It's a little different though right? In a restaurant you won't have a line out the door because of an abusive customer, and if he's thrown out the customers won't all leave.

Live poker sucks a lot for all these reasons, but it kind of is what it is and everyone benefits financially from it, not just the players.

I play with a particular fun player who has been banned from countless rooms for abuse, but I think that's kind of wrong since it's always verbal and most dealers view him as a worthy gamble - sometimes he runs good during a down and you make hundreds of dollars, sometimes he runs bad and you get nothing from him but berating. (Though regs usually will up their tipping a lot when that happens)

I'm not sure. I think this might be kind of a pro-centric view on things.

If you're a solid player, then you won't be too phased by angleshooting or extremely obnoxious whales. But that doesn't apply to everybody. You might even be in the minority, depending on what you play. There are going to be recreational players that have crossed paths with your unruly customer, who got berated too much, or tricked into showing down prematurely, or whatever else. Those players are out of the ecosystem forever, which hasn't been factored into your (or the casino's) hourly.

I'm not certain that this is always the case, but it's something to consider.

everyone can see the poll standings

/thread

In my experience of live cash games it's pros, semi-pros, and the occasional rec player who has a brilliant but evil mind that do most of the angle shooting.

The classic rec/whale/fish/value player/spot/mark/fun player, whatever you want to call them, is not typically the angle shooter.

One of the reasons to play in a casino poker room rather than a home game is to have a safe, structured environment where the rules are applied equally to everyone. The limits to angle-shooting and obnoxious behavior that are enforced by the room should apply equally to whales and nits.

If you think that poker rooms should cater to the whims of whales at the poker table, then you should believe that poker rooms should be allowed to have more tolerance for cheaters at the poker table if they drop more money at pit games and slots.

I guess LATB (and Harry) has gotten tired of the controversy. The videos of the incident have been taken down.

I just caught the last 30 minutes or so of "Around the Felt" and all I heard was Ryan saying that Harry is not banned and will be there on Thursday.

I was just wondering if anyone watched the show and could summarize what they said about this whole incident.

I'll have to watch the replay, but Feldman seemingly loves Harry. He thinks fans tune in to watch Harry, makes a big deal about when Harry is on, and took a very very PC stance during the incident and talking about it on last Friday's show. The guy's photo is on their wall of fame and they use him to advertise LATB

Which I guess I get... I mean, if you're buddies what can you do. Point is, I don't see them flaming Harry on the show. I imagine it was something like "It was a weird spot, hard to say what's right or wrong... Wish they would've worked something out together on their own"

From LATB's "Talk Show" on Monday hosted by Feldman

- Situation was a misunderstanding/disagreement.
- Bike management has taken care of the situation and all parties are satisfied, Bike always takes care of its players.
- We're moving forward and learning from this.
- Feldman doesn't think Harry had any bad intentions, wasn't angling, wasn't trying to get an advantage
- He says a minute later that after seeing Chris's hand, he changed his mind (Seems at least somewhat advangtagey)
- Only issue in his mind is when you make a [hand shake type] agreement, is it OK to ever not go through with it. These things aren't legally biding...

I then stopped watching

+1

I have a fairly thick skin, and having annoying players at the table is part of it, but I draw the line at cheating and angling players, or casinos that turn a blind eye to them. I know some people won't have the choice, but most of us can find a better game.

Thank you for taking the time to recap that for us, much appreciated.

I must have come into the show, as you left, so I got to listen to 3 people call into the show and just blah blah and boy, was that something. I was cracking up looking at Dan Zack as he was trying to maintain some composure with some of what he was listening to.....LOL!!

I do like the one thing that was discussed and that was the 200/400(?) HU series of matches that he is going to have with Garrett....that sounds like it is going to be a lot of fun.

Also laughing at Dan enjoying the chat trying to get Garretts new nickname of "Peach" to stick....

I think the "verbal is binding" rule that is enforced in EVERY poker room in the US should extend to running it twice for rooms that chose to allow it. You would not let a player announce "check!" and then allow him to say "no no no wait! I've changed my mind! I bet." This would never fly! Once both players agree to run it twice the decision should be LOCKED IN. The dealer doesn't need the extra stress of listening/worrying if someone is going to change their mind mid deal.

I think fish love running it twice and can be good for the game/fun. I definitely don't think it should be banned from the Bike or any other casino.

