respond to these jjjou812, you respond to everything else in this thread you dolt

Completely different. No points were at stake. The only people affected are the two who made the deal.

has anyone mentioned that souvenirs are for 8 year olds?

Your contribution to this thread would easily be surpassed by an 8 year old.

Seems pretty cut and dry

kevko_2000,

There isn't any significant dispute in this thread that he broke the rules. That is, on the basis of the information that is available, there seems to be a widespread consensus that he is "guilty".

The discussion in this thread revolves around the punishment - ie, is $57k a fair confiscation for this offence.


Think of an analogy from the "real world" - different people can be convicted for the same criminal act, yet receive different punishments. This is because despite them both being guilty, the circumstances are different.

or the judge is different.

Its obvious that there is more to this than has been disclosed. Ask any TD and they will tell you the chip count at the end of big tourneys is often short as people take chips for souvenirs (usually the small denoms to be fair). The punishment here is obviously way out of proportion (to the offence and to other punishments dished out for other offences). He did something which hasn't been disclosed but which the casino/WSOP do not wish to publicise or do not have strong enough proof of.

I think everyone realizes he broke the rules but disagree on punishment some think a slap on the wrist is fair while others feel Ceasars/PBKC was fair. He knew that taking chip/chips during play could result in the penalty assessed yet he took the gamble that he if caught would get a slap on the wrist which didn't happen. Since he admits to taking chip/chips in previous tourneys he probably didn't think he would be caught. But then most people that break rules/laws etc don't expect to be caught however the more times you break rules the more likelihood it is that you will get caught. He admitting previous thefts may have had a bearing on the punishment.

For your analogy to work, point out previous cases where chips were stolen from a tournament and different punishments were handed down for the offenders who were caught.

And then consider that if lesser punishments were handed out previously, is this a case of the judges sending a message that such acts will not be tolerated? Players are asking for harsher punishments, and In this case, the casino and WSOP are saying that no matter how much future business this player may generate, such acts are not tolerated.

I think what will be more interesting is the next time this happens. Do we see the same or similar punishment? If we see this with a more well known pro do they get banned as well?

Seems like if they don't doll out the full penalty they are only inviting people to take the risk trying the same thing. It really does hurt the integrity of the kennel club tourney's if they start turning the other cheek on blatant rule violations. Especially removing chips that could be used at a future date even if they don't consider intent as a factor. Seemed to me their hands are tied here.

That's $57k to that 1 guy but could result in much more losses on the part of the establishment if they no longer have the trust of the players playing their tourneys. I certainly would be concerned if the same regs who went deep and got caught stealing chips and got a slap on the wrist were now at my ft.
But I never get to ft's anyway so I gues my argument is invalid. lol

No, that's not what is required for my analogy to work. The analogy serves to illustrate a really very simple point, that there are two issues for discussion:

a) Is the guy guilty?

b) If so, what punishment should he face.

Quite reasonably, people can agree on (a) and disagree on (b).

Kevko's point about it being "cut and dry" appears to only be a comment on (a). I think that most people (me included) agree with Kevko here - that based on the information available, it appears likely that he did indeed break that rule.

Now that we've agreed on (a), we can move on to discussing (b) because that's the interesting part - that's what is not so "cut and dry".


As an aside, I once played in a tournament at Sydney's then Star City Casino in Australia. Someone took a tournament chip. Since the casino happened to have everyone's email address, they contacted the players and asked for it back. I understand that the player returned it, and life moved on.
The point that you're making (that deterrence is important) accidentally undermines one of the key reasons that the public reasoning for the punishment.

In the public statement, it was said that the intent of the player was not considered. If the intent of the player was irrelevant, then so is the whole concept of deterrence - because deterrence only works as a concept if someone is breaking the rules deliberately.

Someone who doesn't know they're breaking the rules (eg, someone who sees it as taking a souvenir that has no intrinsic value) can't possibly be deterred, because they don't even think it's a crime, let alone a serious one.

If you think that deterrence is important (and that's quite a reasonable point of view to hold) then you absolutely must consider the intent of the player - because otherwise you start punishing ignorance, not evil.
But I don't believe that it's a blatant rule violation unless you consider the intent of the offender.

If someone deliberately sets out to steal chips to use in a future event, that's clearly a blatant rule violation.

If someone takes what they believe is a souvenir with no intrinsic value, then that's an accident.

There are a lot of shades of grey here: fairness isn't a binary algorithm in the same way that poker is. Different people value different things in determining what is fair.


I don't think that future profitability of the poker operator should be a consideration in doing what is fair.

