TR4RAIDERS1 - all-in abuse (poll)

[Sheriff Fatman]

I'm finding this thread and the ultimate outcome fascinating. I've been silent until now, at first because I wasn't directly involved in these events (and had a similar experience with all-in abusers at the TGC tables on that day which was of more concern to me) but then subsequently because I couldn't decide (the posts on here were of such quality that I kept changing my mind - particularly with regard to those that said this shouldn't be our decision at all).

Think I've finally reached a conclusion but agree with those who stated that TGC should use this thread only as feedback for them to consider, not as a conclusive jury vote on what to do.

Personally, I don't like the 'everyone else did it' defence. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think that any decision taken should therefore be based on the situation at the stage of the tournament when the all-in occurred and should be one which does not prejudice those survivors who, at that stage, hadn't used the all-in protection and are therefore above suspicion.

In these specific circumstances it would clearly be impractical to unravel the whole tournament. I'm sure that several money winners used the all-ins available on their way to winning prizes so to penalise one of them whilst not doing the same to the others does seem to me to be a poor decision. Therefore, I would rule out withholding all funds to TR4RAIDERS1 on this basis, unless all the other players acting in the same way were to receive the same treatment.

If the two other players had reached the final 3 without using any all-ins themselves then I'd vote in favour of disqualifying TR4RAIDERS1 at that stage (treating him as the 3rd place finisher). How to distribute the funds to the remaining two players would be another matter (probably in a heads up situation like this a pro-rata allocation based on stack size would seem fair).

However, from reading TGC's note it appears that the two remaining players had also used all-in protection by that stage of the tournament. Much as I would like to believe that this was genuine in their cases I would suspect, given the amount of abuse that was taking place, that it was not. Therefore, when looking at who actually lost out because of this all-in, it appears to be two players who have previously adopted the same tactics. Again, on this basis I can't see how you can penalise just one of many likely offenders on the sole basis that his all-in had the biggest impact and that he actually admitted it. Therefore, against my initial gut feel on these issues, I think in these specific circumstances TR4RAIDERS1 should be allowed to keep the money won. After all, he didn't win the tournament solely on the basis of this all-in (and had survived to this stage without using one) and I'd be inclined to call into question the previous actions of the 2 players who potentially lost out.

Surprisingly to me, this is a very different outcome to the one I wanted to reach, and its fair to say that its only on the basis of the individual circumstances of these particular events. Generally speaking I'd hope that any all-in abuser was prevented from benefitting from their actions. However, it seems unfair in this case to penalise just one of many offenders.

The real lesson to take from this is never to allow the all-ins in tournaments again. Considering that the situation only arose from a mistake by TGC in setting up the event and the amount of subsequent hassle its caused them it seems fair to say that this has been well and truly taken on board, which can only be a good thing.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The "all in" protection that was given to the players in the "Dash for Cash" tourney was there for players to use. That was your mistake. You have admitted it.

2. Throughout the tourney, players used this allowance to their advantage WITHIN the rules set by your business.

3. The player used the very same allowance to his advantage WITHIN the rules set by your business. The mere fact that he (maybe stupidly) voiced his intention to do so does not change the situation one iota in my opinion. There was not a rule that said "You can use the all in protection IF..."

4. Whether on not anyone else used the all in protection to their advantage also does not matter. Every single participant could have used it and it would not have changed a thing. It was provided by your site and therefore available to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, TR4RAIDERS1 was doing his civic duty of practicing "Civil Disobedience" to draw attention to the injustice of the situation where a majority ESTABLISHED a SOCIAL CONVENTION of using the all-in as a personal get out of jail card. LOL. However, just like MLK, Jr. and Ghandi, et al. one must follow through and accept the punishment to become a true martyr.

All joking aside: Yes, the action taken, combined with the commentary expressing the intent PROVES he knowingly defied the rules (or spirit of the rules). HOWEVER, this is a gunuine Ex Post Facto situtation, because no PUNISHMENT is DEFINED by the management. In law, a violation of a rule or statute is not enough, there must be a CAUSE OF ACTION to enforce the violation. If the statute does not have its own Cause of Action, it must be provided for somewhere else...otherwise, no deal.

But, we have one more option: EQUITY. In civil litigation, one can ask the court to determine "WHAT IS FAIR." WEll, we do know that he legitimately made it to an $800.00 cashout, thus the question becomes, what is fair from this point on? (Meaning the exposure is limited to the additional $800.00). Of course, all of the above arguments come into play - especially those which deal with what the player should have known regarding the consequences of his actions.

Thus, even though the management did not specify a punsihment, the court may fashion one, Ex Post Facto (not a criminal trial, here) based on fairness.

Ok...Guy comes in first, difference between first and third is $800. Split the extra $800 between ALL three top places: TR4RAIDERS1 should get $800 + 266 = $1066.00. 2nd and 3rd get credited with an extra $266.00. (The extra $2.00 should be put in a freeroll for all players WHO USED THEIR ALL-IN in the tourney, and they must play as punishment.)

Here, the guy arguably walks with an extra $266...we don't like it, but maybe that is EXACTLY the point he was making. Congratulate the guy, he did us all a service.

The tourney was poorly constructed and managed, over and out. The site eats it.

