.Moreover, to all of you who believe that the floor made the correct decision because they showed that the guy received no information from the phone: You have completely missed the point of this rule, and I think the floor hopped into the same misconceived boat along with you. You simply cannot turn this into a case by case investigation type ruling. The standards for how this rule is to be enforced must have obvious criteria that allows for on the spot determinations with no room for interpretation. Not all rules will have the luxury of cut and dry results but this rule easily can with a simple rewording, regardless of which way you would like to take the rule.

Hey.I have an idea.Let's go ahead and ban all cell phones and electronic devices.In fact let's ban all potential interaction between spectators and players, since anything that could be communicated in a text message or ring tone could be communicated WAY MORE EASILY with a simple HAND GESTURE.In fact, why stop there, let's ban all interaction between players since information can easily be communicated between collaborators. In fact, tells are just another form of information that can give a player an unfair advantage, so let's build little walls around each player.But then a cough or other sounds could be exchanged....there is this really new technology that could allow players to sit in their own little room and somehow electronically project their cards on a little screen in front of them. Then they could use a "computer" to execute their decisions.Gimme a break.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Moreover, to all of you who believe that the floor made the correct decision because they showed that the guy received no information from the phone: You have completely missed the point of this rule, and I think the floor hopped into the same misconceived boat along with you. You simply cannot turn this into a case by case investigation type ruling. The standards for how this rule is to be enforced must have obvious criteria that allows for on the spot determinations with no room for interpretation. Not all rules will have the luxury of cut and dry results but this rule easily can with a simple rewording, regardless of which way you would like to take the rule.

Wrong.It is you who has clearly "completely missed the point of the rule".The point of the rule isn't to BAN CELL PHONES......the point of the rule is to limit exposure to potential cheating......the floor determined that there wasn't any risk of cheating or other impact to the hand in play. That is CONSISTENT with the point of the rule.

[superleeds 0]

I am still sticking with my thoughts that I had from the start. David Singer's opponent did NOT break any documented rule, therefore his hand should remain live.

This is Rule 82 of the World Series of Poker Tournament Rules:\"Cell Phone Rule: A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging [sic] when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table.\" Quite clearly DS's opponent did break the rule. He took it from his pocket and pressed something. Even if it was just the off button it is still use. I think DS's main problem is he suspects that if it was Doyle or DN or any number of well known pros the decision may have been different. Most anger should be directed at the people who charge a large amount to run an event and then don't give a **** about running it properly.

[RhinestoneCowboy 2]

This is Rule 82 of the World Series of Poker Tournament Rules:\"Cell Phone Rule: A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging [sic] when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table.\" Quite clearly DS's opponent did break the rule. He took it from his pocket and pressed something. Even if it was just the off button it is still use. I think DS's main problem is he suspects that if it was Doyle or DN or any number of well known pros the decision may have been different. Most anger should be directed at the people who charge a large amount to run an event and then don't give a **** about running it properly.

You call pressing an off button being "on" a cell phone?The point of all of this is Singer is trying to use a technicality to get back into a tourney he busted out of.

[Jam-Fly 8]

This is Rule 82 of the World Series of Poker Tournament Rules:\"Cell Phone Rule: A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging [sic] when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table.\" Quite clearly DS's opponent did break the rule. He took it from his pocket and pressed something. Even if it was just the off button it is still use. I think DS's main problem is he suspects that if it was Doyle or DN or any number of well known pros the decision may have been different. Most anger should be directed at the people who charge a large amount to run an event and then don't give a **** about running it properly.

Refer back to the post I make quoting the rule where I explain my thoughts

[superleeds 0]

You call pressing an off button being "on" a cell phone?

No. I call it "using" it. As viewing a message "call" would also be using it.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

This is Rule 82 of the World Series of Poker Tournament Rules:\"Cell Phone Rule: A player who wants to use a cellular phone must step away from the table. Any player on the cell phone or texting a messaging [sic] when the dealer delivers the first card from the deck will have a dead hand. No cell phones can be placed on a poker table.\" Quite clearly DS's opponent did break the rule. He took it from his pocket and pressed something. Even if it was just the off button it is still use. I think DS's main problem is he suspects that if it was Doyle or DN or any number of well known pros the decision may have been different. Most anger should be directed at the people who charge a large amount to run an event and then don't give a **** about running it properly.

Nonsense.Sitting 2,000 miles away, it is my perception that Harrahs does care about the execution of the event and that they have in most respects done a pretty good job. Have you actually been there to dispute this perception?Did the action or Floor decision affect the play or the outcome of the hand?No.End of Story.

[Squirrelmonger 0]

Wow, way to take it too far.... but lets take a look at your back to back posts, there was bound to be someone expressing their ill-formed opinion....

Hey.I have an idea.Let's go ahead and ban all cell phones and electronic devices.

