No way to prove this ?

This is not some "woman having a position in a poker dealers organization"; it is a WSOP creation to train propsective dealers online for the WSOP.

The standard is the clear appearance of impropriety and bias in a regulated gaming environment.

They both work for the same business...

Just look at that link, she works for the WSOP-branded dealer academy .... which prominently features the two of them as

Stacy Matuson
Chief of Operations of all online and land based operations & Co-founder

and him as

Jack Effel
WSOP Vice President of International Poker Operations & Director

...and the whole site is simply an online training course to staff the WSOP.

Although gaming regulations do not prohibit the practice of allowing your own staff to play in your own poker games, Caesars SHOULD adopt a policy that NO one who works for them is allowed to play in the Main Event.

It would avoid the clear appearance of impropriety incidents like this ruling create.

Yeah, I'm far from ready to join in the "it's because she's a woman" conclusion jumping, but that sure doesn't look good. Even if there was 0 bias in that particular ruling, perception matters. If you work with or supervise someone, you should remove yourself from making rulings involving them whenever possible.

I just didn't want to say "I know for a fact it was a biased decision". I agree with everything you said and believe it was a biased decision. Either way it was a conflict of interest.


You would know more than I would, is there some sort of gaming rule that says you can't make decisions when dealing with someone you have a personal/business connection to?

I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's not something that's been thought of. But it does seem like common sense.

I know of people in positions where every potential type of conflict of interest isn't spelled out, but they still avoid situations where there could be one.

If this is something that hasn't come up before and they haven't given any thought to, it's probably time they did.

Think he was given a warning of sorts by the players before director came. Bothering someone shouldnt be part of poker. Talking can but he was bothering her in my view

This is the most ridiculous post. You might want to inform yourself that our school does not work for Caesars. We are a dealer school that allows dealers to train "for" the Wsop. There is 0 conflict of interest. Jack stepped in because the floor man was not getting anywhere or respected by William. The rules that any one can attain clearly state you cannot disclose contents of your hand ,
Opponents hand,
Table talk has even more
Specific rules when you are NOT closing the action.
He had been breaking rules for days and they were watching him.
After repeated warnings by dealer and floor, with much leniency they stepped in.you will see more on day 7 coverage. He gets penalized again and no one worked at a dealer school that was his opponent them. You only see small clips of the reality of the situation and so your opinion is only on that. I assure you the people who were actually on the table can give you a very clear view other than myself. 👍🏻

Hey guys, Stacy Matuson here. I wanted to clarify a few things on my behalf after experiencing the social media roar on the televised hands between myself and Kasouff during the Main Event.
Firstly I'd like to say the few minute clips you saw on ESPN is not a complete depiction of the entire story. It's extremely easy to have a strong opinion yet it's important to know both sides and sorta
Experience a realistic depiction of the situation . I'm totally fine even happy that we got air time and has begun important topics in the world of poker and poker players.

Was I thrilled that couple of the 1100+ hands that I played were those ones televised? Lol would you? Its obviously not a total picture of my Main Event. I played my heart out in that tourney to try and be one of the first females to make the Nov 9. Naturally I would have loved some of the better plays to be on tv, but controversy makes good tv, right?
I would like to add that if you want a clear understanding , the only ones that know the entire story were those who were actually sitting on the table for the entire day 5. Ask them.

Ok first let me discuss the hand of Queens that most people were upset that I folded. Even though some people watching on the tv thought William did such a brilliant job to bluff me out. That's not entirely true. Honestly . No one was more regretful of folding than me.
It was my Main Event that I had endured for 5 days. No one else's
Here's how it happened for me.

Prior to me getting the queens hand, William and I had gotten involved with the straight flush hand. During the entire time we were playing , William was talking non stop in every hand that he was involved in, as he proudly states that is his kind of play. Kudos to him, it's nothing new in poker and I myself enjoy heads up banter. Do you think I survived playing since 2000 without experiencing that? Lol. However, becoming part of the official training dealer school I have become over the year immersing myself with the rules the Wsop has set in place and they have found it necessary to keep order and to have boundaries for all playing in the Main Event.
I agree with all of them, I think they are fair to each player. Some of them that directly pertain to this hand are
You cannot discuss the pot total
Tell your opponent to call or fold
you cannot disclose the content of your hand or discuss the content of your opponents hand when you are *NOT closing the action.
If I had gone all in and William was set to call, he could say anything he wanted with the exception of personal attacking your opponent( which didn't happen of course etc.. But he wasn't closing the action. He had check raised on the river and it was me who had to close the action.

