A question on Rafi Amit and Jack Effel

[wacki]

Being fined 200K for saying a cuss word when you lose to a full house? (assuming the last line, which doesn't sound right to me in the first place, isn't misleading)

Why do they have such a stupid rule? Wow. Is this just a Harrahs this or did the old school Binions have this too?


Rafi Amit held a two to one chip lead over Vinny Vinh once the play reached heads up. Inside the first half hour, Vinny Vinh won the first big pot during heads up play. He eventually took a slight chip lead, but for the most part, the players were even.

After three hours of heads up play, Vinny Vinh took a huge hit. He moved all in on the flop with trip 8s, however, Rafi flopped a full house. Vinny was crippled. He has less than 100K remaining. Then it got ugly. Rafi dropped the F-bomb and tournament director, Jack Effel, put a ten minute penalty on Rafi for use of profanity. His railbirds went nuts and flew into a fit of rage. One guy walked up into an area he was not supposed to be in and got into Jack's face. Jack Effel called security to table #136 and several of Rafi's railbirds were asked to leave by Jack for taunting and unruly behavior. One drunk guy was being obnoxious and one of the other floor persons wanted him thrown out as well. It was a really ugly scene and Rafi continued to plead his case to Jack as he got blinded off during his ten minute penalty. He lost almost $200K in chips since the blinds were $8K and $16K.

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/pokerblog/archives/2005_07.php

[youtalkfunny]

Instead of asking, "Why do they have such a stupid rule?", please consider:

Why can't stupid people watch their language?
Why is it unreasonable to expect the players in our game to behave like gentlemen and ladies?

I don't use that language in company where someone might object. If the players can't control their impulses, then I'm in favor of having rules in place to keep these boorish people under control.

I've worked in cardrooms where tournaments were very unpleasant events. This was because of a few regulars who, I'm convinced, were more interested in causing an unpleasant scene, than they were in playing poker. Mercifully, management stepped in, and took the tournaments back from the kill-joys.

1% of the players didn't like it, and left. The other 99% of the players were glad to see them go.

I recently watched a documentary about a checkers tournament. There was a players' meeting the day before, and the first thing the tournament director announced was, "Gentlemen, we will not tolerate profanity of any kind."

What's wrong with that?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I recently watched a documentary about a checkers tournament. There was a players' meeting the day before, and the first thing the tournament director announced was, "Gentlemen, we will not tolerate profanity of any kind."

What's wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

The man slipped up. He wasn't abusing anyone he experienced a sucky situation and lost control. Don't you think limited the fine to $100-$500 for the first offense is a little bit more reasonable? Or do you really think that four letter word requires a $200,000 fine?

And yes I do think $200,000 fine for a harmless unintentional screwup is bit EXTREME. I stand by my stupid comment. In fact, I think it is an extremely stupid rule. And I think your argument is totally irrelevant.

[meow_meow]

Abuse is one thing, punish player and dealer abuse to the extreme. Punish people for jumping up and down and yelling at the top of their lungs. Punish them for pulling their shirts off and doing laps of the table. Punish them for going over to talk to the audience.

Do not punish them for saying "F*** it, let's gamble"

Poker =! Disney

Edit: I agree with Wacki?...something is wrong here

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think limited the fine to $100-$500 for the first offense is a little bit more reasonable? Or do you really think that four letter word requires a $200,000 fine?

And yes I do think $200,000 fine for a harmless unintentional screwup is bit EXTREME.

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand that they're talking about tournament chips there, right?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You understand that they're talking about tournament chips there, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am. I'm kind of surprised you would ask this as I'm sure you know very well that those 200,000 tournament chips could very realistically meant finishing with a prize much greater than 200,000 real dollars. Also, the buy-in was $10,000 and the starting chip count was also $10,000. So it's not like the tournament chips were artificially inflated way out of proportion. That 200K fine was very real IMO. Are you saying you wouldn't be angry if they did this to you? I don't believe that.

[SheridanCat]

The "f-bomb rule" is patently ridiculous. Period. One could sit at a poker table and say terrifically horrible things and never once use that word. Banning a single word is stupid and arbitrary.

Ban dealer and player abuse - that I have no problem with. But penalizing a player for using a particular word in any context is foolish.

At the WSOP, I applaud the players that stalled through penalties given for breaking this rule.

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't stupid people watch their language?
Why is it unreasonable to expect the players in our game to behave like gentlemen and ladies?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you want everyone to be a lady or a gentleman? Really, why?

[ QUOTE ]

I don't use that language in company where someone might object. If the players can't control their impulses, then I'm in favor of having rules in place to keep these boorish people under control.


[/ QUOTE ]

You've been around card rooms a lot more than I have, I reckon. They're not someone's sitting room or a daycare center. They're places where we do adult things. People drink, smoke and say bad things.

[ QUOTE ]

I've worked in cardrooms where tournaments were very unpleasant events. This was because of a few regulars who,


[/ QUOTE ]

Why were they unpleasant? Because people occasionally said a bad word? I doubt it. I'm guessing they were unpleasant because there was lots of staff abuse and angle shooting. Those things should certainly be cracked down upon. But muttering a bad word under your breath when you get sucked out on didn't make the game unpleasant.

