Reviving this thread just to point out a single inconsistency-

Brandon Navarro, one of the tournament personnel mentioned earlier in this thread, was not fired, in fact, he took Jason Halperin's place as head tournament director.

The Brandon that got fired was the dealer Brandon- he got fired because as he was opening a new game, and collecting money and selling chips from the new table sell bank, he somehow came up $100 short. Which is what I feel is a legimate firable offense- however, he's been there since the "beginning" of the 'new' room, so maybe he should've gotten a bit of leeway and given a chance to make up the money, or at least a portion of it thereof, out of his paycheck, or through some other circumstance.

Nobody knows the real reason why some of the people left. My guess is that they probably saw the writing on the wall and wanted to desert the ship before in sank. Let's face it, the real problem in this room starts at the top. Maybe the room manager (Jim), is stealing and is firing people for starting to find out what is going on.

I already posted why most of the people are gone. Don't believe me, just ask any of the head personnel there- and make sure to mention any of the reasons I posted. Just see if they can deny anything I've said, while looking you in the eye with a straight face.

Instead I asked one of the named parties you listed directly (I waited until he brought it up). Lies and damn lies! And he claims to have absolute proof. Nobody in Caesars management cared, just explained it doesn't matter WHY they're firing him, they just are. He was basically tried and convicted without being allowed to defend himself, and only learned anything was going on when they mete out the punishment. Classic. And then to add insult to his injury, here come the 2+2 rumors naming names and events.

So while I found your detailed rumor interesting, I believe the person I talked to who was impacted by all this.

Well of course you (or anyone, for that matter), would be more inclined to believe someone you speak to in person, than some anonymous message board poster, it's only natural.

Of the people mentioned, I'd have to guess you spoke with TJ directly, since what "proof" would there be of him taking a bribe to keep his mouth shut? Surveillance video? Not likely, since who in surveillance really cares about the poker room anyway. But ask yourself this- theoretically speaking, lets say TJ didn't take a bribe to keep his mouth shut- then why didn't he speak up to his superiors and inform them of the 2nd chance drawing fiasco? If he knew it was rigged but didn't say anything, doesn't that make him just as involved? Yeah yeah, snitching is bad and all that crap, but if someone is obviously cheating at a table, wouldn't the right thing to do is be a snitch? By saying nothing at all, you're contributing to the corruption, which can ultimately lead to nothing good.

Caesars Palace's room should be based on professionalism, and not greasing the palms of others. It should not be based on outright thievery, playing favorites, floor coming to work drunk and/or drinking on the job, throwing crap at dealers in the box (regardless of whatever infraction they've committed), and stealing tournament tokes from dealers.

I've named names, and specific occurences. If what I've said is so untrue, why is it that since my thread, certain policies have changed? Such as there now being a witness to count and sign the tourney toke paperwork before it gets submitted to the cage? Also, it seems like more often than not, management themselves now call the 2nd chance drawing names.

Theivery in this town is nothing new, neither is getting caught.
Anyone remember Josh, used to be a dealer downtown at Binions a few years back? Another one caught scamming the 2nd chance drawings at Binions. Only difference there, was someone else in the poker room actually cared about the room image, and as soon as the scam came to light, he was led out of the room on the spot, and given the boot immediately.

I'm not trying to argue with you, bav, more trying to debate what is actually going on. You just saying you spoke to someone, and not naming names or specific instances really does nothing for this thread. Yes, you've been here a while and have a respectable history here, but all this crap I've mentioned, has only been mentioned because I've experienced it first-hand.

Take care, and happy holidays.

-bot

My only objection is naming names and attaching illegal acts to them. Anonymous accusations of criminal behavior without any substantiation are pretty serious, particularly in an industry where convictions for the same make people ineligible ever to work again. Rumors abound everywhere over why folks are terminated. And in theory the people who actually know why people get fired are not supposed to divulge that to any other employees. If the terminated employee wants to tell people why they are let go, they can, but management shouldn't be doing so. So the whole set of things you laid out with TJ,Rich,Jason is 3rd hand hearsay; just destructive gossip. Such accusations without substantiation are slander. Fun to read for us, of course, but not for those involved.