PS Harry is a scumbag.. just kidding Harry.

Last nights 5/5/10 they said multiple times LATB won't run it twice anymore, then had a hand where both players tried to have a 'gentleman's agreement' that didn't happen and they just ran it once.

So looks like no more running it twice on LATB.

Harry is likely not really a scumbag. He's just playing one on a Television Show. All dramas need a "bad guy"!

Banning it is a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Just create a framework of unwritten rules for running it twice and inform all players and floor staff of the rules.

Reminds me of a poker room I used to play in where one or two regs who were a big part of the regular line up and played degen sessions most days of the week but who lived over an hour's drive away used to phone ahead and go on the list for the DC game, of which there was usually only one 8 handed table running.

A couple of short stacking semi-regs who lived 10 to 15 minutes away started complaining that people who were not physically in the room were ahead of them on the list.

So the room banned phoning ahead completely. Straight afterwards the game started to die because regs didn't want to travel 90 minutes and wait 2+ hours for a seat, so in the end there was often no game for anyone.

Banning running it twice at LATB won't have quite as drastic an effect as the above but it will still damage the games to a degree.

If it's true they are banning it, then it surprises me as the people running LATB come across as smart cookies.

P.S. "No" on the poll is steadily rallying. Many "Yes" voters rushed to judgement IMO.

Why unwritten? Do you mean unwritten as in clear, unambiguous rules that are literally not written down but just exist in the minds of poker room staff? Or do you mean to keep running it twice as a gentleman's agreement with potential for ambiguity?

The rule that makes sense to me is that you can run it twice in games with a time rake and when two players are all-in, the dealer asks once or twice, and if the players don't agree to run it twice within five seconds, you run it once. I believe that a well-run poker room needs to establish that the inmates don't run the asylum and that the rulebook is not more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

Donators like Harry get special rules, get over it. There's a guy in a game I play that is constantly calling the floor over nothing, having the dealer double count bets, claims he didn't act yet etc... but he is such a lagtard that no one says a word and if they did the rest of us would tell them to stfu. You want these people in your game? Deal with it.

So now the special rule is no running it twice and everyone should stfu?

Very scumbag move from Harry.

It doesn't even matter if he saw the turn card or not before making his decision.

They had already agreed to run it twice before the hand was exposed. He only changes his mind after he sees what he is up against. He could have asked to see the hand in the negotiation phase if that was a determining factor for him.

I would be seeking revenge.

I value maximizing fairness over maximizing my own personal EV. While I might be more willing to put up with more bad behavior than other players, I will always support another player's right to complain about things that bother them, so long as they have a valid complaint. If the table wants to bump the stakes up and there is one hold-out, I will defend that player's right to say no and I will discourage my table-mates from trying to bully and harass that player so he changes his vote or leaves, even though it costs me money.

Yes I mean the part you bolded, and the rules conveyed to all players.

Maybe something like you suggested with the dealer after hearing agreement placing two 1 dollar chips next to the board, then asking one final time to the players, "running it twice?". If he/she gets a "yes" from both players it is binding regardless of anything else that then happens.

If he/she doesn't hear a clear "yes" from both players then he/she places the 2 x 1 dollar chips back in the dealer's tray and deals only once. Again it is binding regardless of anything else that then happens.

I think not having the run it twice option will put off some players from playing at higher stakes especially.

Not having the option to request it of your opponent also changes game play slightly as players will be less likely to all in check raise (big) draws now that they know that they have less opportunity to run it twice and flatten out their equity variance.

I suppose not having the run it twice request option might also create some reverse psychology levels at higher stakes whereby a check raise all in on the flop or turn might look like a stronger hand than it perhaps is.

This is not necessarily a problem for the room if those players just move down in stakes. It might even be better for the room if that is the result of not allowing players to run it twice.

.
If it's unwritten, how does that prevent Harry from doing what he did? He could still make the statement that running it twice isn't even in the bi-laws(or however he phrased it).

If they do something like you suggest and a player changes his mind, what's to prevent the player from going to the state gaming commission?

Also, you alluded to informing all the players. How would new players know about this? Are you having the dealer do this before each and every session and every time a new player sits down?

The rules of the casino should either have a specific procedure for running it twice or disallow it completely.

My valuable contribution to this thread is god bless no more run it twice. It is so so bad for poker in so many ways. People don’t realize Harry and I planned and executed this whole thing out flawlessly.