Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DanielNegreanu

Ept Barcelona Ruling In 10K Event

Recommended Posts

So I was having a really fun time in the early levels of the 10k Euro high roller at EPT Barcelona, despite already spewing off half my stack, leaving me with a still very healthy 22,000 with blinds at 100-200 with a 25 ante.

I stood up from my chair to stretch my legs a little bit, threw in my ante and small blind awaiting the next hand. Obviously since I threw in my chips on my own, I was directly behind my chair. My friend at the table next to me said hello, so I looked over at him and said hello back. I moved maybe 12 inches to the left, still very much in arms reach of my chair. I was actually, in the moment, very conscious of the rule and knew it was important to not walk away from the table as my hand may be killed.

When I turn my attention back to the table the dealer scooped in my cards. I at first politely explained that I was standing right at my chair and my hand is live. The dealer argued that it wasn't. The rule states quite clearly:

 

32. At Your Seat - A player must be at his or her seat when the dealer delivers the first card off of the deck in order to have a live hand. Dealers are instructed to muck the hands of players not at their seats immediately after the final card is dealt to the button, or in Stud Games, the final up card is dealt on third street. Players must be at their seats to call time. “At your seat” is defined as being within reach of your chair. In case of doubt, Floor decision is final.

 

Well, this seems pretty self explanatory, but I was the one who threw my ante in, so of course I was in reach of my chair! The dealer claimed I was standing about a foot further back from where I claimed I was standing. Even if I was standing where she said I was standing, my hand should still be live as I could easily reach the chair with my arm.

 

The floorman wasn't clear on the application of the rule and what was written, saying something to the effect of, "We are told that it should depend on whether or not the player was paying attention to the table or not." I knew immediately that this was clearly not true. The floor man asked the dealer if it was close, and she said it wasn't. However, she wasn't asked, "was he in reach of the chair."

 

I was sitting in the one seat, and was looking behind me when the cards were dealt. There was zero risk of me seeing an opponents hand, and besides that, I wasn't breaking any rules. Ultimately the floor went with the dealers take, despite the fact that she didn't understand what the rule states.

 

So from here I lose it a little bit and react in anger. I decide I just don't want to be there anymore so I ship my chips in blind from the button and get called by the small blind. He has 77, I ended up having a decent hand, the Ah 3h. I lost the pot and stormed off. Now, my reaction is silly and I realize this. I allowed myself to let anger consume me and cause me to make a silly decision. I can live with it, but I'm not at all claiming I handled the situation properly. The hand I had mucked was irrelevant to me, it was KT off suit, it was just the point.

 

It's no secret that I, and the VAST majority of players don't like the first card off the deck rule, but this was the first time it's implementation actually cost me personally. My rage had to do less with the situation then it did the realization that currently the players are powerless. I'm committed to changing that and making sure that the players are heard before the games rules are tampered with further without player input.

 

I realize that some organization and change was necessary for the games growth. Some of the things people could get away with in the 70's and 80's needed some cleaning up, but there is such a thing as going too far and I believe we've done that by failing to allow tournament directors and dealers to be empowered with common sense in certain situations, and always with the focus of what is the most player friendly, fair, common sense solution. Anything close, should always go to the player, provided it doesn't compromise the integrity of the game.

 

Here you have a situation where a player and a dealer are arguing over semantics. Arguing over what essentially amounts to 12 inches. Again, as I mentioned previously, even if she was right in where she claimed I was standing, the ruling was still very much incorrect, but for the sake of argument, lets say it mattered. In situations like these, its in the best interest of everyone involved to give the player the benefit of the doubt. That's just good policy and good business. Even in baseball, a game of inches, the tie goes to the runner!

 

So I'm sitting in my room now writing this and cooling off. My plan is to re-enter the tournament at some point and make a deep run. I've already spoken to the tournament director, a very likable guy, about the situation and there are no hard feelings whatsoever. He made a mistake, but the information he got from the dealer didn't help. End Rant :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the rule, But did any of the players at the table back your side of the story? Or was it simply he said she said? Then the TD I think has to side with the dealer, I've yet to hear a player argue against themselves MOST will just flat out lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason Mercier ‏@JasonMercier 27m

Guys, the rule being enforced properly/improperly isn't the issue. Neither is Daniels actions... The rule in and of itself is the issue IMO

 

Jason Mercier ‏@JasonMercier 24m

In Daniels defense, him and I have been trying to get this rule removed/changed since it was first implemented. Do I think he could've...

