[MicroBob]

Happy ending:


I didn't contact Mike O'Malley about this, but yesterday afternoon I received this e-mail (Mike knows my real name and party-handle via a couple of PM's we've exchanged...but I've never received anything from him at my e-mail address before):



Hi Bob,
I just had one of the ITP agents talk to me about a case he is investigating. He wanted me to look at it to make sure he was interpreting everything correctly, and just to go over it and double check his work.
I asked him to send me the details and was surprised to see your name!
I haven't had a chance to look it over, but will tomorrow (it's Saturday night India time). I will let you know what I find.


------------


I told him I was very pleased to know that they were forwarding the situation onto him and that they will take such measures if something develops that somebody there might have a question on.


Today I got the full elaboration and final decision which I am mostly satisfied with.
There are a couple of issues I disagree with such as not having rules against openly discussing stalling...but I understand his point/s on this.

Note...he told me it was okay to post this on 2+2 because I had ased him after his first e-mail if he was okay with that (because of the number of 2+2'ers who had taken an interest in this little issue).



> Hi Bob,
>
> At the request of the ITP agent investigating your
> case I took a look at the emails, hand histories and
> chat logs. It is not uncommon for ITP to forward me
> cases that they feel are tricky, complicated or
> might need an alternative perspective.
>
> I will address the two situations separately.
>
>
>
> Situation #1: 'yyyyyyyyy'
>
> Hand # zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> Sat Nov 12
> 01-55-26:bbbbbb folds.
> 01-55-27:ccccccccc folds.
> 01-55-32: yyyyyyyyy: AA
> 01-55-35:yyyyyyyyy raises to 1600
> 01-55-38:ddddd folds.
> 01-55-38:eeeeeee folds.
> 01-55-39:xxxxxxxx folds.
>
> You stated "yyyyyyyy made a raise, and then while
> the other players were deciding, he announced to the
> table that he was holding AA"
> If you look at the details above you will see that
> he actually stated what he had prior to taking his
> own action. As soon as he made his raise, the
> remaining three players all folded within 4 seconds.
>
> You also stated "he didn't want anyone on his table
> to get knocked-out. After everyone folded he indeed
> showed them AA. I think it is a serious breach of
> the rules for a player to tell the table what he is
> holding so that all of his new 'friends' at the
> table can avoid being eliminated."
>
> Based on the timing of his chat and his position at
> the table (the two players that could bust him had
> yet to act) I believe that he announced his hand so
> that HE wouldn't get eliminated. During the
> following hand, player 'yyyyyyyyy' typed into the
> chat "didn't want any". I don't think he meant
> "didn't want anyone to get knocked out". I think he
> meant "didn't want anyone to call me and snap off my
> aces". Playing anything in his spot, even aces, was
> not smart. I think he couldn't fathom the thought
> of folding Aces, so he told everyone what he had
> before he even raised.
> Regardless of his intent, announcing your cards
> while the hand is still in play is considered bad
> etiquette and shouldn't happen. Unfortunately we
> have no rule that specifically prevents a person
> from announcing his hand. Personally I wish we
> could have such a rule, but with the complexity of
> online poker I don't think the rule is enforceable.
> In live tournaments a player announcing his hand can
> be dealt with at that point. Online it is
> impossible to take action during the tournament.
> With that said, I have sent an email to player
> 'yyyyyyyyy' reminding him that it is poor etiquette
> to discuss a hand while it is in play. It has also
> been noted on his account, so if he continues to do
> it then action can be taken against him.
>
> Situation #2: 'xxxxxxxx'
> This one is not so easy. I read through all of the
> hand histories and chat logs to get a gauge of
> exactly what transpired.

> From my perspective it appears that player
> 'xxxxxxxx' was actively chatting for the entire
> tournament. When the tournament got down to two
> tables there was some discussion about hand for hand
> and stalling, which resulted in the players carrying
> on about the amount of players on both tables.

> Stalling in itself is not against the rules,
> although it can be irritating and completely
> useless. Each player is allocated an amount of time
> to act and they are entitled to use it. I don't
> know if you saw any of it (I didn't as I am halfway
> across the world) but stalling can be seen to
> perfection in the recent WSOP airings. I personally
> got to call the clock on Ms. Williamson twice during
> day 5. It was annoying and aggravating, but she was
> entitled to take her time.

> Attempting to get other players to stall is not
> necessarily against the rules either as there is a
> real gray area when it comes to chat. If a player
> in this situation would have said "hey, we have 7
> players and they have 6, if I have real complicated
> decisions each hand we might take more time than
> them". Would that be considered wrong? Or what if
> a player says "let's all take our time because the
> dealer is getting tired"?

> The point I am trying to make is that even
> attempting to get other players to "group stall"
> would not be considered wrong. What I do consider
> wrong is one player aggressively, and almost at a
> frantic pace, telling everyone that they should
> stall. That is what I player 'xxxxxxxx' was doing.
>
> These cases are very difficult because of the
> sensitivity of deciphering chat, the chatters intent
> and the effect that chat might have on the play of
> the tournament. In reality the only way to prevent
> such things from happening is by turning off all of
> the chat. Recently I made the decision to turn off
> all observer chat. In the near future I am going to
> make some enhancements to that which might include
> turning off all chat when a tournament is on the
> bubble.

> In order to evaluate any penalties for player
> 'xxxxxxxxx' I first looked up the player's history.
> Without getting into details, I can tell you that
> this was the very first tournament that the account
> had played where (x) seats were given out to (x)
> event. This is important because this situation is
> most prevalent when the prize awards are all equal
> and skating into the money is as effective as
> winning. I also looked at some of the players
> previous chats and didn't find anything that would
> indicate this player has in the past resorted to
> conspiring with other players to gain this type of
> advantage.

> In conclusion, I feel that this player was really
> unaware of the consequences of actively trying to
> get the other players to stall. I don't believe
> that taking away the qualifier would be justified in
> this case. I have personally sent this player an
> email explaining why the chat was wrong and what the
> consequences will be if it happens again.

> An interesting side note: I did look to see how
> many hands Table 2 (your table) played compared to
> Table 1. From the time that the tournament
> condensed to 20 players (00:49) until the time that
> you were eliminated (01:55), Table 2 played 92 hands
> and Table 1 played 90 hands.

> The issue with the hand for hand is something I have
> noted. In the very near future I am going to be
> going over the entire formula of hand for hand and
> redoing it. There are many areas where it is not
> serving its purpose. If I had 72 hours a day I
> would be able to get many of the things done that I
> want to, but I don't so I take things one step at a
> time. You will definitely see some good changes in
> 2006.
>
> I do appreciate you taking the time to point this
> out and follow up on it. Although you weren't
> satisfied with the answer that ITP gave to you, it's
> important for us to receive such complaints because
> it does help the ITP team to better understand their
> job and how to improve.

> I have added two freerolls for the $90 CPC SPECIAL
> Qualifier to your account. With your skills this
> should equal a seat into the $800 CPC Special! J
>
> Everything that I write I am aware could be passed
> along to someone else or used on a forum. With that
> in mind, feel free to use anything in this email on
> 2+2 provided its not taken out of context.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> michael o'malley | poker room manager
> partygaming.com