This is what happens when you have Idiot Floor people getting a hard on about a possible collusion and making quick decisions.

Not only should he get his buy-in back and a public apology but the equity from his stack he was forced to forfeit relative to the field remaining

Wait, so if I get shortstacked, and talk to the guy I hate most at my table during break, I can raise/call any two cards and get him DQed if I lose?

Biggest freeroll ever. This is as good for poker as the rule where I'm not allowed to talk about my hand.

No the property can 86 at anytime and is standard when disqualifying a player for a gaming violation. The gaming investigation involves possible criminal charges which are usually not filed but can be.

True. But this also happens because there is so much cheating and collusion going on in poker too.

Pineapple888:

Reading the comments in this thread, (and especially Drew McIlvain's comments at reply # 83), prompted me to do a bit of research.

In their excellent gem of a book "The Rules of Poker: Essentials for Every Game" by Lou Krieger and Sheree Bykofsky; Lou and Sheree address this issue directly in the very first chapter where they discuss the two "Prime Directives" of poker: (1.) One player per hand, and (2.) Cards speak. Since this particular situation goes directly to the first directive, I'm going to quote verbatim several paragraphs from section 1.2, (i.e. "One Player Per Hand"), from Lou and Sheree's book.

<begin quotation>

1.2 One Player Per Hand

Poker is not a team competition, and each player is responsible for playing his or her hand without advice or assistance, either directly given or provided inadvertently by other players, dealers, or spectators to the game. It is the responsibility of all players in a game to make sure that this overriding directive is held firm.

The ramifications are broader than you might imagine. Not only does this mean that you cannot ask your neighbor, who may or may not be involved in the hand, what you should do or how you might play your hand - that goes without saying - but your neighbor also bears a responsibility not to assist you.

...

As you examine the more detailed rules, you may realize that all of the rules and punishments for cheating at poker are, in fact, violations of the one player per hand rule. Collusion by two players, marked cards, signals, cold decks - you know, you've seen all the movies - are methods cheaters design to circumvent that basic directive.

It's one player per hand, first, last and always. No hints, no comments, no statements, however innocently or altruistically rendered, that might lift the fog from one player's eyes and provide information to him that he did not infer or deduce for himself.

<end quotation>

Pineapple, your suggestion that Drew should have gone to the Tournament Director is spot on correct. The proper way to handle this situation would have been to walk this guy over to the TD and request that he repeat [verbatim] to the TD exactly what he had just said to Drew about dumping his chips. Had Drew done this, that gentleman would probably have been unceremoniously ejected from the tournament right on the spot and his chips taken out of play - with the obvious side benefit that Drew would not have suffered the calamity that befell him.

Former DJ

Exactly correct imo by not going to the TD and remaining quite about it he became part of the collusion.

what kind of colluders actually reduce their combined EV???

Seriously, the two hurt the amount of money they could be expected to win from the tournament.

And, just about every live tournament has some guy push all-in near the end of the period before re-entry or something like that and he verbally says, "well, time to get it all-in and double-up or go home" or something like that. That's pretty close to what happened here.

Chip dumpers, typically, don't get it in that live, either.

This all doesn't add up.

some people being pretty unreasonable expecting him to report it when some dude he doesn't even know tells him "i want to bust and go home, i hope you get my chips"

and i have a question: what if villain had been tilted at hero and told him in a frustrated way "alright pal you've been owning me all night so screw this **** i'm gonna gamble with you first chance i get, i want to double through you or go home and i think i'll get lucky". is he supposed to report it then?? because either way if he believes the guy the ramifications are pretty much the same even if the sentiment isn't

i don't think it's collusion if it was truly one-sided, it's just one guy choosing to do whatever dumb crap with the chips he paid for, and it's based on a statement hero can't even take at face value because poker players can lie about crap like that to get action. if this is really all there is to the story then it's a HORRIBLE ruling. even if he's actually supposed to tell the floor about this, it's a bizarre and unusual spot to be in and i have no idea how you can blame him that much for not knowing how to handle it. punishment doesn't fit the "crime" if you can even call it that. if there's more to the story we're not being told then that's another thing entirely

p.s. another thing to consider... when the guy got it in with K4s 30% equity do you honestly think he didn't want to win the pot? let's disqualify joe hachem for his 2005 win since some idiot named scott lazar "gave him a gamble"

This is ridiculous. Wonder what would have happened if Drew had AA in this spot as he would be just playing his hand. Shouldn't make a difference as 88's are a strong hand in this spot as well.

in more than 3 live tournaments lifetime, someone has asked me if i want to flip. ive never even considered reporting it.

in before lifetime ban of wsop/ept/wpt/gukpts?????????


still weve only heard 1 side of the story. for the guy not to be sufficiently compensated i think some kind of explaination should come forward.

If it had been Vanessa Rousso in the SB, everyone would have thought "aggressive call", shrugged their shoulders and just carried on.

First of all Harrahs nor any other casino will not make any public statement on this or any other 86'ing they consider it private between the parties involved. I was told the report will be available from Ms. Gaming Commission when their investigation is completed. So if you want to know just drop by their office and request a copy of their investigation since after the case is closed it will be public record.

lol how do they dq a player before an investigation is fully closed?

what if they conclude the investigation and find that he is innocent? they just put his reputation/life/bankroll at risk.