 

Jason Mercier ‏@JasonMercier 23m

... Handled the situation better? Yes of course he could've. We all make mistakes and he has already apologized to the staff here #movingon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was bound to happen ... and it just happened sooner rather than later. The all-in reaction is a bit much but DN can get emotional very quickly as we know. He couldve just left and blinded off for a bit. But with this being a re-entry (?) I can see this reaction coming to the surface as well. DN (and others) have been very vocal about this rule and with it happening to someone soundly against it a major battle shouldve been expected.

 

Question? Don't casinos have cameras? Floor couldve reviewed footage and actually helped create a better ruling here for all to learn from. Next should be a boundry line on the floor so players know where their piece of the pie is ... stretching legs certinaly has to be 'allowed' whereas 'paying attention' to the deal is irrelevant to this rule as it's up to the player to know whats going on at the table.

 

I wouldnt have expected the other players to get involved unless the floor asked them to ... which is taboo for the floor to do anyway. It is between the player, dealer and floor. I have trouble with this ... especially when the stories are being presented to the floor without full detail or incorrectly to support their side of a potential ruling. At charity 1-2 I want folks to have a good experience and learn at the same time. GL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, the link at the end of the article leads to this thread.

 

I'm not sure what unemployment rates have to do with this though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruling (not the rule) was poorly translated/enforced... BUT, I also believe Daniel purposely challenges these rules to see what happens. This time he got nipped by an overly zealous dealer and floor person. How about growing up, and behaving like a man? As a highly respected poker ambassador, you should be handling these situations with a bit more decorum, better yet, not getting sucked into them in the first place. A little too much "Kid" and not enough "Poker"... You're a "leader", remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was the one who threw my ante in, so of course I was in reach of my chair!

 

In case of doubt, Floor decision is final.

 

The dealer claimed I was standing about a foot further back from where I claimed I was standing

 

The floor man asked the dealer if it was close, and she said it wasn't.

 

and besides that, I wasn't breaking any rules.

 

 

Is it possible that you threw your ante in and then moved slightly further away from the table? I'm not logically following how you being close enough to throw your ante in means that you necessarily did not move any further away from the table during the entire dealing of the cards.

 

 

Its interesting that you later mention baseball("Even in baseball, a game of inches, the tie goes to the runner") because theres another interesting aspect of baseball: In baseball there is no defined "strike zone." Sure theres a general idea of "over the plate and in between knee-to-chest height", but ultimately every single umpire is allowed to have his/her own personal idea of what is and isn't a strike. And heres the interesting part: Its completely up to the players to understand and adjust to the ump's strike zone.

 

You ran into an ump with a strict strike zone.That is his prerogative. It is your job to adjust.

 

 

Now, my reaction is silly and I realize this. I allowed myself to let anger consume me and cause me to make a silly decision. I can live with it

 

You gloss across your own shortcomings as "I can live with it" while writing a multi-paragraph essay on shortcomings of others(or shortcomings of rules).

 

To give a sports analogy, you are like a basketball player who got a trivial foul called against him early in the game and who decided to make a big scene and get ejected because of it. Sure it may have been a bad(or close) call, but ref's jobs are really really tough and theres a lot of judgment calls to be made. To me it sounds like the dealer and floor did their best to get the dealer's opinion on what occurred, and based upon the dealer's opinion it seems to me like the rule was enforced correctly. As with the baseball analogy, it doesn't matter if the hitter thinks it was a ball or strike...it only matters what the ump thinks.

