Stars support decision. Should I be mad? (long)

[ryanghall]

I was playing 3/6 NL on Stars the other day. There was a rather big fish on the table. Fortunately, I picked up a big hand against him. When I put him all-in, another player at the table whose name is JonnyUCB decided to open his big mouth and dissuade this fish from calling. Here is the conversation. Kodan is the fish.

jonnyUCB said, "gj kodan"
jonnyUCB: folds
Ködan Armada said, "wtf"
Ködan Armada said, "did you push with clubs?"
jonnyUCB said, "couldve had the free card"
Ködan Armada said, "i didnt want a free card"
Ködan Armada said, "i have top pair"
jonnyUCB said, "yea... clubs"
jonnyUCB said, "lol.."
Ködan Armada said, "thinkin it might be good"
Ködan Armada said, "to tell you the truth"
jonnyUCB said, "stfu u r nub"
Ködan Armada said, "me?"
Ködan Armada said, "a nub?"
Ködan Armada said, "i dont think so bro"
jonnyUCB said, "no"
jonnyUCB said, "call"
Ködan Armada said, "nh ryan"
Ködan Armada: folds

Based on his previous and future play, I have no doubt that this moron would have called my all-in with his top pair. I have not asked for a refund for the hand. I have simply asked that this player's chat be disabled. What he did cost me this hand. This is the first response I received from a so-called "poker expert", which I find laughable.

"Hello Ryan,

Thank you for writing to us about players discussing their hole cards in chat. There is an important difference between cash games and tournaments when it comes to such discussions.

In a tournament, even if just two players are left in a pot, the other players at the table (and indeed, the whole tournament) have a legitimate interest in the outcome of that pot. Generally, they'd like to see one of the players bust the other. So players can't discuss their hands because they are adversely affecting other players noteven in the pot.

In a cash game, however, players no longer in the pot have no legitimate interest in the results of that hand. Each pot is an event unto itself and only the players remaining in the pot have an interest in the hand's outcome. For that reason, we give players much more liberty to talk about their hands (or their opponent's possible hands)
in cash games.

Please note that even in a cash game, a player who is no
longer in the hand shouldn't comment about his hand or his thoughts about another player's hand. There is only *one* group of people who can talk about the hands they hold or what they think other players hold:

"Players in a cash game that are still in the hand"

I found that this players comments were not egregious and likely didn't affect your hand, however, it was still a violation of poker etiquette.

JonnyUCB has been informed of the rules now, and any future violations can result in a revocation of his chat privileges.

Thank you again for bringing this to our attention, and giving us the opportunity to educate other players. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Regards,

Randy
PokerStars Support Team"

Thanks for sticking with me so far. I would like to repeat a quote that Randy made:
"In a cash game, however, players no longer in the pot have no legitimate interest in the results of that hand."

This is obviously wrong. Every player at the table will want the fish to keep his stack so that they can get it later. It doesn't take a "poker expert" to figure this out.

So I, of course, sent the 2nd and last e-mail to PokerStars explaining this to them and requesting that further action be taken. The following is the wordy, jargon-filled, (almost nonsensical at times) response I received. Please note that I never once requested that the hand be rolled back and my money refunded somehow. I know that this is not going to happen. I asked that the player should AT LEAST have his chat revoked, which I really don't think is unreasonable. Anyway, here's the 2nd response:

"Hello Ryan,

We appreciate your feedback. However, after reviewing the matter I suspect there is a slight disconnect that requires further explanation. Please bear with me as I try to provide clarification. Simply put, players may not coach others on how to play their hands (Rule #7 - http://www.pokerstars.com/cardroomrules.html). As a result, Randy had issued a warning to 'jonnyUCB' for these comments. Although you may feel slighted, we cannot presume 'Ködan Armada' would have called your raise.
In such cases, we leave presumption out of the decision making process and delve in as much certaintly possible. Please allow me to re-present the action:

Ködan Armada said, "i didnt want a free card"
Ködan Armada said, "i have top pair"
jonnyUCB said, "yea... clubs"
jonnyUCB said, "lol.."
Ködan Armada said, "thinkin it might be good"
Ködan Armada said, "to tell you the truth"
jonnyUCB said, "stfu u r nub"
Ködan Armada said, "me?"
Ködan Armada said, "a nub?"
Ködan Armada said, "i dont think so bro"
jonnyUCB said, "no"
jonnyUCB said, "call"
Ködan Armada said, "nh ryan"
Ködan Armada: folds
jonnyUCB said, "i think u are good"

