Canterbury floor ruling

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know the room, I don't know the players, I don't know the floor. But I've learned how to listen and read skeptically.

Just based on that I don't believe that things went down as you said. That doesn't mean I believe the players were colluding, just that I don't believe that the entire basis of the decision not to allow these two to play together was that some player stated "Why do you think they're colluding?" "Because Player A is winning too much money, and Player A and C are friends."

People hear all kinds of things in a cardroom and seldom do they hear the full story.

I don't know what the full story in your situation is, but I really doubt that what you have written is the full story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that you'll likely believe it any more if I say yes that's how it was..but really, schneids said it exactly like it was.

[rogue]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The other game was a lot better at the time I asked for a change, but my game was getting much better when I was actually up for the change.

[PokerBob]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The other game was a lot better at the time I asked for a change, but my game was getting much better when I was actually up for the change.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok

[rogue]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the real problem and Annie I really hope you see this and respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your explanation makes a lot of sense. I was somewhat getting the sense that the collusion accusation was bogus a little bit later. Also the floors involved were very careful to say no one was being accused of collusion, they just didn't want them to play at the same table. Of course at the time we wanted to know why the floors didn't want the two players to be at the same table if they weren't suspecting them of collusion. The whole situation just seemed no good.

[rogue]

[ 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 B.O.? HE'S A COLLUDER. Can't stand the obnoxious 18 year old punk and his friend? OK, THEY'RE COLLUDING.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have suspected two 30/60 players of collusion before. I was sitting near them, and I am 90% certain I heard one of them whisper "chop it up" as they were betting extremely hard with a 3rd person in the pot. Only one of them showed his hand, and I suspect the other one didn't have anything.

However, since I did not have much evidence, and the two players came far more often than I did, I decided the best course of action was to rack up and leave (it was very late already), and not play with those two players in the future.

[rogue]

[ QUOTE ]
If the floor has evidence that there is collusion between two players, why are they allowed to play in the cardroom at all? And if they only have a suspicion, based on no evidence, why are they doing anything based on BS?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what everyone at the table was asking about, and the floor's answer was nobody was suspected of collusion, they just preferred they did not play at the same table. This is kind of silly because there would be no other reason to not let them play together if you did not suspect them of collusion, in which case they should be banned from the card room as they could easily find someone else to collude with. The only thing that really makes sense is Schneids' explanation that the floors don't really have any hard evidence, but they are stuck with their decision of months ago to not let them play together.

[NLSoldier]

I was the player who was brought into the game. And my friend Jay was the one who was forced to move into the other, now 10 handed table. Moving me into the game in the first place was incredibly incompetent by the floor. Me and Jay didnt even know we werent allowed to sit at the same table. Because the accusations of collusion happened last school year when I was in california (and jay was in a game with 2 other friends, in which he won 15 racks) and when I came back me and Jay played together all summer.

After having no problems all summer, I then went back to school and was just home for this weekend, not having played in 2 months. And now all the sudden Jay isnt allowed to play with anyone canterbury considers his friend.

Like Schneids said. Canturbury has ABSOLUTELY NO evidence of collusion. All of the floormen know this, and most are cool enough to tell us that its total bull.[censored] but that they cant do anything about it because the cardroom manager has sent down the message from the top. We've talked to the grave floorman, Mike, about it many times and he was pretty irrate over the horrendous handling of the situation by the swing shift last night. Not only failing to plan 5 minutes ahead and avoid making the game 10 handed, but then marring our reputations by informing all the players at both tables why we are not being allowed to play together.

Later in the night, I was talking to a guy on the other table who I had never met before, and he was talking about how amazing their game was (because dennis was in it). I was like Yeah it sure sucks I cant sit in it. And his reply was "well yeah that sucks but its your fault. Me and my friends do that stuff sometimes too. Ya know, pound the flop and then check it down on the turn and river and stuff. And was was just like "WTF are you talking about. You have never even played with us, and if you had, you would know htis could not be further from the truth. We play harder against eachother than anyone else in the room. We have never ever done anything that could be considered collution in any way."

As schneids mentioned above, its pretty [censored] ridiculous to not allow people to play together simply due to a complaint from another player. Id be very curious to see what would happen if we got one of the regulars to accuse schnieds and Bk or any two other young winning players of collusion.

I'm going to be back in MN all of January and all of next summer. Since there is usually only 1 30 game going, its going to be pretty [censored] stupid if me and Jay have to alternate playing in it.

[rogue]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only failing to plan 5 minutes ahead and avoid making the game 10 handed, but then marring our reputations by informing all the players at both tables why we are not being allowed to play together.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, everyone was very pissed that the floors were letting people continually play who had supposedly cheated. People were saying things like, "how can they even show their faces here again." I really think you guys should go in and have a talk with the floor who made the decision and other top management if you plan on playing together in the future.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not only failing to plan 5 minutes ahead and avoid making the game 10 handed, but then marring our reputations by informing all the players at both tables why we are not being allowed to play together.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, everyone was very pissed that the floors were letting people continually play who had supposedly cheated. People were saying things like, "how can they even show their faces here again." I really think you guys should go in and have a talk with the floor who made the decision and other top management if you plan on playing together in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay his talked to all the floor multiple times about it. I have never really been involved because the were only not allowing him to play with the other 2 friends who had been in the game the night he won 15 racks last year.

THey floor continually tell him that their is nothing they can do and that he has to take it up with jerry, which he has already done and gotten no where. jay explained the situation to jerry and jerry pretty much said "i dont care what you have to say, this is my decision and Im not changing it."

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
jerry pretty much said "i dont care what you have to say, this is my decision and Im not changing it."

[/ QUOTE ]

Awful.

Great irony that everyone gives a [censored] about you Jay and Albe, yet, when 2 players are soft-playing eachother at a Fall Poker Classic final table that has 3 people remaining, they obvliously say nothing and do not attempt to try to stop it despite OBSERVING it occuring.