[xniNja]

I sent the following e-mail to the Oaks club management, and different letters to a few publications that I won't post in case they want to publish them. I've also attached a transcript of an instant messaging discussion with a friend that describes the particular incident. (Please forgive the crudity of the "IM" discussion; I've included it only for hand information.) My goals are multiple, but primarily to send a message to the Oaks and other card room administrations that they must enforce their rules properly, and when mistakes are made, by them, they must account for them. I fully realize the amount of money involved is negligible to most of you, but as poker players I think you should consider the impact of this scenario as relevant to any game, hand, or pot size.

Sent to Oaks Management:

I have sent letters to "Card Player Magazine," "The Daily Cal," and I'm still looking for other publications. I plan to follow up on them, and may still take legal action if the UC Berkeley School of Law thinks that I have a case for more than the $150 pot that was stolen from me. At the very least, I will make sure that floormen and supervisors at the Oaks think twice before ridiculing customers and ignoring the rulebook. I will not rest until I have convinced Berkeley student poker players to play elsewhere.

Relevant information:
Date: 5/24/05 at 4:11am
Game: 3-6 hold-em Table 11
Floorman on duty: "Boomer"
Supervisor on duty: "Bruno" (Peleg)
Dealer: "Hannah"
Pot size: ~$150

A wrong decision was made by a floorman at the request of another player; I objected, but was ignored. After reading the posted rulebook, I complained to the supervisor, "Bruno" who, after reviewing the tapes told me I was correct but that he would not do anything about it, and that he would not help me. When I questioned the legality of this situation, he laughed at me and more or less told me to go home with "good luck" and to come back with a lawyer.

The reason I am writing this e-mail is because I should hope there are people who have a higher vested interest in the Oaks Card room than the supervisor, may know how to treat customers, and may take threats of action seriously.

-NM

Transcript between a friend that describes the event:

friend: what exactly happened?
NM: 3 relevant ppl
NM: me, glasses guy, cheating asian guy
NM: glasses guy to my right
NM: cheater to my left
NM: he checks
NM: i bet
NM: (flopped 2 pair)
NM: i get raised
NM: glasses calls
NM: i 3 bet it
NM: he caps it
NM: glasses guy SAYS CALL.. MEANS TO CALL, but puts in 3 chips instead of 6
NM: i call the cap
NM: asian guy says nothing
NM: the turn card comes
NM: all of a sudden the asian guy says the other guy missed the bet
NM: and wants the card redealt
NM: i say no, the betting completed, etc.
NM: floorman is called over who doesnt even listen to anything
NM: immediately says "whats gonna happen is bla bla bla"
NM: i say wait, stop
NM: this is bullshit
NM: they dont listen
friend: they gotta be in cahoots or at least friendly with each other
NM: it goes on
NM: they redeal the turn, and FORCE me to act.
NM: his ace up
NM: wins b/c the board pairs
NM: after the card was redealt
friend: that's weak
friend: if that's the case we could play a table and intentionally do that to get a free card
NM: yea it isnt the case though
NM: the rulebook says if he calls he owes the money to the pot
NM: and the supervisor (after looking at it on camera and calling me into the backroom)
NM: flat out told me im right in this case
NM: but he would do nothing cuz it already happened
NM: and a "floorman's decision is final"
friend: i don't see how they could redeal the card
friend: but the floorman's decision must be in the interest of fair play
friend: i still don't see how they can redeal the card
NM: its bs
NM: the thinking is that if that guy didnt reallycall
NM: then he got to see the card for free and then decide to put his money in or not
NM: but he called
NM: he just put in the wrong amt of chips
friend: first off, he said call, 2nd, he place chips out there
NM: yea
NM: theres no dispute on camera
friend: i forget, does oaks have a bet line?
NM: yep
friend: so obviously he crossed the line
NM: yep
NM: theres no dispute about the rule
friend: i don't see how there's any dispute, one chip and it's a call
NM: yea exactly
NM: the supervisor said that to me!
NM: he was like bla bla even if he put 1 chip
NM: i was reasonable: i said fine, in that event give everyone their money back and consider the hand misdealt
NM: and he said its not gonna happen and that was pretty much it
NM: basically his stance was
NM: that I'm right
NM: its too late
NM: they aren't going to do anything about it
NM: it just pisses me off
NM: cuz its not only $150 (which still is a reasonable amt for me)
NM: but its principle & poker
NM: that gives them the authority to steal $150-x any time they want
friend: i bet that guy was a regular or something, that's why he got special treatment
NM: oh im sure he was a reg
NM: but most are regs
NM: it wasnt that
NM: it was just the floorman not really caring at all
NM: and going w. whatever he heard first
NM: and no one listening to my objection
NM: i mean it was pretty embarassing
NM: asking for the rulebook
NM: basically being blown off
NM: then having to go get up and look at the rulebook for myself
NM: finding out im right, going thru al that [censored]
NM: to have them tell me they wont do [censored]
NM: they could easily have seen the amt of money on the camera and appeased me, but now it’s about the principle.