The antagonistic, sarcastic tone of the chat cannot overcome the fact 'Ködan Armada' folded his hand. Only one person knows, beyond any doubt, whether or not the conversation influenced the decision, and that
is 'Ködan Armada'. Furthermore, please know it is unrealistic, impractical, and naive for us to investigate and require explanations from players in these situations and consequently use them as agency to rollback hands or compensate complainants. We take such measures in cases
of collusion or other improriety, but not subjective, presumptious confrontations. Instead, we issue warnings and, later, more invasive measures should the player continue making inappropriate comments.

The second issue revolves around the following comments from Randy's explanation:

"In a cash game, however, players no longer in the pot have no legitimate interest in the results of that hand. Each pot is an event unto itself and only the players remaining in the pot have an interest in the hand's outcome. For that reason, we give players much more liberty to talk about their hands (or their opponent's possible hands) in cash games."

The disconnect lies in the belief that the aforementioned comments are the basis for issuing warnings, as that is not the case. I had already explained why warnings are issued -- that more invasive measures are reserved for collusion and other acts of impropriety. Please note this sentence from the comments,

"Each pot is an event unto itself and only the players remaining in the pot have an interest in the hand's outcome."

To invasively, punitively protect the action with regard to who wins or loses, as you had promoted in your rebuttal, is to effectively be an active participant in the game. Unfortunately this is the last role to which we aspire in our cash games. It is unfair and unethical to do so. As
a result, our rules must treat each pot as an event unto itself (as stated above) in regards to coaching and like inappropriate comments.

I hope you find this helpful and understand our decision. Thank you for your patience and for playing at PokerStars. Please contact Support if you have any more questions or require further assistance.

Regards,

Alvin
PokerStars Support Team

So, the question is... is this fair? I personally don't think it is. This player's irresponsible chat cost me $200. There's really no two ways about it. At the very least, he shouldn't be allowed to chat. I don't think a warning is acceptable considering what his actions cost me. Any player playing 3/6 NL should know that you don't open your mouth during a hand that's not yours, especially not to dissuade a player from making a call or make a player feel stupid for making a bad read or making a call.

Oh, before I get the expected comment that "at least Stars got back to you which is more than Party would have done blah blah blah", I expect a lot more from PokerStars than I do from Party. I don't play at Party. I do play at Stars. Customer service *I thought* was one of the big reasons for that. So put yourselves in my situation. What do you think?

Thanks guys,
Ryan

[augie00]

I don't see what you have to be mad about. Stars fully and thoroughly explained their rule and the motive behind their action. I would be overjoyed with a response like this.

As to whether or not their policy is fair, it seems alright to me. You can't be sure that he would have called your all-in.

[Chief911]

I want my 5 minutes back. What are you complaining about?

Geez. Go complain about party support~

Nick

[waffle]

you're not certain that he would have called anyway. so he cost you a fraction of $200. their response seems reasonable. does stars only disable chat when a player in all in during tournaments? :/

[FlFishOn]

I was watching a prize fight with a buddy. I say to my friend "That guy's fighting dirty, look at 'em!" My bud replies "If he was fighting dirty the Ref would bust him a point." And the Ref never did mark him down a point.

Made sense to me.

You need to know the rules governing the game you play. Today you know more than yesterday.

[Guthrie]

I thought Stars' response was excellent.

[GoCubsGo]

You mean to tell me you never told a fish to fold so he didn't go blowing his two buyin stack before you caught a hand? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[ryanghall]

So you guys are essentially suggesting that it's ok to interfere with an all-in hand and chat freely all about what you think the players have while someone is making a decision.

Whether or not he was going to call is irrelevant here. Why doesn't anyone seem to understand that?

I have a feeling you'd feel differently about it if it happened to you.

Ryan

[FlFishOn]

I ain't right but it's legal. You're pissed. Learn to live with it. Life will be easier.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean to tell me you never told a fish to fold so he didn't go blowing his two buyin stack before you caught a hand? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have, you are a douche.