That 4-8 game was a small gold mine (silver mine?) for me because the blinds were 1 and 2, so family pots were the norm, and there would only be one other agressive player at the table, if that. Plus you'd score a free HH bonus every 20 hours or so.

I met Ashley Adams when he was looking for a place to play poker in Kentucky. Super nice guy and there's got to be something wrong with any place that would kick him out.

I played at MB once; some friends and I had been drinking at Red Square and impulsively entered a donkament. The floor was visibly grumpy with us because we were slightly tipsy and loud and were actually having fun. We didn't try to read a poker magazine or ask about the rules, so we didn't get kicked out.

Steve Ruddock wrote it up:
http://nevadapokerreviews.com/1170/o...r-room-beware/

Well that's really cool.
At least this thread is doing some good.

The article by Ashley Adams is way outdated. He mentions a 4/8 limit game in the room, so it must have been several years ago. I've pulled out my cellphone several times in the room for brief moments without a dealer ever complaining about it. In fact, I've never been annoyed by the rules there, except by the rule that no cash plays, which I sort of understand but it was inconvenient for me in some ways.

However, this does nothing to change my opinion of the ruling the OP mentioned, assuming that story is true. That's a horrible ruling.

The question I have is how can they can not post the rules? How the hell, as a player coming out to Vegas on vacation, am I supposed to obey rules if I cannot find out what they are?

has anyone filed a complaint to gaming?

I will be staying there for a couple of nights on my next trip in Jan, this makes the decision not to play poker there easy; now I'm considering not gambling there at all (I would say not give them any business but already bought Santana tixs)

Thats awful. If you are going to right that post the least you should do is independently verify the rules you are talking about.

The Ashley Adams piece is several years old ..... and in it he complains not of game play rules ..... but conduct rules. Personally while I often referred to his piece as part of the issues with the MB room ..... it was about not being customer friendly in respect to rules against reading at the table or cell phones etc.

And it is these rules which I understand have changed. But did the author of the blog post bother to check on that? Nope just decided to through that in with no verification of the current policies.

Likewise the author here assumes the OP's description is correct and takes at face value the claims about what the rule is. I think if you are going to write a piece about this maybe some first hand information is relevant?

I haven't stepped foot in MB poker room for several years .... I don;t know what happened with OP but I know enough not to just take an anonymous post on the internet as accurate description of the events that happened or the rules in that room and if I wanted to right up an article about it I would probably go over to the room and find out for myself.

Personally, I don't think this room should be judged in 2014 based on stuff that was true in 2008 or 2005 or whenever the room was more strict.

I also have never had a negative opinion of the employees there and never thought they seemed more unfriendly than people working in other rooms. I am very laid back though and it's super rare that I complain about anything to employees in poker rooms. I talk a lot more online lol.

I think the rooms that take $5 and a drop in addition to rake are worse. So I don't think Mandalay Bay is one of the worst rooms in town, even though a lot of comments here make it seem that way (maybe it used to be one of the worst rooms back in 2007). It's not one of the best rooms either, but of course it isn't as good as rooms like the one at Aria for example.

From what I have been led to believes, you have to make publically available upon request rules for each poker game you spread. This is more than just the little plaque in each room that says "check and raise is permitted, prop can play but must be identified upon request, 1 bet and 4 raises in all limit games, floor decisions are final".

I am pretty sure said book of rules does not cross the line into "internal casino procedures". For example, a written explanation of the rooms rules concerning the betting line is far different than a written explanation of what to do when your well is short or what to do as a dealer if you suspect a player is marking cards.

Actually what you previously said was:

Emphasis added.

Clearly you wouldn't say this without being able to point to the gaming statute or regulation that makes this "non-negotiable"

Just out of curiosity did you read the Ashley Adams articles.

Though I agree that back then MB was pretty player unfriendly in regard to rules .... and even had some bad rules in regard to actual poker the things Mr. Adams complains about were not poker rules. They were conduct rules. As such he was pretty much just being a sarcastic prick in demanding to see the rule book. If you went to a restaurant and put your feet up on a chair and the manager asked you not to .... would you demand to see the "rule book?"

