How so? Harm was done by him taking the chip with the intention of entering it back into a future tournament. I hope the ban holds for life. Maybe, he will take his "job" more serious.

You said that your disagree with those that said there was no harm done, and you agree with the WSOP. It was the WSOP/pkbc who confirmed that there was no harm done.

You say that the intention of the guy was important, and you agree with the WSOP. It was the WSOP/pkbc who said that his intention should not be considered.

Did this guy get arrested?

Official Statement: "PBKC’s review confirms that the integrity of the event was in no way compromised, and the impact of the incident only caused harm to the perpetrator himself."


Less meme skills, more reading skills before you participate further.

This thread took a weird turn where most everyone seemed to disregard the arguments and just post the standard "OMG you think he is innocent, OMG you think he should not be banned, OMG he deserves death sentence".

Kudos to Josem and a few others for trying to keep it on track, but it seems pointless.

Everyone with a brain has agreed, since day 1, that this guy committed a crime by stealing a chip. At no point did anyone (that I remember) suggest he should not be punished for stealing that chip.
The discussion, even prior to the announcement by PBKC/WSOP, revolved around the deserved punishment.
I agree with Josem 100%, that the banning from all properties and events, forfeiture of points, and anything else related to his future participation with the companies, is OK, warranted and acceptable. The only thing being debated is the prize money taken from him, where the PBKC openly admits that his crime had no impact on the tournament that generated that prize money.
No matter how bad of a person he is, if the story that has been openly reported is the extent of the info, this guy would be crazy not to file suit. And he will win or they will settle.

Just throwing this out there, but assuming people like this guy (and other future perpetrators of similar actions) could possibly get reinstated to play events again...

1) Should there be a "probation" period where they are either limited to certain events (maybe solely the Main Event or just one event per series)?
2) Should there be a person they must report their exact chip stack to with some sort of dealer sign-off (maybe per level or per new dealer)?
3) Would people be more comfortable with letting him play sooner (ie, not a perma-ban) if there was tracking of this person's stack throughout the tournament and no chance to add chips?

Without reading every post, it seems people here want to punish and deter, but not to rehabilitate and offer second chances. Even pro athletes who are banned for part of a season are typically welcomed back but must go through extensive testing or counseling (depending on the reason for banishment) when they return.

Until there is a player sanctioning body like USBC for bowlers, it is going to be near impossible to globally ban or impose probationary restrictions on a player.

They're ignoring your asinine comment because the real issue under consideration is the confiscation of the full prize amount ($57k).

The WSOP/c can minimize the harm done (in the meta game, i.e. the points races) by disqualifying the offender from the points races, moving people up, etc. This is a separate issue from the harm done within the tournament itself.

Since the club and the WSOP/c have both said that there was no harm done ("the integrity of the event wasn't compromised"), then what's the justification for confiscating the prize amount? This is apart from the reason for the points race disqualifications.

Another way of answering your implied question is that the club itself said that he harmed only himself.

It amazes me that the supporters who feel the decision is 100% correct have ALL also claim there is information not shared by the PB that either does justify or would justify the harshest penalties in this instance. If such information truly exists (which I doubt) and was relevant to the punishment, it should be released as the basis for their decision. Msavage and BigTex should not keep us in the dark either.

Josem has simply pointed out that the PB's penalty is not logical based upon the facts as they reported them. Over half the polled players agree with him and felt other penalties would have been appropriate.

When the casino can extend DQ a player for any penalty for any violation from cheating to offensive personal hygiene because the rules make them omnipotent, i would expect the players would require, at a minimum, transparency in the decision making process. Instead, we are being offered the ******ed excuses that the casino is protecting the players, itself or the perception of safety in future tournament by having the casino lie about why they took this guy's prize money.

I don't about Matt but info I got was told in confidence therefore I am not at liberty to make it public. Also I am sure the WSOP/PBKC lawyers structured their press release and told them what they could devulge publicly. I have never known the WSOP to reveal their evidence to the public in cases like this. I'm not sure who runs gaming in Florida but it has to be some form of government entity and by law the report (in most states) should be available for your inspection.

If the PB has additional information that was relevant to its published decision, it should be disclosed by PB, not you, and it should have been disclosed initially. Until they do, I have even less confidence that they made "a correct" decision, given their reported findings and conclusions.

I know of no other cases that involve a DQ or an 86 where the casino has released more info in a press release than what PBKC has so if you know of one please inform us. Also as I stated the gaming authority in Florida will have all the info and normally that is available to the public. In a couple of cases in Tunica I was courious and found out the reasons etc from gaming since that is a public record.