[ QUOTE ]

I recently watched a documentary about a checkers tournament. There was a players' meeting the day before, and the first thing the tournament director announced was, "Gentlemen, we will not tolerate profanity of any kind."

What's wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the expectation of the checker playing crowd, great. Sounds very genteel. If I want that, I'll play canasta on the veranda. When I enter a poker room, I have an expectation that I'll hear a bad word or two and an off-color joke or three.

Regards,

T

[Randy_Refeld]

This is a good rule. Poker players will do whatever you allow them to do. By not allowing them to say the F word it ecnds there. If you relax the rule and make it "you cannot hit the other players or staff" some palyers will cross that line and occasionally hit the players or staff. By pikcing a point that nobody is getting hurt it keeps the unruly players in line. It isn't hard people everyday are able to conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen. THe normal thing to do when a player receives a penalty heads up is to fine the player by transfering some chips to the other player and continueing play.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Vinny was crippled. He has less than 100K remaining. Then it got ugly. Rafi dropped the F-bomb and tournament director, Jack Effel, put a ten minute penalty on Rafi for use of profanity.
...
He lost almost $200K in chips since the blinds were $8K and $16K.[/b]


[/ QUOTE ]

How'd he lose $200k if he had less than 100k left? Don't table stakes still apply? Or does Harrah's extend the rebuy period through heads up play /images/graemlins/wink.gif

BTW, I hope Harrah's revisits this rule. I think they should only penalize if you curse the dealer or another player, i.e. the rule should exist to prevent dealer/player abuse, not to mind manners. What's the difference between yelling out "f**k" or "goddamn it" or "c*cksucker" or "pork my butth*le" when you have a bad beat? All are technically cursing.

And even if you do curse the dealer or another player, you should get a single warning because of the severe results the penalty can have.

Interesting note, in this case the other player could have slow played his hands during the penalty out of fairness, but I've read that he actually played them as fast as possible.

[Josh W]

It cost him $0.00.

He knew the rule, and broke it. In sports, if a player/coach bumps a ref, he'll get fined, even if his intention isn't to bump the ref (he's agitated, screaming, stumbles slightly, etc) He knows ahead of time that "if he slips up", he'll lose money.

If Rafi didn't know the rule, this would be a gross breech of justice. As it was, it was just rancid timing on Rafi's part.

Even so, it cost him precisely $0.00.

Josh

[Autocratic]

Knowing the rule is one thing - no poker player has yet adapted to having this kind of douche baggery enforced at tables, so letting it slip isn't exactly difficult. People curse casually, which makes it hard to stop.

Had Vinny won, it would have been an insult to poker, and almost certainly resulted in the reversing of the rule next year. Costing someone a bracelet would/should be grounds for serious reconsideration.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You understand that they're talking about tournament chips there, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am. I'm kind of surprised you would ask this as I'm sure you know very well that those 200,000 tournament chips could very realistically meant finishing with a prize much greater than 200,000 real dollars. Also, the buy-in was $10,000 and the starting chip count was also $10,000. So it's not like the tournament chips were artificially inflated way out of proportion. That 200K fine was very real IMO. Are you saying you wouldn't be angry if they did this to you? I don't believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just reacting to your $100-500 comment. While I am not sure about what exactly the rule should be, $100-500 cash once the prizes are above, say, $50,000 or so, becomes effectively meaningless right?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
It cost him $0.00.

....
Even so, it cost him precisely $0.00.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]


This is so stupid it's not even worth making a reply.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just reacting to your $100-500 comment. While I am not sure about what exactly the rule should be, $100-500 cash once the prizes are above, say, $50,000 or so, becomes effectively meaningless right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say $500 vs. a $50,000 prize would serve as a good first warning especially since the slip up was over a rough hand and not delivered with any malicious intent. 1% of your stack, 5% of your stack, anything is better than 100%. Hell, even on the first day 1% is still $100. Then bump the next offense up to 5% and then 10% and 25%. Or even a stricter 5%, 20%, 100%. Make a rule something like that. It's not that hard. There are many ways to deal with this. This rule is just way too harsh. It's not like that can hit the bleep button for the recorded show.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
How'd he lose $200k if he had less than 100k left?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Hence my comment about the last line being misleading. Maybe he doubled up before the floor enforced the penalty. I didn't see it.

[Josh W]

Perhaps. But it's accurate (sure, he lost 'theoretical money')...unlike calling it a "$200,000 fine".

I think it was dang near the best warning possible.

Look, I'm opposed to the rule. But I'm more opposed to saying it was wrong to enforce it in this situation.

He should be glad it didn't cost him $200,000, like you erroneously reported.

[Josh W]

To me, it reads that Vinny had less than 100K left. While Rafi was forced to sit out, Rafi lost 200K in chips to Vinny.

J

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing the rule is one thing - no poker player has yet adapted to having this kind of douche baggery enforced at tables, so letting it slip isn't exactly difficult. People curse casually, which makes it hard to stop.