The details you offer of problems with policies or personalities I don't object to. You can tell us you don't like your management and why, you can tell us there have been discrepancies with the tokes, you can tell us you think somebody sucks at their job. Just go a little lighter with the "John Smith got caught stealing from the tokes" sorta stuff. "Someone got caught stealing" is ok with me. Or "John Smith got fired" is ok with me (if you're sure he didn't quit). Even "Josh was taken out by 2 security guards" is factual. Mind you, it doesn't much matter what I condone or what I condemn since I don't moderate nuthin'. But try to empathize a little...

Lets say you get fired someday in the near future because your rack came up short for the 3rd time in a month and this time it was $100 short. You may not even have been told why, just "it isn't working out" (gotta love the whole "this is a right-to-work state, we don't need a reason to fire you" line of reasoning). You sign on to 2+2 and read an anonymous posting that names you by name and explains you were caught stealing and got fired. Now you go apply for a new job and management google's for your name and BINGO, there it is... you were fired for stealing. Have a problem with this?

Bav, understood completely.

But if there was a known cheater/thief who you were an acquantaince of (possibly played with), wouldn't it be right to have the truth known, especially if the subject was brought up by others with similar interests?

I didn't bring this thread up on its own, it was simply a reply to numerous posts on the subject- take it for its worth. Believe me, don't believe me, it doesn't really matter. Like they say, everything you read on the internet isn't true.

As far as names and googling them/finding out information on them go, at which point did I ever mention last names on anyone terminated from employment? yes, I mentioned Jim Pedulla- he still works there. Yes, I mentioned Brandon Navata (spelled his name wrong earlier), but he still works there as well (contrary to other info earlier in this thread).

If any major corporation is deciding their hiring practices based on 2p2 alone, and not other secondary background/criminal checks, then my guess is they are just as shady as corporate Harrahs.

Based on your second part of your reply (the $100 short reply), my new guess is you were talking about the dealer Brandon. Ok, maybe he deserved an explanation, but it was improper procedure followed in the first place. It isn't right to try and justify it by saying "well they didnt even have the balls to tell me why"- after all, the mistake wouldn't have happened had proper procedures been followed. Sure, there are other ways to try to resolve this, and one of those ways might have been the correct course of action, but unfortunately it didn't happen this way. Let's say you work somewhere, and have a history of borrowing money from co-employees and management, and being late to repay your debts. You have a history of bank variance as well. Then you come up $100 short. You really feel it is obligatory to have a trial by jury to determine that persons fate? If it looks like $hit, smells like $hit, then what do you really think it is?

They have a hundred billion other people looking for, and needing the job.

I'm obiously not talking about so called "minor" infractions- 2 minute late pushes, $2 bank variance, borderline floor decisions, etc- if I was, I could make my own 19 page thread about it.


Think about it, if all the stuff I mentioned were kept secret, what would prevent the 2nd chance drawing crap from happening again? Or the cashier toke stealing? If I just said "some guy scammed the dealers' tokes", would anybody care at all?

Sorry if I struck a nerve with you, but I have to deal with this crap daily.

I truly have nothing against you bav, but I feel it is different the other way around, for pretty much petty reasons. Why such the vague reference to my other (now deleted) post in the other recent thread, accusing me of being libelous? Wouldn't a PM asking what I know, and how I know it have been more appropriate than to just call me libelous? Doesn it have to do with my join date? Post count? User name? Or am I just misinterpreting the way you are posting?

I never intended to post another word in this thread after talking to one of your named parties. But you issued a challenge:
I've been intentionally vague about what particular incident I'm referring to because the specifics aren't the point. My point is not to get into a tit-for-tat "prove me wrong" dialog. I was just pointing out that there IS another side to the story, and maybe even what Caesars management thinks they know is not correct. They didn't really ask any questions of the accused parties, they didn't let them defend themselves, they simply fired everybody in sight. These folks have already been punished, perhaps for something they didn't do, yet you find it necessary to air all the details here.