Did I think it was well within my right like any other player the chance to think? Sure.
Do you think for a different example someone say has the right to stand up and scream in your ear til you make a decision for your tournament life or do we show dignity for the game ( we were on day 5 of day 7 for a prestigious event
Only you can decide that, but I believe there has to be boundaries.

When William was breaking the rules constantly, I did NOT call a floor. I was trying to take myself out of the coaching of dealers business and be a player only, trying like everyone there to make history.
It was unbelievable for me to watch because I had never seen anyone on my table ever in 20 years have disregard or for the floors warnings and ignore Jack the Vp of the Wsop.
That definitely took me off my game. That I 100% cop to.

When the clock was called on me without natural time to think, 3/4 of the table agreed I had not abused or
had enough time warranting that.
I wish I would have asked the floor to consider but it all happened so fast. Hindsight is always 20/20'

The time calling guy had just sat down within a hand and hadn't experienced Kasouff using a lot of time when anytime decisions were on him. Yes I was visibly upset.
I do have a regret of asking why his hand was still live, it wasn't angling. I just couldn't believe his disregard for people running the tourney. That was my experience, it was shocking to me.

I apologize publicly for saying that.
I also was pretty exhausted by day 5 and if you haven't experienced going that deep, hard to understand the mindset that can occur.
You can only know when you've been there for sure.

Back to the queens, here's why I folded
1) he had similar table talk when he had the straight flush.
After the straight flush hand, someone whispered to me that he showed the cameras the straight flush so that popped into my head while trying to read him.
The clock made me feel pressured, since I wanted to replay the hand in my head. No 60 seconds of quiet wasn't enough for me to take a chance with my tournament life.
I thought if I call and I'm wrong I'm out here. If I fold and he indeed bluffed me, it's fine I still have 500k to build back up and I'm still in.
I had done it the round before to 1.7million, so under pressure I made
an incorrect fold. The whole time I was saying to myself I know I have him beat yet...
There's no way in a tournament of this magnitude that you don't end up folding the best hand or don't get bluffed. The tournament is about survival as well. Don't forget the very next hand I had a 83% chance vs KJ to go right back up to over a million going all in with Aces.
I have no problem with Williams table talk, or his 9 high like a boss lol whatever , just play your game within the rules they have set in place.

Did I call a floor man ? The answer to that is No.
They surrounded out table because of the zoo that was happening with camera crew etc and probably overheard the dealer warning William repeatedly.
William was unaware of any of the rules. Anyone on the table can attest to that.

Lastly I have the utmost respect for the game, for everyone I was playing with , even William and I think the floor and Jack handled it extremely professional. So did everyone on our table that day.
I'm not new to poker, I'm not weak because I'm female nor did I have a white knight that came to my defense. It was just an unusual circumstance and I have no ill will toward anyone just wish I called with the queens
Thank you to everyone that has supported me and shown a lot of love. See you next year at the Wsop.

this, bad decision Jack, like seriously, how can you watch this and think your right?

I bet you do wish you'd have called. . .

Stacy,

I'm not saying there *is* a conflict of interest, but when the bottom of https://www.wsopdealeracademy.com/about/ looks like this



with your and Jack Effel's faces literally right next to one another - It doesn't appear to be a huge leap to assume that there is one. So I'm going to have to take issue with you calling Geyser's post "the most ridiculous post"

edit: I didn't even scroll down all the way. The bottom of the site literally says 2015 Caesars Interactive Entertainment. So that is pretty hard to square with

???

I understand your confusion but there was no conflict , one of our online programs is training dealers games for the Wsop that they don't normally deal in rig and mortar poker rooms. But Jack doing his rulings did not have anything to do with but of William breaking Wsop rules. Have a good one.

Let me be clear the online programs are for career training opportunities and the Wsop did not create them, only assist in making sure the procedures followed protocol.

Sorry but I'm done with this topic, it was my tournament and experience and one hand will never overshadow the hard work it was for me to get through all those days.
I wonder when I see negative posts how far did you guys go? Why so angry when none of it has to do with any of you personally. Seems strange but I'm already on to the next. take care

Well the question wasn't really "Why did Jack make the ruling he did"

My biggest question at the moment is why you would say

When the site is covered in WSOP branding and has a Caesars Interactive Entertainment copyright at the bottom

Maybe there is just a misunderstanding due to imprecise language. However, regardless of whatever the ownership of the WSOP Dealer Academy is in a technical sense, the appearance on the website is that Caesars owns it and there could be a potential conflict of interest.

