I let it go.

[Chaostracize]

Group hug.

[cpk]

A good dealer will say "live hand" when winner requests to see a losing hand. Tapping the muck in other cases is simply an acknowledgement from the dealer to the players that the hand is dead.

[Von_Arx]

This is my first post, and I feel overwhelmed jumping into the middle of so many different threads. However, Rick asked me to take a look at this discussion, and since a floorman's perspective does seem to be lacking, I will venture a few opinions. First, I work with Rick at the Bicycle Casino. I have been a floorman or manager for 30 years, usually working the largest limit section. I was involved in updating the rule book that the major LA casinos attempted to make more uniform. Unfortunately, it became an unfinished effort.

As a floorman, each decision involves balancing a number of affected rules. As Rick mentioned, some of these rules overlap, occasionally in contradictory fashion. So prioritizing becomes a major issue. One needs to see the whole structure of the rules as they intertwine to gain a feel for their applications. Let me start by saying that at the heart of a casino's concerns are three issues - "intent", "procedure" and "integrity". Every decision is influenced by these concerns.

Procedure is the most concrete issue. These are the rules and policies that are usually spelled out in black and white. Integrity is the most often underlying issue. Casinos need to maintain this integrity for the good of the industry, and often times to protect liability and legal concerns. Finally comes intent, which often is of most concern to a player, but is an intangible that is purposefully skirted except in extreme circumstance. Being an intangible, intent is most susceptible to bias.

I am only going to comment on one of these recent situations, for a start. The issue of one player to a hand. Rick mentioned that this is in the etiquette section of most rule books. Not at the Bike. It is listed under "House Policies" and firmly states " Only one person may play a hand". As has been pointed out before though, it seems to be as toothless as "don't show cards". However, understanding the main priority of the issue of integrity, it is not a policy that is taken lightly, and in certain circumstances should and does carry punitive repercussions.

Point in case is Rick's example of outside player assistance. As a floorman would view these situations, there are a couple of involved rules. First is the discard rule. Until the cards have left the player's hand in a face-down forward motion, they are still in his possession. And while one player to a hand is required, it can not be said that any comment made to him might not have occured to him without assistance. The hand is still in his possession and not foulable by another's comment.

If the hand is discarded though, it is now susceptible to being killed. This is covered in different wordings, in our rule book the applicable phrasing is "If you throw your cards face down with a forward motion, you indicate that you are passing and risk losing the pot." As mentioned before, this can be somewhat vague. Since we do have retrievable hand rulings, it is necessarily so.

So the floorman must balance the issues. The player's intent is to discard his hand. Since the casino has a vested interest in protecting the integrity of the game, it leans toward having the best hand win whenever possible. If the player reconsiders his discard and wants to retrieve his hand, what should prevent him? First, the hand should be intact. Thus you have varying parameters, in our club, the hand must so barely touch the muck that all at the table are in agreement that it is still intact.

Second, the retrieval should be allowable by our procedures. If another player[not the pot winner] asks to see the hand, by our procedures the hand is automatically dead before it is shown. By the same token, if a player goes against casino policy and assists another player in the reading of his hand, which should not have been shown to another and which was not exposed face up on the table at showdown, it could and should also be considered dead.

His intent to discard his hand is the minor issue. We allow him to reconsider this intent. The procedures are ambiguous, in some instances we allow retrieval, in some the hand is automatically dead. The integrity of the game becomes paramount, as the desire to allow the best hand to win is overruled by the necessity to prevent any impression or opportunity for collusion. One player to a hand is a policy with teeth, and in this instance, it would kill a player's hand.

I don't say this theoretically. I made this decision in a 40-80 Hold Em game where at heads-up showdown, one hand was shown on the table and the other was thrown face down towards the muck. The dealer, contrary to procedure, did not immediately pull the discarded hand into the muck, so it was still intact when a neighboring player told the conceding player what he had thrown away. The fact that the neighboring player was a house player who should have known much better, and that the discarding player was a notoriously live player for the game did not make the decision any easier for me. Still, the integrity of the game was the issue of greatest priority when I weighed the facts, and I killed the hand.

Now, I apologize if this has been long-winded, and it has been too much like work. But this is one floorman's perspective.

[billuhbong]

i would keeled the bitch

[Rick Nebiolo]

Terrific post and analysis!

That said, most floor don't have the experience or good judgment you have and are less likely to see the fine points used in making decisions - your difficult ruling in the 40/80 hand described above is a case in point. Top level floor talent is difficult to acquire and develop, thus I believe the rules should be simplified where possible. This simplification is especially important in areas where the rules contradict and priorities are not clear.

