Canterbury floor ruling

[rogue]

This is one of the first times I was upset with a floor ruling at Canterbury. It did not involve a hand, just a table change.

There were two 30/60 games with no must move as it broke earlier. Dennis just showed up and I get on the list to table change to his table. A little while later another guy on my table also asked for a change from 30 to 31.

About an hour later a seat opens up and I get called for it. One floor tells me to go ahead and move. I rack up my chips, and walk to the next table over. Before I get there I am confronted by a different floor and am asked if I would have a problem with them moving the other person wanting a seat change first, because there is a problem with two players playing at the same table. I say yes I would have a problem with that because I had been on the list much longer and I wanted to get in the other game (also I was stuck and not in a very good mood). The floor says ok, we will just make this game ten handed.

So I go ahead and take my seat on 31 and the floor tells everyone they are making the game ten handed, and everyone starts getting upset. They ask why it is going to be ten handed, and it is explained that there is a problem with the person who was next up for a change off of 30 and the person who is next up to get my now vacant seat on 30. Everyone is very pissed that because of possible past collusion the floor was going to punish the 9 customers at table 31 with having to cram 10 people at the table. Dennis says forget this and walks away missing his blind, and another player says if they make it 10 handed he is leaving.

The floor then says the solution should have been to just give the guy behind me the table change first and make me go back to 30, but since I was already there the game was going to have to be 10 handed.

The situation is finally resolved by the guy who said he was going to leave after his blind, and the guy needing the table change agreeing to wait until this happened to take the seat.

So, do you think the floor was in error, I am a nit for not letting the other guy take the change, and/or everyone at the table was being a nit for complaining about being 10 handed.

(A side note, the incident that caused the floors to not want the two guys to play together happened up to 6 months ago, and the guy was talking about it later and other people seemed to think it was silly they didn't want them to play together, but I couldn't hear much of the conversation)

[Edge34]

The way I see this, the biggest problem is caused by the floor not taking control of the situation. If there was enough reason on their part to believe that two players might collude, it seems that the easiest answer is to not punish other players, but punish the likely colluder. Seems to me that they shouldn't even be asking you if you'd wait for your table change (which you shouldn't have to do) but saying to the other player that he can't play with this guy, and he'll have to play in another game. Too bad if he can't sit 30/60, if there's enough to keep him off of this player's table, there's enough to say he should just go sit 15/30 or something.

I guess basically, the floor could have handled this situation MUCH better, but it was a judgment call. I still wouldn't let them blame ME for "making the game" play 10-handed because I didn't let another player have the seat I rightfully deserved. Not being a nit at all on your part.

The mistake made by the floor was in even suggesting that the decision was yours to make. First on the list is not the only consideration in a table change.

[PokerBob]

was the game you were in really that bad? Just curious, as virutally every 30 game i have seen during the classic was delicious.

[Andy B]

If the concern about possible collusion was such that they wanted those two to play in separate games, they shouldn't have been allowed to play in the same game in the first place. You were well within your rights to complain.

[Schneids]

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.

[PokerBob]

wow. what a mess.

[Schneids]

Again, for Canterbury Park players, the basic thing is this:

YOU CAN ACCUSE TWO PEOPLE OF COLLUSION (MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THEM) AND REGARDLESS OF YOUR REASONING FOR IT, THOSE TWO PEOPLE WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY AT THE SAME TABLE.

So, all you CB'ers, go wild. Can't stand that guy with B.O.? HE'S A COLLUDER. Can't stand the obnoxious 18 year old punk and his friend? OK, THEY'RE COLLUDING.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, for Canterbury Park players, the basic thing is this:

YOU CAN ACCUSE TWO PEOPLE OF COLLUSION (MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THEM) AND REGARDLESS OF YOUR REASONING FOR IT, THOSE TWO PEOPLE WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY AT THE SAME TABLE.

So, all you CB'ers, go wild. Can't stand that guy with BO? HE'S A COLLUDER. Can't stand the obnoxious 18 year old punk and his friend? OK, THEY'RE COLLUDING.

[/ QUOTE ]

let me be the first to say that the next time i am at a table with you and BK, i will cry collusion IMMEDIATELY.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, for Canterbury Park players, the basic thing is this:

YOU CAN ACCUSE TWO PEOPLE OF COLLUSION (MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THEM) AND REGARDLESS OF YOUR REASONING FOR IT, THOSE TWO PEOPLE WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY AT THE SAME TABLE.

So, all you CB'ers, go wild. Can't stand that guy with BO? HE'S A COLLUDER. Can't stand the obnoxious 18 year old punk and his friend? OK, THEY'RE COLLUDING.

[/ QUOTE ]

let me be the first to say that the next time i am at a table with you and BK, i will cry collusion IMMEDIATELY.

[/ QUOTE ]

See that is the whole point: I am seriously worried that someday this very thing will happen, especially because BK and I often win and are friends, BK and I play eachother aggressively, and there are certainly a few people at CB who do not like BK because of the way he acts at the table. And apparently if it does, there's nothing I can do about it even though I'm not colluding and it's obvious I'm not.