As for vague references to other threads, I thought my comment about slander was a not particularly vague reference to THIS thread. But now that you mention it, you're right, you do show a pattern of hiding behind the protection of anonymity and naming people and accusing them of illegal acts without any supporting evidence. Would you be doing this if it were not anonymous?

If the RIAA can get court orders to force ISP's to reveal the identity of people downloading music, someone filing a civil slander lawsuit can probably do the same. And if this were to happen to you, what would your current employer do if they found you it was you saying these things on 2+2? You're probably not in any real jeopardy because no lawyer is going to think a random poker dealer is going to have enough assets to make a lawsuit worthwhile, but is spreading rumors on 2+2 really worth your job and your assets?

By the original post, it seems like specifics were the point. I provided the "official" reasons, why people were let go. Whether those reasons were right or wrong was not my ultimate decision. But there's no way you, after "speaking to someone you know" (with no specific information), can defend someone else against the allegations made against them. Let them reply for themselves.

I aired the details as I know them, as the OP asked.

I provided as much info on why these people were fired as needed. First, you get pissed because you claim that "googling" these people would prevent them from jobs. Then, you say I have no "supporting evidence". Well if you want to talk about evidence, I named specific names and details. Your rebuttal was more along the lines of "someone I know said this particular instance wasn't true". My anonymity is sacred right now. But on the other hand, why cant you say who you spoke to and what isn't true?

And If I saw Matt Savage in person and his goons weren't around, I'd likely spit in his face.

You still consider them "rumors". Well, then to you, I guess they are. Believe the truth, or don't. Your choice. Or get your other sources to back themselves up themselves here, so I can offer a sincere apology.

It is believed at Caesars, if you come up short, or over, you are stealing from the company, or the customers. I also believe in this poker business, if the dealer pays back any shortages, and the house keeps the overages, there should be no problem. Just because a dealer is short in his/her rack, and pays it back, doesn't mean they were trying to steal. It mostly means, they ain't that good of a dealer!

I was the one that named Jason and his roommate. I also witnessed a high hand seat, given to a spouse. When I informed management, they blamed the dual rate, and he got punished! Quite convenient!

TJ was just a patsy. He wasn't taking a bribe to keep his mouth shut.
And ife he was being juiced, shouldn't the dealers juicing get the axe also. Trust me, I had a ton of corrupt knowledge. And when that became known, I was fired. The reason, Willful misconduct, theft, and dishonesty. 30 years in the business, and they indeed tarnished my career. Am I holding a grudge? You bet I am. That poker room manager needs to go back to the pit, where he may actually belong?

TJ now is at the Tuscany

Anyone need the dirt on Caesars, I'm am so ready to give it!

im ready to listen...

TJL

Since Caesars staff read this forum I'm sure someone will figure out who you are faster than you can say court order........ just remember as you chose your words that in reality you are not anonymous here, you should be very careful what you say because it will come back to haunt you.

PS: Any slanderous statements will assure a ban on our end, of course thats minor compared to a lawsuit if Caesar's feels like taking action against a disgruntled employee spreading rumors - even if the rumors are true they can still take action, and that wouldn't be pretty.

TT--

Well, since you brought Badugi math into the discussion, I think I'll clear something up. The number 9 happens to be halfway between 4 and 13, but other than that I see no way to make sense of the idea that the median badugi is a 9.

The number of badugis B(H) with top card H (where H ranges from 4 to 13 [13=King]), is (H-1) choose 3, as grade-school algebra will verify. (Keep the highest card fixed, and pick 3 of the H-1 remaining ones.)

So B(H)=1/6 (H-1)(H-2)(H-3).

Notice immediately that B(H)=B(H-1)[(H-1)/(H-4)].

I'm very rusty in combinatorics, but someone strong in the field should know a technique to get to the median immediately.

B(4)=1
B(5)=4
B(6)=10
B(7)=20
B(8)=35
B(9)=56
B(10)=84
B(11)=120
B(12)=165
B(13)=220

So the total number of badugis is 715, so a "median badugi" is something like a bad Jack. Of course there are other things to consider in practice.

