Jump to content

Was David Singer Correct?


Recommended Posts

the rule is not 100% specific in regards to this situation, therefore refer to the rule that says "tournament directors desicion is final"did he have a legitimate right to argue? 100% yesbut ultimately, as the rules are stated, ruling is what it is and stands as is

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

My feelings on the issue: Singer probably wouldnt have done the same thing if he had quads, and it is a tacky, classless move. That said, it has no bearing on whether the floor made the correct decision. Personally, i feel the floor made a terrible decision here. If they have been saying don't touch your phone while in a hand, it's very simple to abide. I've been in the situation where my phone begins ringing at the table and, knowing the rules, I didn't touch it. We can't have people who weren't witness to the incident making case-by-case rulings, i.e. tournament directors. If the rule is simple, the resolution is simple.Resolution: Leave it as it is, no refund, no opportunity to play again, sometimes you just get a bad break in life. Although there should be some discussion of the issue before something like this happens again.
Have they declared any hands dead when it has happened, or just given a warning? With probably a million hands dealt so far this year it must have come up once or twice.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree, the whole point of having the rule is so that you don't have to make case by case judgment calls because these inevitably lead to disagreements/messy situations. Also, a player should never be put in a situation where he can't call another player out for breaking the rules because it may betray the strength of his hand and the the rule might not be upheld.
I agree whole heartedly
My issue with the rule is that in the announcements they make before the tournaments they tell you not to have your cell phone out at any point during a hand, and this is what (as far as I know) they have been enforcing. Really looks like they put a lot of effort into writing that rule..."texting a messaging"?!It would suck to be the other guy if his hand was declared dead, but he shouldn't have taken his cell phone out of his pocket. I also think it's kind of shady that Singer tried to get the other guy's hand called dead for this, and I wouldn't have done that, but I do think he is within his right and Harrah's needs to be consistent in enforcing the cell phone rule.
I hope, at least, Harrahs will now realize that they need to be very specific about this rule. Why are players allowed to have their cell phones on at all ? The only time anyone needs to be gotten in touch with immediately are in the cases of family emergency (wife in labor, son in jail, father hospitalized/deceased). They could keep theirs on vibrate or have an audience member come get them. Even with a phone on vibrate.....couldn't you use that to cheat ? If I was at the table and had a read on Singer....couldn't I page the other guy as a code to fold or call ?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree whole heartedlyI hope, at least, Harrahs will now realize that they need to be very specific about this rule. Why are players allowed to have their cell phones on at all ? The only time anyone needs to be gotten in touch with immediately are in the cases of family emergency (wife in labor, son in jail, father hospitalized/deceased). They could keep theirs on vibrate or have an audience member come get them. Even with a phone on vibrate.....couldn't you use that to cheat ? If I was at the table and had a read on Singer....couldn't I page the other guy as a code to fold or call ?
Not allowing players to have phones is unreasonable.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope this whole hubbub doesn't make it so cell phones are banned. I'm really against that. Using them between hands doesn't afford you any advantage that you couldn't get just getting up and talking to someone, which is perfectly fine. I do think they should require ringers to be off, and have a hard rule that you can't have it out when the cards are dealt.Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree whole heartedlyI hope, at least, Harrahs will now realize that they need to be very specific about this rule. Why are players allowed to have their cell phones on at all ? The only time anyone needs to be gotten in touch with immediately are in the cases of family emergency (wife in labor, son in jail, father hospitalized/deceased). They could keep theirs on vibrate or have an audience member come get them. Even with a phone on vibrate.....couldn't you use that to cheat ? If I was at the table and had a read on Singer....couldn't I page the other guy as a code to fold or call ?
If you were going to cheat like that, you would just use a simple remote buzzer, which would be much more reliable, and you could easily have it buzz multiple ways for different things. I don't think the risk of someone trying to do that with a phone is worth banning them. I don't need my cell phone any more than anyone needs their walkman, or a book, or water or food or whatever at the table. It just makes it easier/more fun/more relaxing/whatever to be able to text my friends, or post hands on FCP etc. I'd gladly give that up if I felt like the risk of cheaters was high. But I don't think it is given that there are much easier/reliable ways to cheat.mark
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like David Singer because he busted me HU for a t-shirt so I'm gonna say he's always wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally some logical argument(sw)
not that im bitter or anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think anyone is cheating with cellphones anyway.Railbirds can't get all that close, and the ones that can can MAYBE see one players cards. It's not an issue 99.9% of the time, and if it is, then it should be a floorperson decision. I for one think you should be able to use your phone at the table if you want to. As long as you aren't slowing the game down, I really don't think the cheating issue is very much of an issue at all, especially with phones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem with this rule is that it is very vague, and it's virtually impossible to tell what it means...it says that you can't be talking or text messaging when the first card is dealt, or the hand is dead, but certainly the guy wasn't talking or text messaging, so i have to go with the floor's ruling on this based on the wording of the statementi will make two guarantees though...the rule is not interpreted the same way by every floorperson, and that we will have another problem with this rule before the tournament is over

Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem with this rule is that it is very vague, and it's virtually impossible to tell what it means...it says that you can't be talking or text messaging when the first card is dealt, or the hand is dead, but certainly the guy wasn't talking or text messaging, so i have to go with the floor's ruling on this based on the wording of the statementi will make two guarantees though...the rule is not interpreted the same way by every floorperson, and that we will have another problem with this rule before the tournament is over
There were probably be many more problems with this rule, but I'm sure the dealers and floorpersons will be told what to do in more detail after this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
David Singer Eliminated, Not Without ControversyOn a flop of Ks 7s 4d and facing a bet of 3,000 from a late-position player David Singer moved all from the button for 9,450. Here's where the hand gets interesting. As David's opponent was contemplating his decision his cell phone rang -- he removed it from his pocket, glanced at it and turned it off. Singer said nothing at first but made a motion to the dealer. Then his opponent said "I'll just pay you off, I'll call." At this point Singer said, "His hand should be dead," and requested a ruling from the floorperson. When the floorperson heard the situation she called for the Tournament Director to make a ruling. After a re-enactment of exactly how the player touched his phone, the Tournament Director ruled that his hand was not dead and he would be allowed to play. Singer then requested a higher ruling, saying, "I have a drawing hand here and I obviously don't want him to be allowed to call." This request was denied and the players' hands were tabled, with Singer showing 4s 5s for bottom pair and a flush draw and his opponent holding Kd Jd for top pair. The turn 10h and river 8d did not help Singer and he has been eliminated. As he left the table he was asking for a refund, saying, "Ever since I have been here, I have been told that if you touch your phone during a hand then your hand is dead." At this point we don't know if that request will be considered but we do know that David Singer will not be playing Day Two of the Main Event, and he's not happy about it.Here is the rule as posted by Pokernews:2. You cannot be on a cellphone or text messaging when the first card is dealt. If you are, you're hand is declared dead.I agree with the floor here. The player did not talk on his phone and was not text messaging, so I would have made the same ruling. What does everyone on here think?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The cards do not lie. Singer pushed all his chips in on a flush draw and lost. Who cares if the guy was messing with his cell phone. He called the all in. I don't get Singer's argument. That guy must of had a large chip stack. Does anybody know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The cards do not lie. Singer pushed all his chips in on a flush draw and lost. Who cares if the guy was messing with his cell phone. He called the all in. I don't get Singer's argument. That guy must of had a large chip stack. Does anybody know?
In a video interview at pokernews.com, Singer said that when he touched his phone, Singer told the dealer that the hand should be dead so the other guy knew that Singer was weak. However, Singer also said that he didn't speak english, so I don't know how he would be able to tell that Singer wanted the hand to be dead (other than non-verbal gestures).
Link to post
Share on other sites
The cards do not lie. Singer pushed all his chips in on a flush draw and lost. Who cares if the guy was messing with his cell phone. He called the all in. I don't get Singer's argument. That guy must of had a large chip stack. Does anybody know?
what do the cards themselves have to do with a player touching his cellphone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any arguments for the existence of the cell phone rule seem to me to apply equally to radios with headphones, which are all over the place. Frankly, I find headphones to be more of a problem, because people often can't hear well enough to follow the action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is is possible they realized the rule was poorly worded, and changed it without updating the rule book/website? That could explain why the posts from people there all say they have been told not to touch their phone at all, but the rule says something else.In another activity I participate in, rules change faster then the updates can be published and you will told of the changes before play starts. Phones should be banned from the table entirely. IMO, and as mentioned already, just a ring can provide information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To those that are worried about cell phones and cheating, don't you think a player could have a headphone rigged to be used for the same purposes as they could with a phone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to develop good rules from first principles, you should refrain from getting distracted by particular circumstances involving personalities (I don't care why Singer did what he did too much) and personal experiences, and emphasize fairness in anticipation of cultural and technological developments; keeping in mind that Harrah's interests are not congruent with the players' needs. I figure in 10-20 years we will have communication devices that are ubiquitously concealed.*Postulate what a players' association (if it existed and if it was effective) would demand, and forget the limitations and vagaries of an indifferent host (Harrah's***).I would post a plastic sign at the table stating for instance: "anyone at all times who either touches his phone or has a phone making any ringing sound or vibration* immediately has a dead hand and the phone is confiscated until the player busts out or the playing session ends. We strongly advise you to turn off your phones and leave greetings that state that you may be busy (playing poker) and will get back to the caller... (obvious, right?)" This is only one of any possible solutions to what a players' association would decide, and there would be no exceptions or laxity (the biggest problem in casinos). Any supervisors or dealers not complying with understood rules would be subject immediately to a preselected appeals committee upon the alleged victim's request selected prior to a tournament from the players.**I'm not dictating what should be, I'm suggesting a process.My first instinct was to say that the offender must swallow the phone while it was turned on (smash as necessary).Any further ringing would demand player assisted (person sitting to the right of the offender) seppuku, whereupon the caller would be told that the person is dead, no money would be refunded, the chips to be split among the others at the table.* I wouldn't pretend to know the solution to vibrating phones, as suggestions make matters rather complicated.Do we ask players to hand over their phones prior to dealing the cards? etc.** 'Clumsy,' time-consuming and 'unworkable' would be the major criticisms, especially in large tournaments--I know of no workaround to casino staff that is either too lazy or indifferent--on the other hand, I've seen excellent work by the WPT so far... but these are smaller tournaments, right?*** You can't expect a business to care that much when they know that the severely addicted nature of players looking for action ensures an almost endless supply of suckers. I personally would boycott such businesses until they've proven that they've got their act together, and just to show you that I don't hate Harrah's, an extremely bright thinker would know why Harrah's decision to ban the video poker player who had too many royal flushes from this year's WSOP ME made sense (it's tricky and too easy to arrive at the wrong and common answer, take your time on this one).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...