At no point did I advocate a ban on anything, you can stop trying to put words in my mouth, tyvm. This little blurb is nothing more than an attempt to imply that this whole thing is a slippery slope to banning all interactions as you go into great detail to explain below. But nobody here has said this should be the case.

In fact let's ban all potential interaction between spectators and players, since anything that could be communicated in a text message or ring tone could be communicated WAY MORE EASILY with a simple HAND GESTURE.

Interactions between spectators and the rail is not allowed as it stands, so I don't see where you are going here. This rule is already enforced by security and it is the job of all players and the dealers to watch for this type of cheating. This is precisely why eliminating the concern over cell phones when it is so easy to do is the prudent thing to do, thus allowing people to be concerned with the much harder to catch forms of cheating rather than getting worked up about cell phones all the time.

In fact, why stop there, let's ban all interaction between players since information can easily be communicated between collaborators.In fact, tells are just another form of information that can give a player an unfair advantage, so let's build little walls around each player.But then a cough or other sounds could be exchanged....there is this really new technology that could allow players to sit in their own little room and somehow electronically project their cards on a little screen in front of them. Then they could use a "computer" to execute their decisions.Gimme a break.

What can I say? More meaningless drivel, nobody advocates this and you bring it up why?

Wrong.It is you who has clearly "completely missed the point of the rule".The point of the rule isn't to BAN CELL PHONES......the point of the rule is to limit exposure to potential cheating......the floor determined that there wasn't any risk of cheating or other impact to the hand in play. That is CONSISTENT with the point of the rule.

Once again, never once did I advocate banning cell phones. Whether the guy was attempting to cheat MUST be irrelevant to this ruling. Because if the guy is cheating the penalty MUST BE DISQUALIFICATION. Once again I say you have missed the point.

[superleeds 0]

Did the action or Floor decision affect the play or the outcome of the hand?No.End of Story.

The action involved DS making a comment which may have influenced his oppenent to call. (I agree this was stupid of him.) The Floor could easily have decided in DS's favour, and had they followed the rule as stated, they should have.So yes.End of Story.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

David Singer has a legit complaint and the rule about cell phones is too lenient.Plain and simple, the rule needs to boil down to stopping any player from receiving information from an outside source while playing a hand. The rule should include killing a hand for a phone ringing while you have a live hand, I might even go so far as to give a penalty to any player receiving a call during a hand regardless of their status in the hand. To have the phone ring at all can give information, you simply need to inform the person in advance that that a call means fold/call/raise/etc and any number of other possibilities. The goal of any cell phone rule should be to encourage players to turn their phones off during play.I don't know if the rule exists already but spectators should not be allowed to use a cell phone within 50 feet of a table. This whole thing boils down to preventing cheating of any kind. Given the situation I think Singer has the right to be upset, however it would be a little dishonest of him to claim he is motivated by anything other than his own personal interest to win the event. Under no circumstances should he be allowed to play in another day, but I think if there is any credence to his claims that he and others have had hands declared dead for merely touching the phone or pressing a button then it is more than reasonable and only fair that he receive a refund.Speaking from experience I can tell you that consistency in your rulings is paramount to maintaining any respect and through that respect the ability to maintain order throughout the event. They must remain consistent and any and all deviations from the current rules needs to be visited after the World Series ends not in the middle of the event when faced with specific circumstances, especially circumstances involving a well known player. It may or may not already be the case but the officials in charge of these events should be expected to carry out the rules with as much consistency and adherence to the intent of the rules as possible. To that end every dealer who is going to be working the series should be receiving daily info sheets informing them to all issues that arose during the previous day and how each ruling is to be handled from then on. Nobody expects the event to go off perfectly but I think it is reasonable to expect them to learn from their mistakes very quickly and adjust accordingly. There is of course a fine line between keeping with a consistent ruling and continuing to make a bad ruling....but their job is to figure out which is which.

[Squirrelmonger 0]

Just to sum up my points again, then I will be off to let you folks continue this seemingly endless debate.1) Nobody should ever be allowed to re-enter a tournament as a result of something like this, no matter how wrong the staff was.2) A refund should be issued IF touching a cell phone resulted in the killing over several other hands as Singer claims. Even if this is an incorrect ruling singer gave away information about his hand as a result of the action of tournament staff and did so correctly (once again IF Singer's assertion is true).3) The rule logically must be about preventing any interaction with a cell phone or wireless device, because if it were only to prevent cheating then the penalty would be a disqualification.4) The current ambiguities in the rule need to be removed and it needs to be a rule that is cut and dry with no room for questions. I personally like the idea of requiring all cell phones to be turned off while a person has a live hand. This allows plenty of opportunity for people to text/call between hands as they are now while preventing any possible interruptions or information via a cell phone.