A complaint i have with totalbetpoker....Who is right?

[rusty JEDI]

On Nov.25th they had a promotion that offered 20 pounds for any hand where you are dealt 3 jacks. The promo for this month can be seen here (http://www.totalbetpoker.com/Poker_Promo_Daily/0,10723,tb,00.html). As you can see Dec.21st of this month is the identical promo to the one in November. The terms and condtions state:

[ QUOTE ]
Terms and Conditions
No head-to-head playing is allowed, as there must be a minimum of 3 players
Failure to meet these terms will lead to forfeiture of bonus, as will any attempt to manipulate play
All players must be playing at real money Texas Hold'em tables
Both hole cards must be used
Promotions valid on stated days only



[/ QUOTE ]

I had a hand where i had in the hole As Jh. Board came out JJx,x,x where all x's are less than my Ace. Therefore my ace plays and my hand looks like AJJJx.

I claim that i used both hole cards and should be given the 20 Pounds.

After 6 unanswered emails, i got one replied to that gave me a management email. Management is saying that i must have pocket jacks in the hole and will not pay me. After several emails explaining my position they still dont see my point.

I take my stand based on their t&c's and also the common practice of a bad beat jackpot paying if you must use both hole cards where if you get 4 aces beat and you have AK in the hole on a board of AAA92, you win the bbj. But if you have A2 on a board of AAAK3 you do not win the bbj because both hole cards didnt play.

Who is right?

[Emperor]

I vote that the T&C was unclear, but that surely rusty Jedi is good enough that at some point wasting time chasing 20GBP is -EV...

Good Luck!

[lorinda]

You are both wrong.

It is impossible to be dealt three jacks in hold 'em.

Lori (I voted you are right, but it's so ambiguous I think they can do what they like /images/graemlins/frown.gif )

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
You are both wrong.

It is impossible to be dealt three jacks in hold 'em.

Lori (I voted you are right, but it's so ambiguous I think they can do what they like /images/graemlins/frown.gif )

[/ QUOTE ]

I think their intent was that you be dealt pocket jacks. If they allow your claim, they will have to reduce the payout in future, since the odds of hitting it will increase. I agree that they should make the terms clearer.

[TruePoker CEO]

Whether they are right or wrong is a bit beside the point. They think they are right and will not pay you, despite the apparent ambiguity of their terms.

If you want to be made whole however, come over to our site, Rusty. I'll comp you the $40 if you promise to play real money games on Truepoker until you get three jacks in any form on any day ..... or are dealt in to 400 raked hands, whichever occurs first.

Truepoker CEO

[Rudbaeck]

They really need to change the T&C to avoid this. The same thing has happened with the BBJ on Interpoker. I don't recall the exact board but it was something like QQQJJ, one person had JJ and the other had AQ, BBJ requires 'both hole cards' to be used in both hands. They refused to pay out the BBJ on this hand.

I don't get why they don't simply rephrase the T&C to say what they mean!

[Yads]

I want a comp too. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
I take my stand based on their t&c's and also the common practice of a bad beat jackpot paying if you must use both hole cards where if you get 4 aces beat and you have AK in the hole on a board of AAA92, you win the bbj. But if you have A2 on a board of AAAK3 you do not win the bbj because both hole cards didnt play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still on the fence about who is in the right, but the above caught my attention. On a board of A/images/graemlins/club.gif A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif A/images/graemlins/heart.gif 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, no straight flush is possible (unless someone has the 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif as their hole cards, but if that's the case, I'd find some place else to play!). Therefore, quad Aces couldn't be beaten in the first place. Perhaps you mean a board of AAA52 or some such?

-Mike (AKA Mr. Picky)

[rusty JEDI]

Thank you very much for the offer. I will shoot you an email to management@truepoker after i make the deposit.

rJ

[rusty JEDI]

Yes Duck. My mistake. I wasnt thinking about the possiblilities of the other hand, just proving my point for my hand.

As of now the vote is 18-18. I expected it to be close though.


rJ

[SackUp]

There is clearly ambiguity in the clause which they should definitely make clear. However, when there is ambiguity in a contract then you must look to the intent. I don't think many would disagree that there intent was for you to have pocket hooks and to hit a set. Those who voted for you I assume did just b/c of the ambiguity and want the player to win in those instances. Reality will give you no such luck however. Not here and not in any court if this was a real contract case. At least you came up on on a free $40 from truepoker...though I doubt you will hit the set of J's and I don't know how easy their tables are to make 400 hands worth it.