What were the rules that bothered him so:

1) NO reading at the table. Now understand that it wasn't like his hand was declared dead for reading. He was simply told he wasn't allowed to read at the table when his friend tried to read a magazine. (BTW I have never found a player who was readinga magazine or book at the table who didn't slow the game down)

2) No use of electronics at the table including ipods and cell phones. Again nobodies hand was being declared dead. He was simply being told its not allowed. The MB poker room is in the sports book area and this was back at the time that gaming regulations prohibited cell phone use in the sports book. I believe the rule against electronics was related to the sportsbook concerns.

3) Next he decided to hassle the dealer because the rule brochure said the rake was maximum of $5 when in fact the house was only taking $4 +1 for the jackpot. So apparently the dealer should have accommodated him and raised the rake. Its like going into a restuarant ording a meal, getting charged less and then hassling the waiter "So the menu is wrong then....."

Then his complaint to the floor is that the rules against reading at the table and using electronics isn't posted.....

Who cares .... Why do these rules need to be posted? They aren't affecting the play of the game. If you don't like the rules then just get up and leave. Its not like they declared his hand dead and awarded the pot to someone else. These are just not rules you argue about. (Sure if you want you can tell the floor you don't think they are good rules and ask them to consider changing them ... but whining about how they aren;t posted is just childish)


So then we are told that the room did the outrageous thing of asking a person who appeared intoxicated to leave .....

How is this a bad thing? This is what is supposed to happen. Don't let people who appear to be intoxicated gamble .... pretty sure the gaming board supports that position.

So now he has complained to the floor about these conduct rules... todk the floor he was done playing and then went to sit with his friend and complain out loud about the rules ...... and they sit and complain about the drunk being removed .... so he was kicked out of the room. Thsi makes sense to me. What other private business allows disgruntled ex customers to come in and complain out loud to other customers .....

Ashley Adams was in a bad mood that day .... and overreacted to his friend being told he couldn't read at the table and then he became a jerk and wanted to have an argument so he had one ..... So he made it about the rulebook

And none of his actual complaints are about poker rules..... they are about conduct rules. And you know what .... I don't think gaming cares about these rules.....

I didn't assume anything.

The reason for the "no reading" link (the only other rule I specifically mentioned in the article; I never mentioned cell phone use) is to show the absurdity of it all. There are several other rules in place that I didn't mention. Nor did I mention that I was told they show favoritism towards regs on their waiting list.

That single line was provided simply to show the room has/has a history of implementing strange rules. Looking back at the line, this is not conveyed properly and for that I apologize.

The rule in question, that statements made in response to another player when the action is not on you are binding (the actual reason for the article along with their refusal to allow anyone to see their rules, or even get an explanation of them) is an actual rule there. I did verify this with several people.

Also, I didn't take the OP's statements at face value (I don't know what he really said and I specifically mentioned this in the column; I don't care if he said probably or not) It's the rule itself that I was speaking to.

Furthermore, the poker room refuses to talk about their rules. Pretty impossible to verify a rule when they won't talk about them.

My issue is the room's rule is little more than a beacon for angle shooters.

I hope this clears it up a little

I looked into this a bit and I couldn't find anything beyond Regualtion 23.080:

I was told in the past dealers would rattle off their quirky rules if anyone at the table was a new player (the person had no recollection of them explaining the talking bit), I do not know if this is still the case. Still, the rule that no one can see their rule book is quite alarming imo.

If this is the rule you are talking about (which BTW is not exactly the issue raised by OP) then I do not think its all that unusual. While I am not a fan .... many rooms would enforce OOT declarations of action of this sort.

Keep in mind OP's issue was that his alleged statement "I will Probably call $80" is not a statement of action.

But if we remove that issue and say that OP said "I will call $80" I would say this thread would be very different .... there would be a lot more people saying that it should be binding and we would probably being hearing more stories of rooms that would treat it this way (again to be clear I do not think that statement should be binding ..... but would not be shocked to hear about it being made binding).

Verify what? The issue raised by OP about saying he would "Probably call $80" or confirming that if in response to a question from my opponent I announce that I would call a certain amount that I will be held to actrually call that amount?" These are two different things .... very different. It makes all the difference in the world yet its not clear which you are talking about.

Now if you verified the rule it would seem that would be something worth laying out in your blog post.

