Letting players collude to hit a BBJ that's funded by the money of other players sounds like it might be a bad idea.

I don't see how showing a royal flush amounts to any collusion or increased chance of hitting a BBJ. If he hadn't shown, you think they other guy would have folded his quad aces?

What if he was on a draw, so that showing made him go for it? With that much of the players' money at stake you can't leave it up to the floor's discretion, the rule needs to be absolute.

I have never heard any example where showing cards could make someone have more chance of hitting a BBJ, maybe you could clarify?

Hmm, maybe if it was a NL game, someone might fold a set, but instead go for the quads on the river if they knew the other guy had a straight flush? But in that case, instead of showing, the guy with the straight flush could instead just check, letting the quads get there for free, which would also be collusive for getting the BBJ, so now you have to have a rule saying you are required to bet big if you have a big hand.

Truly the chance of anyone colluding to influence this kind of thing is so wildly remote that it is ridiculous to try to regulate it. There are also rules against talking about the BBJ, but everywhere I have ever played, people routinely talk about it everytime there is a possibility on the board. The only fair thing is to have none of these rules, and anyplace enforcing them is doing so just so they can keep the players' money longer and keep the jackpot higher (especially true at a place with such shady practices as CAZ).

The one true statement is the floors there shouldn't be trusted, so the rule should be absolute - there should be absolutely no rules about this type of thing.

According to the story on here they both had the qualifying hands when seat 5 showed his cards. This could easily be verified on camera.

What I have reported so far ITT is exactly what happened and what I personally saw and heard from the players. Tonight, a dealer told me that the dealer at the table at the time said when the second ace hit on the turn, the royal flush guy showed his hand to the other player and said "I have a royal, so if you have an ace stay in and we could hit the jackpot." He didn't know that when the second ace hit, the other guy actually had quads. That certainly sounds like blatant collusion to influence the action of the other player.

The royal guy has played forever, knows the rules, violates them regularly, ignores the warnings from the dealers on a regular basis, and then in his moment of glory, screws things up....royally. Yes, I constantly hear people discuss the possibility of a jackpot and are usually cautioned by the dealers. I have never known anyone to actually show their hand to another player to prove their point when they both still have money, there is action pending, and they don't know at that point that the other player is never going to fold.

The rules are about as clear as they could be, known by virtually everyone, and pretty easy to comply with during these situations. Why shouldn't there be consequences when we knowingly ignore rules?

calling them ******ed is a discredit to those with Down's Syndrome. When it's wrong and you know it's wrong and you do it anyway then you are stupid, not ******ed.

This is also why I would rather push rusty nails into my liver than play 3/6 limit. The nit/regs/OMC/senile/stupid players make it insufferable.

Day 1 chip counts: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=11

Well, that certainly was a stupid thing to do, but all he had to do instead was check, which would also have accomplished keeping the other guy in. So basically he was just punished for his stupidity. And I thought the reason that BBJs exist to begin with was to encourage stupid people to play more poker.

And it's still no more collusive than one friend telling another what he has and then checking the hand down. I have seen that a hundred times and have never seen anyone punished. This is a terribly harsh penalty, and is being put on not just the offender, but on everyone at the table. Even if they somehow decide the showing of cards was so bad that they feel the need to punish the offender, they could still pay the other players at the table. But they don't, because collusion isn't really the reason these rules exist. They exist solely to give management a possible excuse for not paying out the jackpot. The same reason they have ridiculous rules about racks being on the table possibly voiding jackpots, etc.

I don't see anyone arguing against that. You're obviously right if it's a rule that discussing a potential jackpot will void jackpot hands. What people are saying is it shouldn't be a rule.

fwiw the Foxwoods dealers have been instructed to loudly and firmly reject any claim made by a player that discussing a jackpot hand will void the jackpot. They and I'm sure other rooms don't have that dumb rule, probably because they don't want their customers having panic attacks and their dealers hushing everybody like children every time the board shows potential.

If the appearance of impropriety is the concern, then providing the house with such an easy method of invalidating a jackpot (and thus losing a major attraction) is way way way more worrisome than the chatter it is meant (and, according to you, constantly fails) to prevent.

In just about every jackpot room I've played in, when this subject has come up, it's mentioned they have the same rule as CAZ. I've even seen where the board looks like a jackpot is brewing and someone says something about a possible jackpot, he was told to shut up by several other players.

The policy is that you don't want collusion in your poker room. One rule to forward this is no talking about the hand (pure self interested talk is usually exempt). To enforce the rule, rather than hand out temp bans like they were tasteless mints, it's easier to raise the spectre of a nullified jackpot. If you don't have this rule, some regs will give lessons at the table any time the board looks mildly connected for a backdoor JP draw.

I can't remember any panic attacks caused by the rule.

I mean, you have multiple people on this very page saying that players jump on the person who mentions a possible jackpot.

It's got to be pretty nerve-wracking to not know at that point whether the talker has already crossed the line and voided a possible jackpot before it's even been hit, or to wonder if management will use the remarks as an out when it does.

OPTAH rules can be completely separate from the jackpot rules. It's a failure of management to not enforce them when the stakes are low. (Like you, I wish they would.) That management might elect to enforce a no-discussion rule when the stakes are high and hugely in their favor while so much chatter passes without consequence is another reason to not have a rule specific to the jackpot qualifications.

I agree that it does shut the talkers up, which is nice. But proper enforcement of the game rules would achieve the same effect.

Why would it be nerve-wracking? If you've got a jackpot eligible hand you're going to bet it with your last dollar anyway.

No jack pot awarded. Its a house rule knowen by the man with the royal, I feel sorry for the fellow who would of won 50% and table players loosing their share. House stood behind their rule but maybe could of asked the jack-- --s to take sometime off. If I was a floor I would of had security escort him to his car for his own safety. He cost people alot of money.

We are not talking about the player holding the eligible hand. See the actual incident that started this conversation.

Also, forum member bolt2112 brings up more good points about selective enforcement (in the first paragraph at least).

A fairer variation on the Rule would be to punish only Mr Loudmouth,
ie
Jackpot awarded to everybody except the Loudmouth(s). Big end, small end, or table share is forfeited and rolls over to the next jackpot.

Not sure I would agree with that. Collusion of this kind harms everyone - people that might win it in the future, everyone that put money into it, everyone.

do they think it's cute how freezing the room is every night?

Just put on a hoodie, headphones and sunglasses like everyone else. (And don't forget the iPad and backpack)

You gotta dress like the cool kids if you want to be a cool kid.

bad beat jackpots have strict rules. and rightly so as there have been so many scams involved in them. so they have to do it that way. but there should be an easier way for players to see in most casinos the exact procedures.

This particular jackpot is monitored by an external entity. When determining whether the jackpot should be rewarded or not, they will definitely review video footage of the hand in question. With this in mind, any activity that even remotely looks like there was collusion/softplaying/somethings fishy going on gives plenty of reason to not pay out the jackpot. Anyone saying its BS that it wasn't paid because a hand was face up simply does not understand what comes into play when paying out a jackpot.

Also, the version of this that I heard from a TS poker room dealer is different and makes not paying the jackpot much more obvious. Player A flopped quad aces and showed his hand before the flop action was complete. What's unclear is whether Player B had three or four to a royal at that time.

He also said that both players had been warned about flashing their hands to each other earlier in the night.

They finally updated their website. It looks nice!