#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Oaks Cardroom - Emeryville (Poor decision making)
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. |
|
|