But again this is relevant to which rule we are talking about. Did you verify the rule that saying "I would Probably call $80, would bind you to call $80?" Is that the rule we are talking about.

But you already said you did verify the rule.

Not really. As stated I am not even sure what rule it is you are talking about. You seem to be addressing a different rule than OP yet use the the OP as the basis for the discussion.

You and I probably do not even agree on what constitutes an angle ( don't feel bad ... lots of people get this one wrong )

When we have discussions here about OOT actions of conditional action it is pretty clear that many people thibnk they should be enforced. They feel that if a player says "If you shove I will call" that it would be rewarding an angle shooter to let that player not call when his opponent shoves all-in. And it appears that their are rooms which will enforce conditional OOT action.

In away the way this discussion in this thread has gone reminds me of an exchange i had with a player a few weeks ago (and actually many times over the years with different players)

In between hands Player who is not UTG for the next hand shoves his stack into the betting area and announces "I'm all-in"

The hand hasn;t even been dealt. So I push back the chips and say

Me: "Sir, I need to act in turn."

Player: "I'm betting blind"

Me: "Yes Sir, but I need you to do it in turn"

Player: "I'm betting blind."

Me: "yes sir you said that...... But then I asked you to do it in turn."

Player: "I'm allowed to bet blind!"

Me: "Yes sir, you may act blind. The rules do not require you to ever look at your cards. But the rules do require you to act in turn, so how about you take these chips back, and then after I deal the cards you just wait until the action gets to you and the you can act and if you want you don't ever have to look at your cards."

Player: "But I'm betting Blind ....."

No matter what I say or how i say I am simply asking the player to act in turn. yet the only thing he hears is "You aren't allowed to bet blind."

And I really feel that is the direction thsi thread has taken.

IF OP was actually required to call because the rules say that his announcement that "I would probably call $80" is binding then I agree this rule is unusual ... and bizarre and problematic (I don't agree it makes it easy to angle shoot but that is because I have a more narrow view of what an angle is).

Because I have doubts about teh OPs story I am more inclined to believe the ruling was based on the OP stating essentially IF YOU BET $80 I WILL CALL. And if this is the case its hardly a MB bizarre rule.... its a common bad rule.

And I agree that historically MB has had very player unfriendly rules. (Until just a few years ago they would not allow the blinds to chop, no cell phones, overly strict interpretation of betting lines). Though I have heard that these have been loosened up.

Take a look at this thread: see how it has a different tone:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...-call-1444165/
or this http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...ement-1274381/


Oh and conditional action be binding is an unusual rule?

Take a look at the TDA rules:

51: Conditional Statements
Conditional statements regarding future action are non-standard and strongly discouraged; they may be binding and/or subject to penalty at TD’s discretion. Example: “if – then” statements such as "If you bet, then I will raise”.

I verified that the rule as explained itt (not just OP) exists and has been enforced. statements made when the action is not on you are binding. I cannot verify the exact rule or wording because of the rulebook policy.

Imo, there is no reason for a player to be held to what they say they will do when answering a question from an opponent. There is a difference between making an unprompted declarative statement and answering a probing question.

Personally I think a player should be able to make these comments either way and not be held to them if the action is not on them, (believing what a poker player says at the table is along the same lines of believing a two-year old with cookie crumbs on his face), but I'm not as against making unprompted declarative statements binding.

As I explained in my column, these types of rules assist angle shooters and they make the game less social. Rules should prevent gray areas not create them.

Set aside the actual situation (which is what my article was doing) and just explore the numerous ways this rule could be abused, and it's a bad rule.

There is also no reason for a poker room to not make their rules available upon request. If there is sensitive information (which is somewhat laughable) than why not print up a redacted copy that can be made available.

As far the TDA rules, they are publicly available, so even though I disagree with the rule, I can live with it. Also, is this rule for unprompted statements or answers to probing questions, or both?

I think the PI rules in football are horrible but everyone is aware of them, but imagine if the NFL was throwing flags and when you asked why the conversation goes:

Ref: "it's the rule."
You: "What rule."
Ref: "It's in our rule book."
You: "Can I see it?"
Ref: "No."