GL

[UncleDuke]

I voted that you are right although Lori is correct that their phrasing makes it technically impossible to be dealt what they specified. My reasoning is that since you can't be dealt three cards in hold 'em, the most logical interpretation is that your best five (the standard value of your hand in hold em) must contain that hand and that your best five must include both cards from your hand (since they did specify this). Since your best hand does use both your hole cards and does contain three jacks, you have the required hand using what I consider the most straightforward interpretation of the offer (also, as you noted, there is precedent for this is the way some bad beat jackpots are awarded). That said, my guess is that they really did intend for the offer to require JJ in the hole. If I were them, I'd pay it since it's not a large sum, and it's worth giving the customer the benefit of the doubt for public relations purposes. Obviously they should phrase their promotions more clearly. Many of us had already noticed that the wording on these things was pretty bad.

[realwtf]

I voted Total Bet is right.

Trying to jack a pokerroom when there trying to give people something for free sucks.

[aslowjoe]

As much as I would like to support a fellow BC'r I think your wrong. I have played that promo many times and always understood that you must have the pocket pair.
What was a bit unclear is when they had the two queens and a king. You must use both whole cards. I believe they meant pocket QQ's with a king on the flop but that could have lead to some confusion.
Joe

[CORed]

I disagree. The terms were not ambiguous. They stated that both hole cards must play. That apparently isn't what they meant, but it's what they said. If they meant both whole cards must be jacks, that is what they should have said.

[realwtf]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The terms were not ambiguous. They stated that both hole cards must play. That apparently isn't what they meant, but it's what they said. If they meant both whole cards must be jacks, that is what they should have said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully companys will wise up and just stop offering these things to people. why have to get everything doublechecked by a lwayer just to see if everything is clear enough.

I took it to mean pocket Jacks right away.

I think only scam artists look for a loophole to try to extort money.

[offTopic]

Just another data point - A similar dispute arose a couple of years ago at a B&M hold'em table at which I was playing.

Board: Qx Qy Qs Ts 8s

KQ vs Js 9s

No jackpot. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

You were right to ask, and they were unclear. Next hand.

[CORed]

Okay, I play B&M occasionally. Common usage there, both for awarding bad beat jackpots, and for determining the winner of a hand, is that a card "plays" if it is one of the 5 cards that make your best possible hand. For example, if you hold AJ, the board is ATT96, and another player holds A8, the dealer will say "Jack plays" and you win the pot. If the board is ATTQ6, the dealer will say "Jack doesn't play" and the pot is split. Based on standard poker terminology, I contend that the T&C of the promotion clearly make the OP's hand a winner. It doen't take a lawyer to write these things, just somebody that can write clear English, and understatnds common poker terminology. How hard is it to say "Both of your cards must be jacks" indtead of "Both of your cards must play"? If cardrooms want to offer bonuses, they should state the terms correctly. Otherwise, it will make customers unhappy, which I don't think is what the cardrooms are trying to accomplisy by offering these bonuses. Expecting a cardroom to honor the bonus as it was offered isn't being a scam artist. If anything the cardroom is scamming the player, though I don't think that is their intent. I think they justd made an error in the way they stated the terms. In fact, the way the terms were stated, IMO his hand would have qualified if he had held AQ or AK with three jacks on the board.

[guppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The terms were not ambiguous. They stated that both hole cards must play.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to get specific, lets actually quote their promotion page.

In the promotion table it says to qualify you need to be "Dealt 3 Jacks". In the rules at the bottom it says "Both hole cards must be used".

"Both hole cards must play" is a pretty specific statement that has a specific meaning to me as a poker player.

"Both hole cards must be used" is not specific, although I and everyone else I know correctly interpreted this to mean that you had to use both hole cards to make 3 jacks-- i.e. you were dealt pocket jacks.

I suppose that using your hole cards as kickers would be another use for them, so when the board has JJJ23 everyone would win.

I guess I could also say that I am using my hole cards as decorative wallpaper on my screen, so when I make 3 jacks with a Js and 2c in my hand, I qualify because that little deuce is just so darned cute.

Personally, I think it's great that Totalbet offers these special hand promotions. Also, in a recent month they doubled the bonus if your set turned into quads, and they were quick to apologize and correct my account when they didn't pay me the double bonus initially.

Lighten up and go win your 20 quid the old-fashioned way.

[stabn]

You got screwed, both of those cards played. Unless of course, they specifically hole cards for quads had to be a pair.

[smoore]

Vote with your wallet man, go find a poker room that will follow it's own rules. (I voted you are right and they owe you 20)