[BogeyWan]

You may note that the thing is called all-in "protection". Not all-in "tourney tool". It is there for protection. It is not there to be utilized as an edge. I read the sport analogies concerning stalling and find it inadequate. The more appropriate analogy relating to the all-in protection would be in the event that your star player is injured, the game is immediately called and resumed when the player is back to 100%. Ludicrous. Using the all-in protection as a tool is simply wrong. It is there to protect the player who experiences connection problems. Personally, I feel the all-in protection has reached a point where it is becoming more of an avenue for cheating, than a protection for anyone, and should simply be discontinued. Perhaps not a good move for the sites from a PR perspective, but a necessary one given the current levels of abuse. Disconnection is a fact of life for anyone online. It happens. You just have to look at it as another bad beat, and move on.
Here's an analogy.... you can keep a firearm for "protection", but when you begin to use it as a "tool" for financial gain, that's generally a problem. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
The more appropriate analogy relating to the all-in protection would be in the event that your star player is injured, the game is immediately called and resumed when the player is back to 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually thats not an appropriate analagy, but it does point out perfectly a parralel scenerio.

In football one team is out of time outs and there is less than two minutes to go, they desperatly need to stop the clock, and what happens? Lo and behold, there is an injured player on the field. The clock is stopped, the team docs go out and take a look at him, he makes a small show of it, then "hobbles" to the side line? Was he really injured? Prolly not. Is it against the rules, even tho the rule is intended for a player who is actually injured? Nope.

[Oski]

Actually, NFL rules have been changed in reaction to abuse of the "injury timeout"

Digest of Rules

Timing in Final Two Minutes of Each Half


2. A team cannot buy an excess time out for a penalty. However, a fourth time out is allowed without penalty for an injured player, who must be removed immediately. A fifth time out or more is allowed for an injury and a five-yard penalty is assessed if the clock was running. Additionally, if the clock was running and the score is tied or the team in possession is losing, the ball cannot be put in play for at least 10 seconds on the fourth or more time out. The half or game can end while those 10 seconds are run off on the clock.

Here, notice...there is a penalty for being injured, whether it is legitimate or not, regardless of whether the player is faking it to help his team. The penalty is quite clear and enforced accordingly.

Thus, the analogy does not hold up, because there is no clearly defined punitive measure for the all-in abuse (other than it no longer being available once it is used).

The NFL's rule is an example of curing the problem by removing subjective intent and replacing it with objective intent - meaning, it does not matter whether the player actually is injured or not, or for what reason the player finds himself lying on the ground - the rule is enforced BECAUSE the player is lying on the ground.

That is simply not the case here...even though RAIDERS says he was about to fake the injury and actualy laid down on the ground...the penalty for such action is not made clear.

[Lori]

Not all-in "tourney tool"

Maybe he should have to have his name changed into the one given in parenthesis.

Lori

[Alobar]

I Did not know the NFL had changed that. Obviously it was needed, much the same way something is needed to change the way in which an all-in call be used.

[Zog]

GC, I suggest you do three things:

1) Promise never to run a tournament with all-ins again.
2) Don't try to reconstruct the tournament or try to impose a retroactive settlement. The rules - or the unfortunate lack of rules - at the time of the game should stand.
3) Kick that player's butt off the system and never let him play again.

[Stagemusic]

Oski. Well written and concise. I disagree with your conclusions but your reasoning is sound. You made my point stronger and I thank you. I don't think that you can punish a person for acting within the guidelines set up for a particular event. We don't like it, it sucks, but we didn't set up the tournament. I don't like what he did and please don't confuse my argument for rationalizing his actions. I am merely pointing out that there is no fair way that TGC can go back and punish the idiot for his actions.

I have never had the misfortune of having to use my all in protection for legitimate, let alone illegitimate, reasons yet. Luckily, I have a pretty stable broadband platform that performs quite well. It would not bother me one iota to see that "protection" done away with totally. However, I do understand that not everyone is so fortunate.

I think that TGC did this player as well as the poker community as a whole a disservice by bringing this situation here for a "vote". A quick search could tell anyone how most of us feel about all in abuse. The vote was pretty well sealed. There is absolutely no way the player was going to get any support for his actions on this forum. Could it be that TGC was looking for justification of a decision that had already been made? Have they, in effect, been given the nod to make 2+2 the jury, hearing the evidence, discussing among ourselves, and then passing sentence on a fellow poker player? The questions themselves may be even more interesting than the answers in this case.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that you can punish a person for acting within the guidelines set up for a particular event. We don't like it, it sucks, but we didn't set up the tournament. I don't like what he did and please don't confuse my argument for rationalizing his actions. I am merely pointing out that there is no fair way that TGC can go back and punish the idiot for his actions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree more with your point than any other...in fact, my original conclusion is that the guy walks. However, I was pointing out that there is a mechanism for punishing someone for a "moral" breach. You can appeal to fairness; and constructing the punishment after the fact, is actually fair.

In this case, I do not believe his actions were within the acceptable guidelines - the only problem is that the proposed punishments were too harsh because such punishments were not stated before-hand. Both punishments called for a forfeiture of money that he either 1) rightfully won; or 2) the additional money he likely would have won. Therefore, I believe it would be patently unfair to reach back beyond the 3rd place money and take that. Furthermore, it is very likely he would have finished 1st or 2nd, and he was deploying a "tactic" available to him. (not intended to be used in such a manner, but the lax management created a de facto approval of such use - as long as it was under the guise of a legitimate all-in)

As we all know, the player took it one step further, and blatantly announced he was taking a purposeful all-in. This was beyond the social convention, yet (arguably) within the rules. This is punishable as a moral breach. The only real issue is crafting an acceptable punishment that must consider what the player could reasonably EXPECT to lose due to his conduct. I have gone through the analysis before.

The reality is that most solutions are not black or white. Most often, a compromise position is forged that is designed to be as fair as possible to all parties, but especially the transgressor when the punishment is not clear policy.