ANNIE PLEASE READ
Here's the real problem and Annie I really hope you see this and respond. First though, brief background to catch people up:
Player A, and Player C, one night MANY months ago, were both playing in an $8/16 game. Player A was crushing it. Up 11 racks. Player C was down a lot of racks. Basically, it got to the point where Player A was running the game, playing ver aggressively, etc. Well, 2 frustrated old timers at the table decided they thought these two were colluding (JUST because they cannot handle Player A's aggressive style), and complained to the floor about it. "Why do you think they're colluding?" "Because Player A is winning too much money, and Player A and C are friends." Sooooooo, what does the floor do about it? They decide that in order to eliminate "the perception of collusion," they tell Player A and C they aren't allowed to play at the same table with eachother. Player A and C are naturally mad about this since they aren't colluding, and later find out from the floor VIDEOCAMS OF THE TABLE WERE CHECKED AND THEY COULD NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST ANY COLLUSION WAS OCCURING, AND THEY THEMSELVES DON'T THINK THERE WAS, HOWEVER, THE RULING STANDS. So now, the next time Player A and C come to Canterbury, Player B has also driven with them and is a known friend of A and C. BOOM. Guilty by association. Player B is told he cannot play with A or C, too.
So now:
1) The two players in question do not collude. Most of the floor at Canterbury has admitted that there is ZERO evidence to suggest they do. Likewise, they admit the video cams have been looked at and NOBODY HAS FOUND ANYTHING.
2. Just because two people are friends and often come together does not make them colluders.
3. Just because two people may occasionally lend the other money at the table does not make them colluders. It's because it's easier to borrow than to have to go back to your box to get money.
4. Just because one frustrated, losing player, cannot handle the fact these players play aggressively, does not mean you are supposed to side with them when they wildly claim without ANY reason to back it up, that they think two people might be colluding.
5. Just because players may ride with eachother to Canterbury, does not mean they are colluding.
Seriously, Canterbury Park, this is a DANGEROUS precedence to be starting, the ol "guilty till proven innocent."
I just want to know:
1) If I ever decide to occuse two people of colluding (WHEN THEY AREN'T COLLUDING), will they receive the same treatment the two involved in this situation have? I EXPECT THEM TO NEVER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY WITH EACHOTHER EVEN AFTER YOU FIND THEY AREN'T COLLUDING BECAUSE, AS YOU'VE SAID MANY TIMES, "WE DO NOT WANT THERE TO BE A PERCEPTION OF COLLUSION." The fact you guys penalize, AND CONTINUE to penalize these people, FOR MONTHS (when they were initially told to "just let it die down for awhile, we'll let you guys play on the same tables again soon") is outrageous. EVEN MORE OUTRAGEOUS when your BIG COMPELLING REASON for suspecting them of collusion is BECAUSE ONE OF THE PLAYERS WAS WINNING TOO MUCH.
2. I often ride to Canterbury with BK. I have driven to CB before with the people you're unjustly punishing. Should I be concerned if someday I'm winning shittons of money at the table, that if someone decides they don't like me and BK, they can simply say "THOSE TWO ARE COLLUDING" and then the floor comes over and says "ok, you boys can't play together anymore." DO YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS IS? Since I am friends with Players A, B and C, does that mean I should never drive with them to Canterbury? DO YOU SEE YET HOW OBSURD THIS IS?
3) I play pots very hard vs Player A (BECAUSE HE PLAYS AGGRESSIVELY AND I CHOOSE TO FIGHT AGGRESSION WITH AGGRESSION). Because we play eachother aggressively, should I be afraid I"m going to eventually receive the same treatment these guys have? Is it a crime to play aggressive poker at CB, because IT MIGHT MAKE SOME CRYBABY ANGRY? I play pots aggressively vs BK, should I be afraid we're going to be told we can never play with eachother?
4) All the reasons you've given for "perception of collusion" are reasons that HALF THE REGULAR CANTERBURY 30/60 PLAYERS WOULD BE GUILTY OF. "They're friends," "they lend eachother money," "they win a lot," "they drive to CB with eachother." Hmmmmmm, CAN I SEE THAT BLAKE AND ANDY FOX NEVER GET TO PLAY WITH EACHOTHER BECAUSE THEY LIVE WITH EACHOTHER (it would be +EV for me if they could never play in the same game. [censored], they play eachother suuuuuper hard too.... OMG THEY REALLY MUST BE COLLUDING)?
I'm sorry for all the random caps locked but I did it to emphasize the especially ridiculous nature of this whole fiasco.
|