This obvious branding combined with your condescending first post in this thread -

is really leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

imo:

- Jack handled this well
- Kassouf pushed the line more than once after being warned so a penalty was well in order
- I would prefer the rules allow any table talk when HU (even showing a card) but as long as there are restrictions they should be enforced
- Matuson invited the talk to some extent so her position of then complaining about it seems contradictory

I'll start this post by saying that I actually think the ruling was fine, lest anyone think my opinion on this matter is coloured by the ruling itself.

If you work with Jack in another capacity, then there was absolutely, unquestionably a conflict of interest. Whether the ruling was made 100% impartially or not doesn't matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

I've bolded the one sentence that really sums it up.

If you don't work together in any way, the website that has been linked a couple of times in this thread certainly will give rise to the perception of a conflict, which can be just as damaging.

Now it could be that the dynamics of the tournament mean it isn't realistic to avoid conflicts like this - I have no idea how quickly this situation escalated, whether there would be anyone else available to come and rule in Jack's place, etc. And then there's the issue of how many players Jack (and other TDs) would know well enough to also put him in a conflict - is it realistic to avoid every conflict?

I don't know enough about the situation, your working relationship, tournament rules with regard to conflict, or how realistic it is to avoid conflicts, to say for sure that this is a problem. But there clearly was a conflict here, unless the website is implying a working relationship that doesn't exist.

Stracey "me me me me me me" Munson

We could start with ....

Domain Name: wsopdealeracademy.com
...

Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization: Caesars Interactive Entertainment, Inc.
Registrant Street: One Caesars Palace Drive,
Registrant City: Las Vegas
Registrant State/Province: NV
Registrant Postal Code: 89109
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.7024944850...

Registrant Email: caesarsdomains@caesars.com"

WSOP is not only your marketing name, Caesars Interactive is the owner of both the trademark used and the domain name that clearly makes the direct connection. There must be some very generous relationship there if your business does NOT have any business agreement and NOT work for the WSOP by providing dealer training/screening and testing prior to hire.

Then, there is the screen shot posted above itt.

Look, it is ridiculous to claim there is no connection that creates an appearance of impropriety.

(This has zero to do with the merits of a particular ruling on one hand you played. It has to do with a more general policy favoring the integrity of the gaming provided by Caesars. If you read my other posts above on the penalty, I actually thought the ruling was justified, I just question whether Caesars should allow this sort of perceived conflict to arise . I really think you selfishly do the WSOP a disservice in putting its brand integrity on the spot by playing in any tournament where you've trained and pre-screened their dealers..... )

I call your weak posting, on your inability to understand a perception of impropriety under the circumstances, ..... ftw, with "9 high like a boss".

William Kassouf "9 high like a boss"
Stacey Matuson "I lie like a boss"

Stacey. props on owning that calling for his hand to be dead was bad form. I'm just curious, how many minutes was it before the guy called time?

I have to say, Stacey its very nice of you to respond. I was quick to judge but what you said is quite reasonable and I can accept most of it.

What I cannot accept is how big of a dick Jack Effel is. Its far from the first time I've seen his arrogance and smugness on TV. It's what he does - hes on a power trip all the time. He just looks and acts like a massive douche.

Then theres another issue - an actual and/or appearance of impropriety because of the conflict of interest between yourself and Jack. How much of your relationship weighed in on his decision, nobody knows, but it certainly does seem like a distinct possibility. Also, you're just flat out lying about the whole "I'm not involved with Ceasar" thing.

There is one good thing that came out of this thread though (for me at least anyway). Now that I know you've read it, Jack has certainly read it, and now he can truly understand how much of an idiot he is.

Best part was when a real boss King highed this guy and said nothing.

he also owned him again with a bluff shove preflop, and mr. coconuts just hollywooded with nothing and wasted everyone's time before mucking.

that was truly epic. K high like a boss.

I was curious about what happened down the road, thanks.

1. Stacy could voluntarily decide to NOT enter any tournament where her company has trained, screened and placed dealers, perhaps in some sort of business relationship with the TD or not. Perception problem solved. Her choice at this point. If she doesn't make it, Caesars should make it for her and for Jack. (Again, there is nothing illegal, Nevada Gaming historically has allowed room even for a casino licensee to play poker in his own joint.)

2. The reason I am confident there IS a working relationship is because everything screams that there is. There is ZERO wrong with the WSOP running/contracting for training and screening of prospective dealers. It is a good thing they do so. If there is no working relationship, when the website screams there is, then that might raise a different concern. Cf. http://gizmodo.com/itt-is-officially-closing-1786243058(federal loan money involved)

Denying there is any business relationship stems from ridiculous arrogance. Next thing Stacy may post might be that it depends upon how you define the word "is".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

Jack Effel looked bad in the video. He's looking worse now.