In most DQs there is no press release, just a report to gaming (which can then be published too) because there is no public interest. But you are an expert at missing the point: SINCE the casino issued a press release, IF it has additional facts it deemed relevant to the decision and punishment, it should disclose them and not just gossip such facts with other players or TDs.

No one forced the casino to put out an ill-reasoned, half factual,press release to begin with.

1. So a known cheat is allowed only to play in one game of the event, perhaps only the ME of the tournament?
2. What good does reporting the stack do? Someone has to sit with him and watch every hand that is won or lost and keep track. Otherwise chips can still be slipped in.
3. How do you propose to track a stack throughout the entire event?

He can still play any game he wants, as long as its not on a Ceasars property, WSOP event, or PBKC. This is not a sports league. Its a game in which he decided to cheat. If it affects his future opportunities, he should have thought of that before committing the crime.

It's really a weird case. Their own press release basically exonerated the guy by claiming his crime had no impact on the tournament.
All they would have had to do is said that his theft may have, they investigated and found enough evidence to confiscate his money.

Right, and according to the 100%ers, either the press release contains lies to appease the general public or the the tournament integrity was compromised....

completely agree. ban him but I think he needs to get paid

I was just throwing the idea of "probation" out to discuss, not trying to make a statement about what happened or what I think should happen. However, I will try to respond to your responses.

1) Limiting play to one event prevents accumulating tournament chips from early events to use in the Main Event. Personally, I think there could/should be a separate set of chips for Main Events--specifically the WSOP Main. Yeah it would be an increase in rake if the WSOP made new chips every year for the Main, but they'd get some money back in sales of souvenir chips after the tournament ended. Non-WSOP Mains protect integrity of their events. Also, multiple flights could use multiple chip color sets and swap one of the Days for Day 2. So if color set A is used Day 1A and color set B is used Day 1B, color down Day 1B's chips to color set A for the start of Day 2. Eliminates using 1A chips on 1B, and you'd only need the first day's worth of 1B chips available (ie, no 25k, 100k, etc chips).

2 & 3) The Probationary Player has a card that he lists his chip stack and is signed off by each outgoing/incoming dealer (usually dealers sign in at a table when they sit down... this would be one more quick task). A huge jump in chip stack without large pots won would be suspicious. This might become time consuming if this was done for an entire table, but only a marginal amount of time for just one Probationary Player (perhaps done by the outgoing dealer so the incoming one can begin, verify the stack with the outgoing one, and continue without slowing down the table). This is up to the responsibility of the Probationary Player to get signed off and could result in disqualification if he doesn't.

So if the stack is $20k, the Probationary Player wins two ~2k pots, and the outgoing dealer counts down $29k, that $5k chip jump would be grounds for notifying the TD who would then have security check the tapes.

Again, I was just trying to throw something out as a topic for discussion.

What if he cheats this time by pocketing chips to give to a partner? Some dealers have enough just running their table now without adding to their responsibilities. To me it is just easier to 86 the cheater.

1. So the thieving players buy in on day 1a and steal their chips then. Then give the chips to their partners who make day 2 from 1b. The 1b guys feed the chips back in on day 2. Extra chips are found and suspicion goes to 1a players as 1b players could not possibly have chips from 1a. You would need a different chip set for every flight and color them down at the end of each day.

2 &3. So I'm at a table with a probationary player and get penalized for that? The dealer will be slower having to count and keep track of all the pots won and lost by probationary player during the down. Then we lose time at the dealer change while they count down one stack because we're giving a known cheater an opportunity to rehab himself. How well will a part time dealer handle this? What happen when they have to call floor because they lost count and forgot a +/-5k pot?

And I'm just discussing back.

I don't have answers... just trying to ask questions to come up with solutions so that people get "punishment and rehabilitation" rather than the death penalty. I guess I forgot that we're dealing with casinos in which 86'ing is a regular part of the business and not a public place. Nevermind...

Despite trying to rig the points race, I do feel the penalty based upon evidence provided is rather excessive.

I'm not sure it is excessive in this particular case. The reason is that he admitted to stealing chips in previous tournaments as well. He was caught stealing a chip. His excuse seems to be "I've done this before, why is it a problem now". Its a problem now because he got caught and he knows it. I'm not convinced that without that confession (or the WSOP having potential evidence of previous similar acts) that it would have been quite so severe.

In the current climate, messing with the chips cannot be tolerated and this sends the message that it won't be by the casinos. This is an action as much to punish the criminal in the case as it is for the casinos to make a statement going forward that they are taking these things very seriously. So when something does get by them in the future in a tournament and they [potentially] get sued, they have something to point to as to the penalties and actions they've taken to curb these cheating efforts.

There is no chance the state was involved because the gaming division in Florida does not have the authority to conduct this type of investigation as some of us have pointed out in response to those claiming the state would or has done anything.