 

 

 

And just for the record, I support this new rule fully. Its simply not that difficult to stay seated when the cards are being shuffled/dealt. If you fold your hand preflop and the hand goes to a flop then that gives you ample time to get up and take a quick stretch. I think Daniel does a very good job overall of representing the poker community, but on far too many issues he assumes that the views that he and other top pros hold represent the view of the majority. I think I speak for a large number of quieter and lesser-known players when I say: Sit the f*ck down and stop slowing up the game! Its not that hard.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more things to add:

 

1. The referee ruling one thing and the player ruling another is not "a tie." To even suggest this is quite egotistical and oblivious to a host of cognitive biases that are undoubtedly affecting your viewpoint.

 

2. I don't think theres an actual disagreement on the rule; Rather I think theres a disagreement on where to draw the arbitrary line. For example, I think even Daniel would agree that if a player is X distance away from the table then his hand is dead. To give an extreme example, if someone gets up to go to the bathroom we clearly are not going to wait for him to return before killing his hand. So the question becomes where to draw the arbitrary line. Furthermore, no matter where you draw the arbitrary line there will undoubtedly be conflict when a situation arises that is super close to either side of the arbitrary line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disagree with the rule. fine. campaign against the rule. fine. act like a drama queen because you didn't get your way. not so fine. this is something annie duke might do, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standing up does not slow the game down, especially in tournament play. If a player is standing up when action is on a player it is an insta-muck anyways. So standing up actually makes tournaments go faster.

 

You guys realize that these major tournaments are played 10+ hours per day right? Even with breaks it can be very uncomfortable sitting in a chair hours at a time when there sometimes isn't much leg room. Also these hands that go on for 5+ minutes can be extremely boring when your not involved in a hand. You guys who are saying "just sit down" sound idiotic and it leads me to believe that you haven't ever stepped inside a poker room.

 

The rule is horrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DanDruff would have contested the decision. He certainly would have made a post this long about it. But he never would have shoved dark.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DanDruff would have contested the decision. He certainly would have made a post this long about it. But he never would have shoved dark.

 

Is it 2005? Who cares about Dan Druff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it 2005? Who cares about Dan Druff?

 

 

Pokerfraudalert.com gets a hell of a lot more traffic than this place. I think I should ask the same question about DN.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pokerfraudalert.com gets a hell of a lot more traffic than this place. I think I should ask the same question about DN.

 

You think Dan Druff is more popular than DN because pokerfraudalert gets more traffic than FCP? Are you kidding or being serious? Lets get back on topic and stop promoting a site that nobody here besides you has heard of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lot of you have heard of Burkina Faso. Just because you don't follow the rebranding and political splintering going on outside your own home doesn't mean your favorite hotheaded degenerates are any more important than Blaise Compaore. Stop being proud of ignorance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pokerfraudalert.com gets a hell of a lot more traffic than this place. I think I should ask the same question about DN.

quit liking your own posts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my first, but if I keep posting on this level, I might make a habit of it. I see a sick burn, I like it, whether it's mine or anyone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You going off topic and comparing someone who is completely insignificant in the poker world to Burkina Faso then calling me ignorant is a sick burn? Congratulations to you, I'm glad you think so highly of yourself even though what you said was not creative at all and makes zero sense.

 

Edit... Oh I see you liked your post that said pokerfraudalert gets more traffic than here. Yeah sick burn, I hardly post here anymore anyways so I could care less. Go pokerfraudalert.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a legit pokerstars employee.

 

But on a serious note, why is it ok to insult people by calling them clowns? Clowns have feelings too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Space Druff AKA Todd Witteles, while not having the main stream appeal of DN, has a larger hardcore fanship than DN does at this point. DN has a lot of advantages, being corporate friendly ( where as Todd is a known enemy of corporate fraud), having a built in rabid national fanbase that's bigger than Druff's natural fanbase(Canadians vs Autistic jews), but one thing Druff is, is active. He's extremely hands on in his forums and has a weekly web radio show where any fan can call in and talk about what ever they want. DN only comes onto his own forums to bring up some issue he is pissed about, or to talk about fantasy hockey. So, that engenders a great deal of loyalty in the PokerFraudAlert fanbase that I just don't see here anymore, besides Rose. One thing they both have in common though, is they are both outspoken about injustices they see, within the poker community and without it. I think if more high profile players were willing to take stands on what they feel is right, like DN and Todd do, that things in poker would change for the better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...