The decision to Stop hand for hand and then come back the next day to redraw and continue the hand for hand was incredibly bad.

They eventually got it right, but were basically asking one or two players what they should do.

Imagine you are one of the shorter stacks. We finish the 6 hand for hand deals, and you are on the button. No one busts, and they decide to come back to four different 7 handed tables the next day.

The redraw puts u in the bb again which defeats the entire purpose of the hand for hand procedure.

The bottom line is once u start hand for hand, it must be played out, no matter how long it takes, to be equitable to all plsyers involved.

+1. If the cash cames werent bad enough, now they're just destroying their tourneys too. I guess if ur I'm CT & wanna play cards, just head to Mohegan Sun.

+1 to Mercier & other pros callin this nonsense out on twitter and lettin people know what's goin on - Foxwoods is gummin it up pretty friggin bad for a $10k entry.

Being old is not a factor here. I don't give any breaks to folks whether they are young or old, however the house announces four hands more, it impacts everyone's strategy and may change the math of the situation to hurt someone. The joint has to keep its word. In the old days at Binion's, the house would make rulings favorable to Las Vegas resisdents, regulars. Once I went all in with AA against two guys who each had a pair of Jacks. Later, the floor ruled I didn't go all in against the biggest stack and gave the guy back hundreds, even though my whole stack was sitting in the center. I've seen Bellagio floor rule for the regular when it was pure theft. A flush on the board and both announced they didn't have a diamond. Tourist threw his hand away, and regular claimed whole pot. House man a thief.

I saw this confused old man throw his cards aways, and then raise a bet, and put a lot of money out there. I told Jack Binion who gave the guy his money back. He was a regular at the Series and was really old.

thanks for the random unrelated stores johnny hughes!

+1. It's not a matter of 'he woulda busted anyway' or 'he didn't object.' you don't call an audible for the sake of convenience. Situations like this hurt poker as a whole.

Foxwoods floor staff makes it up as they go along.

Agree with charder and Chainsaw. They eventually reached the right decision, you should never redraw during hand-for-hand.

I've played with Melville quite a few times. He's an experienced player who FTed the NAPT Mohegan event last year and won $150,000.

If everyone in the field agreed on the procedure, and it was in fact the right thing to do, then I don't see what the issue is.

Ouch.

I'm guessing that the floor just didn't really know any better, or consider why this was totally unfair. Ofc no excuse.

I think the main reasons why the pros don't travel to FW for the WPT as much is because of the difficulty of travel, lack of big action, lots of major events now and yah, sloppy floor managers.

Seems to me this is pretty much the deal, with doublejoker's input regarding the redraw/blinds/hand for hand situation helping. Even if the guy wasn't a clueless elder, isn't it better to just stick to what they said they were going to do?

joke?

both incredibly true

So rules only apply to bolder players and not quieter types who don't like to cause a scene? That is why you have guys there to run the tournament, so that it isn't just whoever screams the loudest makes the rules...

You don't make rulings based on who is objecting...you make a ruling based on what is in the best interests of the game/ what is fair....some people are easily intimidated and/or don't like to piss people off, they still deserve to a fair game.

I wasn't there & I'm not looking to pick a fight, but it's a bit of a stretch to think you were doing the shortest stack left a favor by effectively bubbling him out. I'm curious to know how much the 2nd shortest stack had left and how me made out after. From what I've read, people started busting out early today. It theoretically possible yesterday's bubble could've gotten a good redraw and lasted 1 more place.

I'm just saying that to say that the floor made an initial decision to play only 4 more hands (whether you agree with that initial decision or not) and players were playing based on that decision. If the floor can't control their own game, they hurt everyone. It's a lot of unnecessary confusion for a $10k event.

Yeah the initial rule was pretty bad but once you announce it and people alter their strategy based on it, you can't then change it four hands later.

Imagine if a tournament said third place gets the biggest prize...******ed, sure, but if they decided when it got down to three, hey, guess what, that's a stupid rule, okay, normal payout with first place getting the most, that'd be even more god awful.

They made a mistake and should have said whoops, our bad, that's a dumb policy but people relied on it so we gotta stick to it,

Clearly the inmates are running the asylum. Nothing wrong with changing how things will end but when that ruling is made that is it. Letting players rescind their objection is absurd. By that management they need to poll the players after every hand. Given the other example where the one person was bought out for 800 I agree that his objections were probably discouraged

For them to change courses back should have required something very substantial to happen not just one guy running short. At best it is amazingly lazy management.

The decision to play out hand for hand is correct.

Telling players you're playing 4 more hands on the bubble and then redraw is wrong. They followed this by reverting an already ******ed decision which is inexcusable.

I wish these dumb ass tournament hosts actually knew anything about equity and how these decisions they see as trivial are actually important.

Moral of the story: Don't take **** from a casino, you're their customer and if they do something unfair make it clear that you won't return to the casino again. Every customer counts and any business who doesn't care about their customers will fail.

Not even drunk, but I was very impressed by your use of aplomb.

The issue is that once they announce 'four more hands' it should be four more hands...period... What if after announcing four more hands, then they decide to play until bubble bursts, but instead of the shorties getting knocked out, they double up a bunch of times and bubble takes 2+ hours? ...

The bigger issue of course is that, in the first place, they should have never decided to stop, until the bubble bursts, as per Chainsaw's post.

P.S. the floor's incompetence was obvious in the first decision and compounded by the second. This is the reason I don't play at FW anymore.. Cash AND tourneys....

He was crippled = handicapped, not crippled in the tourney, right?

thanks for joining in on the topic Christian, I posted it because there was a lot of controversy about it, and well basically just the Foxwoods floor in general.

What are your views on the floor?

wow, it goes down like this on bubble of their biggest tourney of the year(and likely the next few years)?

foxwoods is the only real option we have for poker in new england, making us the dryest region in the country. our options, foxwoods included, are pathetic despite an insane amount of demand in the region. why can't Mass. pols realize the huge amount of profits they're gonna make on building casinos in a few years and just mortar those bricks already!

From what I've heard, everyone in the tournament wanted to continue to play. Why does it matter that playing on was contrary to the previous announcement if that was the case?

It was extremely unfair to Cornell cimpan who wound up posting both blinds before the shortstack busted and came into day 4 with only 25k

No one objecting isn't the same as everyone wanting to continue. If I'm not mistaken, someone got the bright idea to keep playing, the floor asked if there were any objections, no one objected, and play continued. When the floor says "Are there any objections?" there is considerable social pressure not to be the guy who objects. The sole objector is gonna get some ****, especially if it's the chip leader rather than the shortstack. If there was a secret ballot vote that unanimously approved the change I guess my point wouldn't stand, but I doubt that's what happened.

Changing the rules/structure on the fly, according to the whims of people the floor feels like listening to, as long as there aren't vocal objectors isn't fair and isn't ok.