Harrahs disqualified the player the gaming commission just decides if it wants to pursue criminal charges. It is very rare for them to file criminal charges. A couple of years ago in Harrahs Tunica cash game a player was caught holding aces out and then using them in big pots, he was 86'd but gaming did not file criminal charges.

I find so much fail in all of your responses, and in this situation in general.

While i can certainly agree how it would appear "shady", and technically weve only heard 1 "side" (if that was in fact the person in question, not saying it wasnt but you never know).

A- He had already won a ring..and he had a pretty decent stack at the time from what i could tell...why would he risk that just to add, what was it like 1/5 to his stack?

B- According to his story, he said he got up from table first and the guy approached him. Unless they have video/audio of other "previous connections" between the two...how can they really hold this "random" conversation at any value? As he said, and im sure i wouldve been the same way, whatever you say man.

C- If the dealers and other players "heard the conversation", why wouldnt any of them speak up beforehand...instead of waiting to be interviewed and saying yeah i heard it, i heard everything..or whatever. Makes no sense.

D- He admitted his live mtt experience was limited....and as with myself who hasnt played many mtt live, much less WSOP events, how was he neccessarily suppose to know the right route to take? Its not like he's some seasoned pro, who should definately know all the rules and definately know better.

E- As many have pointed out...the hand basically played itself. This would be a complete no issue if a K wouldve spiked somewhere and he wouldve won the pot. The guy calls with a legit hand, THEN gets punished. I can see if maybe he called with an equally crappy hand..but wth else are you supposed to do in that situation as a player, period?

The main problem i have, as you have pointed out Tex..is that they will NEVER release a statement explaing the situation or what happened or details of evidence they have as to why they 86d him. Unless the Gaming Commission Report has specific details, which it probably wont since you said they are looking for possible illegal crime activity ad not why he was 86d, we will never know the full details.

Does he have any recourse as to an appeal proccess, or would even hiring a lawyer do him any good?

i obviously dont know the guy personally, but to basically have his poker career trashed/killed (since hes barred from ALL properties), over something as speculative as a referees pnalty call in an NFL/NBA game...is just pathetic.

This would all be null and void IF there was DEFINITE more to the story, but not releasing anyinfo atall imo makes the casino look terrible.

If this was an instance of chip dumping its the dumbest one ever. They do realize they were "dumping" on like a 60-40 hand right?

I have played quite a few live tournaments since 2004 and have been to Harrah's Tunica maybe 5 times.

IMO, this is probably what happened.

Maybe this Drew person was talking smack at the table, or rubbing some people there the wrong way.

He and the donk stand up from the table and have their "brief" conversation in soft hushed tones.

They come back and the donk makes the play in question which(even without this issue)would cause eyebrows to be raised. I mean, let's face it the K4 play was ridiculous. Anyways, Drew wins the pot and 1 or 2 guys at the table(the loud ones) start making a scene:

"Hey, wtf just happened??" "We just saw you whispering with this guy and now a few hands later he donks all his chips to you???" "You're colluding or something, WHERE'S THE FLOORMAN??"

Then the floor comes over and by then the whole table is into this yelling and yelling about collusion.

The floorman is a little overwhelmed and says he'll review the video footage. He reviews it and sees Drew and the donk huddling up and whispering(almost def not hearing what is being said)and then minutes later watching Drew take the rest of his chips with a "crazy bad" play.

The people at the table are still yelling about it and the floorman decides then to DQ Drew because of a "reasonable suspicion" of collusion based on players accounts of the incident as well as the video.

Look, obviously I am not 100% certain it played out that way but imo, it probably did.

The floorman obviously made a rush to judgment based on angry protests from Drew's tablemates and the video of the 2 talking away from the table.

I think a better solution would have been for Harrah's to confiscate the whole pot from Drew's stack and take it out of play. Drew should have been given some sort of verbal or even written warning about this with strict wording that any further evidence of collusion now or down the road will result in being 86'd permanently. Lastly, Drew should have received a 1 or 2 round penalty for being "unintentionally" caught up in something very serious.

Now people might disagree with me, but to treat a circuit ring winner who (has had no previous incidents I assume) like that was definitely OVERKILL.

Great post, one non-trivial error though is that Drew didn't call with 88, he shoved 88.

Can we get a name of the floorperson involved here?

People should be held responsible when their f'ups cost another person money.

I don't think it's widely known but in addition to cameras casinos have directional microphones installed in the surveillance bubbles in the ceiling. The cameras are so good that in any event it's possible for someone in surveillance to also read lips. The casino doesn't have to show cause why it threw the patron out. I guess the person who was thrown out could sue for his buy-in back but that would be about it. Unless a patron is detained against their will or physically abused it is hard to beat an eviction from the premises. That would be the only time where the casino is going to have to show the evidence on what they did to a person.

lol i remember a few years ago in some $1k tournament at LAPC, guy loses majority of his chips shortly before the break & close to the bubble. During the break he approaches me about dumping the chips to me to get his original buyin back. I ignored him and walked away and informed Matt Savage before the break was over about the situation to keep a close eye on the guy.

Terrible decision. Sorry this happened to you Drew.

I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about as the sort of surveillance you are talking about is reserved for high limit areas if it's in the casino at all. The regular floors are much more a free-for-all than you would ever imagine. They cannot hear squat.

rebuy obv.