For example, is something written under "House or Casino Policy" more important than rules regarding the play of the hand, from the first card dealt off the deck to the awarding of the pot at the showdown? An electronic copy of the Hollywood Park rulebook (which should be virtually identical to the Bicycle Casino rulebook per the 1997 revisions) is now up on my other screen, and now I notice that "Only one person may play a hand." is indeed listed under "House Policies". But that rule/policy is primarily intended (according to my understanding) to discourage a person sitting behind or next to another player from helping that player with decision making during the actual play of the hand. This type of "helping" is clearly wrong even to the neophyte player, thus the policy is relatively easy to enforce in theory and in practice. OTOH, pointing out that the best hand is in the process of being pushed face down toward the muck is something I wouldn't do as an experienced player, but the less experienced often will.

Obviously when the action is complete on the river we need rules that encourage hands be turned face up and that the showdown and awarding of the pot commence in an expeditious manner. I would argue that awarding the pot to the best discernible hand in these cases is of paramount importance. During the showdown we don't like to see third party involvement unless the hand is tabled face up, but even more so we hate to see anything but the best hand, fairly played, win. If we agree, rules and policies can be written or rewritten to accomplish this.

Regards,

Rick

PS With your writing skills I can now see that there is little reason for the Bike to continue to task me with the writing of procedures [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
The dealer, contrary to procedure, did not immediately pull the discarded hand into the muck, so it was still intact when a neighboring player told the conceding player what he had thrown away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that the hand sat out there for a bit before being retrieved makes this decision a little easier. I think is a case where someone mentions what a players has as they throw it forward and they imediately pick it up is more difficult to rule one because the player might has realized the error at the same time and picked his hand back up. Great post.

Randy Refeld

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Top level floor talent is difficult to acquire and develop, thus I believe the rules should be simplified where possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think part of the problem with acquiring good floor talent is the managers often dont' know what they are looking for. I am sure the previous poster would do a good job of determining if someone can make good decisions; he understands the rules and procedures. Often the person making hiring decisions is unfamiliar with the game. I know a lot of poker managers that don't truly understand why rules are a certain way; how could they possibly evaluate floor talent?

Randy Refeld

[Von_Arx]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the fact that the hand sat out there for a bit before being retrieved makes this decision a little easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy, you cut to the crux of the decision when you mention time elapsed. To decide that the outside assistance resulted in the attempt to retrieve the hand meant there was discernable influence. However, you fail to realize that the easier decision is to allow the hand to be retrieved. As this long thread has pointed out, it is very rare, and thus much harder, to kill the hand.

[Von_Arx]

[ QUOTE ]
Top level floor talent is difficult to acquire and develop, thus I believe the rules should be simplified where possible. This simplification is especially important in areas where the rules contradict and priorities are not clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is such an enjoyable contest. It is both simple and complex. At it's heart is a struggle of one against all others, of intelligience and theatrics. You must not only analyze, you must try to deceive. You must protect yourself, you cannot trust or rely on others.

Casinos try to keep this struggle gentlemanly, much as boxing did for bare-knuckle fighting. At the level of games I oversee, the rules of poker are basic knowledge. Many of my decisions are made before I walk to the table as the players realize for themselves the rule that will apply. If I am still needed, it goes without saying that "the rules contradict and the priorities are not clear".

You can not simplify these rules down to the level of the floor talent to ensure their application. The rules are there to organize a complex sport, and are necessarily complex and contradictory as they balance the equal rights of multiple participants in a fluid contest. Being able to establish time frames, responsibilities and priorities is intrinsic to reaching a fair and consistent ruling. The rules are intentionally specific enough to apply, yet occasionally overlapping and ambiguous so as not to be unfairly binding.

This may seem too difficult for most floorstaff to handle in truly unusual and unprecedented game situations, and that is true. That is why most casinos value managers and floorstaff who have a grasp of the intricacy of balancing conflicting rules and priorities. They are there for appeal. It is a skill as rare as the skill of truly top level poker players. To decide a pot in a game with these players, they must trust a floorperson's knowledge and integrity, and the decision must have a foundation that is sound.

We all can see how instant replay has helped clarify some close calls, and casinos have camera coverage that is helpful in some instances. Still, just as in other sports, there will not be a substitute for experience and judgement, as in all sports it is integrity that the players rely upon when trusting that a decision will be made fairly.

It is easy to say how the hand should be played. But all the rules will not guarentee that mistakes will not be made. The rules are there to balance the mistakes. And that balance is often precarious.

[Rick Nebiolo]

"Von Arx",

There is something very "Tommyesque" in the above very thoughful essay & response, and if you post here more often I'll let you know what "Tommyesque" is (hint: it is a good thing). I especially liked the following sentence from the above passage:

"Casinos try to keep this struggle gentlemanly, much as boxing did for bare-knuckle fighting."

See you on Thursday. At some point I'm going to drag you into the IWTSTH debate [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Regards,

Rick