Back to the Mason/Goofyballer hand: even the worst 7 is in the top 5% of badugis, and keeping in mind that bets and raises are even often made without badugis, it makes a whole lot of sense to go to war with a 7 for a while. In fact, playing against a good player would make you *more* likely to throw in an extra value-raise than you would against a player who does not understand the math and is therefore more likely to think that a 7 is less powerful than it is.

Just needed to stick up for Goofy here. He's a great poster and understands poker very well, and the hand against Mason, depending on the specifics of the action, should probably get filed under "straight cooler."

--Nate

P.S.: Dear math people: I hope you don't think less of me for having done some brute-force work to figure this out. I'm quite aware that with a little algebraic sophistication, a technique to get the median directly should be very clear. But I'm not quite up for it at the moment, and I thought it better to post this--which might even contain errors--than to hold back out of pride.

Nate your two years too late, the weight of badugi hands were determined a a while ago in the Other Poker forum using additional weighting concerns over a three-street period in addition to standard combination calculations (which from a brief overview I think you got correct). Using non-weighted calculations you are correct, however in practice its generally a semi-clean 9. If I can find the old threads that discuss this I will post it here for you... back in the day the Other Poker forum was an fantastic hotbed of analysis.

some additional badugi insight -

any badugi is a 35:9 or better favorite vs a single opponent, even if the opponent has A23

The worst J high Badugi is a slight dog vs three opponents

A hand such as KQJT has a 60% equity edge vs two opponents

A 1 card draw with 6 outs to improve to beat the median Badugi byt the river is 2:1 against with three draws, 3:3:1 against with four draws, and 7:1 against with 1 draw remaining. an example of this would be A23x looking to catch a 9 or better. This of course means is often not correct to peel going into the third draw in a heads up pot unless there has been some significant action on the earlier streets or for example is there has been a raise going into the final draw.

Using the same as above but instead giving the hero 7 outs he is now 5.9:1 to improve on the river, making peeling a much more reasonable option vs a loose and aggressive opponent in a heads-up pots that has one raise before the first draw - if you have the implied odds on the river.

TT--

Thanks for all that information. Much appreciated.

There's a thread near the top of Other Poker that has links to some relevant stuff.

I think my calculations show that we're talking about non-first-order rates of change here. And therefore that a 7 is way way way way better than a 9.

A very common error made by triple draw players moving to badugi is thinking in terms of nut hands (as is proper in raising wars in TDL) and undervaluing hands like 7's.

All my best,

--Nate

of course we are off topic now but I needed to quote this because its very true. I also see too many triple draw players move to Badugi and put too many bets in with obviously inferior hands, and additionally so many mathematical players of 2-7 and Badugi tend to forget to consider their opponents ranges when the ramming and jamming starts. In this example we are talking about Mason, he isn't going to ram and jam lightly because its literally his first orbit of Badugi ever (and he has never played triple draw before) - he probably has a monster 95% of the time.

good sub topic though, glad you came along :-)

VINDICATION! ONE TIME! I hardly even remember the hand but I will claim to my deathbed that Caesar's Palace cheated me that night.

Thanks Nate

Lies and damn lies! My own personal experience proves than a single opponent drawing two has a 70% chance of beating my pat 8-high badugi, while if I'm drawing one starting from A23 I have a 0% chance of hitting a badugi.

Badugi is the devil's favorite game.

goofy - HUHU Badugi at this years get together? that would be a riot, and give you major bragging rights if you pwn me. yes?

TT--

Remember that Mason wasn't really a mathematician, as his job title indicated; he was a more like statistician (or something; I'm going from memory here). Which means he might have the stomach for combinatorics to know how good a 7 is. On the other hand, I've heard he's a complete nit, so who knows.

And yeah, poker's better than gossip.

All my best,

--Nate

Goofy--

Awesome. Shoot me a PM if you need to fill up a Badugi game. Or basically any other sort of game.

--Nate