So it's more the dual problem of A) The rule and B) Not being allowed to see the rulebook

As an aside, if we had this convo before I wrote the column my POV would probably have been much better stated, appreciate the debate

Well the thing is that isn't what the thread was about. But if you say you verified that Verbal Actions OOT are binding ... okay I believe you. That is in factthe rule in most cardrooms. If you say that you verified the rule is that conditional statements of action OOT are binding .... well I believe that is a rule that is not limited to MB. But I'm still not clear which rule it is you think we are discussing.

I disagree with this. I don't think there is any reason to distinguish between an answer to a question and an "unsolicited" OOT action action.

If we are talking about conditional action I agree with you conditional statements of action should not be enforced. If we are talking about unconditional statements of action .... I generally believe OOT action should be binding (unless it causes action after it -- or it is heads up). But I recognize that my position is a minority position.

Well I would say this rule eliminates a gray area. It makes it black and white. It doesn't assist angle shooters because what you describe isn't an angle its just a bad rule.....

I agree its a bad rule. yet i don;t see any way that another player can abuse this rule because what you describe as an angle is not in my opinion a problem. If a player asks "Hey how much would you call?" the problem isn't that he knows the rule and knows if the question gets answered the player will be bound. Even if the player asking the question doesn;t know that the answer will be binding .... the result of making it binding is still the problem.

There is a huge reason not to make your rulebook generally available and its largely becuase it leads to nit picking lawyer types trying to get rules applied in a legalistic manner without regard for context, nuance and the intent behind the rules.

I am a lawyer and a poker dealer and the last thing I would want to do is have more of the legal "technically" the rukles are types of arguments that we already get on routine issues ..... compounded by the analysis of why the placement of the comma means the rules should be applied contrary to clear intent of a common rule.

Further poker rulebooks are generally amended in a very informal style ... memos, notes, etc and decisions about the applications of rules (unlike legal decisions) are typically verbal and not reduced to writing.


AND MB did make available a printed rulebook. Ashley Adams says he looked through it while looking for ammunition to act like a jerk that day. Remeber he started harrassing the dealer because the rule book said maximum rake of $5 instead of the $4 that was being taken.....

There is no reason to distinguish between the two. And BTW in tournaments there should not be this type of talk in any event.

I disagree. To me this is more akin to a fan going to a football game. Throwing snowballs at fans of the opposing team, being asked to leave and demanding to see the where the rules say he isn't allowed to throw snowballs.

And I haven;t been in MB poker room in a long time. But I am willing to bet they have a set of posted rules. And if I had to guess they include that verbal action is binding and that OOT action is binding or may be binding. maybe next week I will get a chance to check.

Why are we discussing what happened to this Adams guy? The OP was forced to put money into a pot that he had zero intention of putting in because of some secret rule that MB has. I think it is entirely fair for him to ask to see that rule written someplace. AFAIK OP didn't ask to see it, but I am curious to know if they would've let him...

If the floor tells you that you cannot read at the table and you say "BS let me see that in your rulebook" then you are a POS and deserve a KITN. Completely different from OP.

So its more a difference of opinion we have as to what should and shouldn't be allowed.

Also, just to clarify, Ashley was given a handout of the basic rules, not a pamphlet or rulebook of any kind.

You shouldve taken his picture- he is a POS snd should be outed. Making a statement such as "if you bet I will call" I would consider it a lack of integrity but id never try and force them to follow through. At the same time, asking a question like in OP is nothing more or less than an angleshoot and the guy should be dragged by his ankles behind a horse through the strip.

I think it's pretty doubtful OP said "I'll call 80" since he already declared he had ten high, and from using natural language it's unlikely someone would make such a subliminal slip. If you had ten high and someone says "how much will you call" you are never saying "i will call all in". However you could easily say something like "i might call all in" while trying to turn the table talk back around on your opponent.

"126 Pesos. sir." Ridiculous house rule and obvious angle shoot from reg. It is okay because Karma will take care of that guy. I am thinking food poisoning.

Well what do you expect from a tiny pos room?
Why do these types of rooms always have the weird rules?
You would think they would model their rules after the B or V not try to be unique.
It's a horrible ruling, but I have made it a point that if I am every not sure what a rule is to ask before effing myself.