I accept that other people might think that a poker operator should consider such issues (I don't know why that would be a good thing for players!) but I certainly don't think that myself.

But there are several things at play here. The intent of the rules violator in this case does not matter. In the rules for the game that he agreed to. It is stated that removal of the gaming chips is not allowed. Therefore, why he did it does not matter. It is spelled out explicitly in the rules of the game. The rule does not go on to say 'unless you have an innocent sounding reason'. If you're going to commit a crime, part of a plan is planning the getaway. Part of that would be considering if you get caught, have a plausible excuse ready.

If we had video of him taking the chip, that might help clarify intent but would still not excuse the rule breakage. Did he just pick it up and pocket it in plain view as he was celebrating the win or was it superstitiously done at some point?

But at the end of the day, its a clear cut rule. You can argue the penalty, but its not going to change because it is a serious enough violation. To cost him the cash in the affected tournament is the minimum I would expect. For the ban from the casino and future WSOP events tells me they probably have more on him than one 25k chip.

We are ONLY arguing the penalty.

What makes it a "serious enough violation" to take $57k off him?

It isn't that others were harmed. It isn't that the integrity of the event was affected. It isn't that he had any evil intent.

If none of those three factors were an issue, how can your say that taking $57k is fair?

Josem: In the public statement, it was said that the intent of the player was not considered. If the intent of the player was irrelevant, then so is the whole concept of deterrence - because deterrence only works as a concept if someone is breaking the rules deliberately.


If a newbie in a $75 tournament took a 25 chip, or someone took a 25 chip from the WSOP main event, i could understand factoring intent into the punishment. The fact is this is a "professional" poker player who has 3 rings and tons of cashes. I just find it incredulous that some one of this caliber would even consider taking a chip for a "souvenir". I would think that the Casino(s) would have to take a hard line in this case, otherwise it's open season on tournaments.

Since he took the chip/chips during the tourney I think the disqualification took place at that time which was before the end of tourney.

While it was before the end of the tourney, the operators says that no one else was harmed and the integrity of the event wasn't affected.

I understand that there was a deal, and the thing was allegedly taken after the deal but before play had finished.

Yeah, THAT tournament wasn't affected (as far as we know). But swiping chips is straight-up theft and, while this guy MAY not have had any evil intent otherwise, we don't know that for sure, and other perps might not be so innocent.

To me, the banhammer isn't enough. Hit him where it hurts with a DQ. It's not like a fine for a traffic ticket, he was only getting that money because the casino hosted the event, and he violated their trust.

THIS

Josem, i would go one step further and say that in the context of gameplay, you can not chip steal from yourself. Rule 39A is describing known types of conduct in poker that effects the integrity of the game. The theft of the chip from the casino outside of gameplay would fall under their catch-all clause in 39d.

Also, i think that the casino went a step beyond not looking at his intent. The press release states:
"If rules infractions occur, we view incidents in the worst case scenario plausible..." So by this statement, they appear to base the punishment on an inference of worst possible intent.

Josem's 2+2 account maybe hacked by Chan Pelton??

Wait.... Josem, are YOU Chan Pelton ?

This is an interesting point.

If he has chips from other WSOPC events he won – or any event that had tourney-specific chips – it would indicate that he has a history of collecting souvenirs. If he has no other chips in his collection, then his explanation loses credibility. No, it doesn't prove anything per se, but it helps paint the picture.

Meh, maybe it's only interesting to me since I'm just now catching up on this thread. Based on this current page, it appears many of you have moved on from intent..

How do you prove his intent? His word? All we know is he stole at least one chip from this event and his statement that he's stolen them from other events. He's admitting to a history and pattern of theft and rule breaking.

He's a 'professional' poker player. I don't know about you, but in my various professions and expensive hobbies I take time to learn at least the basic rules of the things I'm involved in. When I invest thousands of dollars a year to potentially win tens of thousands or more, I'm going to know the rules of the games as well as possible.

In the current climate after chipgate, messing with tournament chips is a huge no-no. Even the semi-pros and regs know this. Its not rational to think of someone risking their career for a simple souvenir chip even if he's done it previously.

Prove that he was not collecting chips for future illicit use. Prove his innocent intent. If you can do both of those, I'll consider that this punishment may have been too harsh.

If he has other tournament chips in his 'collection' it just shows a history of theft and rule breaking, not intent. If he has five chips framed on a wall, it doesn't prove that there's not a safe behind the picture with 500 other stolen chips ready to be dumped in the ME in Vegas.

He did intend to manipulate the points race by paying off second place guy to chip dump to him. That fact cannot be argued.