Had Vinny won, it would have been an insult to poker, and almost certainly resulted in the reversing of the rule next year. Costing someone a bracelet would/should be grounds for serious reconsideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a pretty standard rule in tournaments.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How'd he lose $200k if he had less than 100k left?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Hence my comment about the last line being misleading. Maybe he doubled up before the floor enforced the penalty. I didn't see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy who won the big pot swore. So his penalty ended up being over tripling up his opponent.

GoT

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You've been around card rooms a lot more than I have, I reckon. They're not someone's sitting room or a daycare center. They're places where we do adult things. People drink, smoke and say bad things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, you say it's a place for adults.

Why can't we expect the adults there to ACT LIKE ADULTS?

Some say that saying the words is OK, as long as they're not directed at someone. Bystanders should not be offended, if the words were not directed AT them.

I guess that means that throwing the cards is OK, as long as you don't throw them AT someone? And if they hit me, I shouldn't complain, since the thrower did not intend to throw them AT me?

I don't want to put up with anyone throwing cards--and whether or not they were thrown AT ME is completely irrelevent.

I don't want to put up with vulgar language, and whether or not those words were directed AT ME is completely irrelevent.

I don't want to put up with someone urinating at the table, and whether or not that urine is directed AT ME is completely irrelevent.

Can't you see that many people find this language offensive? And that it's GOOD for the sport to take a stance against offensive behavior? You've never seen a fish rack up his chips, and say, "I'm going back to the blackjack tables. I don't have to listen to this garbage there!"???

I'm through with this discussion. Clearly, we disagree on this. I'm shocked that more people haven't taken my side. I guess you guys enjoy watching idiots act like idiots.

I play exclusively online now, for several reasons. Not least of which is, I am no longer forced to suffer these fools.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't you see that many people find this language offensive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't you see many people find uptight anal retentive stiffs that are suffering from an impacted colon annoying?

[ QUOTE ]
And that it's GOOD for the sport to take a stance against offensive behavior? You've never seen a fish rack up his chips, and say, "I'm going back to the blackjack tables. I don't have to listen to this garbage there!"???

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, lets send the boring stiffs to the bingo parlor with grandma or the suit and tie only poker club where they belong.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm through with this discussion. Clearly, we disagree on this. I'm shocked that more people haven't taken my side. I guess you guys enjoy watching idiots act like idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as long as those idiots aren't angry idiots, it can be a lot of fun. It's also very profitable. Maybe if you got laid, drank a beer, or even looked around at the super loose table once in a while you might be able to realize this.

[ QUOTE ]
I play exclusively online now, for several reasons. Not least of which is, I am no longer forced to suffer these fools.

[/ QUOTE ]

*shakes head*

[JohnnyHumongous]

It is a crying shame that rules have to be so hard and fast, when in reality situations are so much more shades of grey. "Eff it, let's gamble" is something my dad might say casually at home with friends... and should hardly be offensive to the 21 and over adults in the room who are liable to hear the F-word flipping past Bravo or HBO.

But someone at a tourney table could theoretically look another player in the eye and maliciously say, "I impregnated your handicapped sister," and receive no penalty...

[TheIrishThug]

[ QUOTE ]
I play exclusively online now, for several reasons. Not least of which is, I am no longer forced to suffer these fools.

[/ QUOTE ]

r u saying that ppl never act like idiots in the chat boxes? i feel that this has good intentions but has clear problems. u can't just say [censored] is a bad word and u can't use it. u would need to make a rule against all "cursing".

i am a firm believer in that its the conotation that u use any word with. u could say something that was extremely sarcastic, u could make it just as offensive as ppl take being called an cock sucker.

[Randy_Refeld]

This arguement took place back in 2001 and casinos decided they liked the no f-word. THe rule needs to be strict because in many venues the dealers do not speak English as a first language so they are unable to tell the floor what context it was used in but they can be taught to recognize it and call the floor when they hear it.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
r u saying that ppl never act like idiots in the chat boxes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. But I can check a box, and they are rendered mute.

[threeonefour]

I can't believe people are disagreeing with wacki on this one... are we really so uptight that people can't be free to express their emotions. Who cares if you disagree with him saying the F-word. I think kids who weat WPT logo gear and sun glasses are annoying, but i certainly don't hope to impose any kind of social penalty on them.

the two aren't perfectly analogous but i think my argument is valid.I personally don't like cursing but just because I find cursing offensive doesn't mean I should applaud the ruling. I think its much more offensive that adults are being told what they can and can not say.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't like cursing but just because I find cursing offensive doesn't mean I should applaud the ruling. I think its much more offensive that adults are being told what they can and can not say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like you.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Apparently many other people in this thread aren't able to think as freely as you are. And that, my friend, disgusts me.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't like cursing but just because I find cursing offensive doesn't mean I should applaud the ruling. I think its much more offensive that adults are being told what they can and can not say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like you.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Apparently many other people in this thread aren't able to think as freely as you are. And that, my friend, disgusts me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like you too /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif