Two Unfortunate Poker Incidents by Lee Jones

I’m going to use my space here to address a couple of recent incidents that took place in the poker world. Of some note, both took place in brick-and-mortar venues and, in fact, could not have happened online. This is relevant because the crux of both issues is tournament management in a live setting.

Say what you will about online poker: its sterility, lack of human interaction, and absence of physical tells. It does get the mechanics right. The button is always placed correctly, the tournament proceeds as it should, the clock starts and stops on time, and so on. Because players have come to know and expect that reliability online, there is greater pressure on live poker rooms to get their mechanics right. Maybe that’s fair and maybe it ain’t, but that’s the way the cards were dealt.

Incident #1 – The 23-Way Deal

This phrase “23-way deal” should, in my opinion, be an oxymoron. It shouldn’t be allowed to happen. But as everybody knows by now, there was a 23-way deal at the final three tables of a tournament at Foxwoods, with the money spread virtually evenly across the remaining players.

Apparently, there had been clamoring for a deal when the field still had more than 30 players. The Tournament Director should have put those shenanigans to rest ASAP. There is no reasonable way to manage a deal across more than a single table. Note that even in the online world, where it would be much easier, we haven’t tried that. I spent a few years brokering deals at the final table of PokerStars Sunday Million; just trying to make a sane deal across nine players was like herding cats. It’s meshugas to think you can do a fair deal across more than a single table. 23 players across three tables? Don’t be ridiculous.

And the solution is, well, there’s no solution needed. You simply say, “Hey folks – here’s the printed tournament announcement, including the payout structure. This is what you signed up and paid for; there’s no fine print or hidden clauses. Now, please go back to playing poker.”

In fact, I understand that there may have been some contravention of the state and/or tribal gaming laws simply by virtue of doing the deal in the first place, but I digress. The tournament authorities should have told the players that no deals would be considered until the final table – or perhaps not even then if that would violate gaming regulations.

To make matters worse, the Tournament Director stopped the tournament clock for 15 minutes while some player badgered the chip leaders into the deal. Apparently, even the chip leaders had only about 30 big blinds, but that’s not the point. Whether the tournament structure was good or bad is irrelevant. Tournament players pay a fee that doesn’t go into the prize pool. For that fee, they are owed an environment where they can simply play a poker tournament according to its printed rules and not be bullied into some kind of deal.

I wasn’t there and obviously don’t know all of the details. Furthermore, I know that being a Tournament Director isn’t always easy (poker players aren’t necessarily the easiest bunch to manage), but if a Tournament Director has one responsibility, it’s to provide people with a pleasant and badger-free environment in which to play their game.

Summary:

1. The TD(s) should have silenced all discussion of a deal until the final table.
2. No player should ever have to tolerate bullying to do a deal. A simple “No” is all that’s needed. The moment a single player says he doesn’t want to do deal, the decision is made. The clock starts (if it was stopped, which should be a rarity) and poker is played. Anything else is anarchy and shouldn’t be tolerated.

Incident #2 – Button Doesn’t Move and Blinds Misplaced

This just happened at the WPT Fiesta al Lago tournament at the Bellagio. Basically, the button wasn’t moved, or wasn’t moved sufficiently to make its new position clear. The guy who had been the big blind put out his small blind (as he should have). The guy who had been small blind before, and should have been the button in the new hand, put up a small blind (I guess he wasn’t paying attention). The correct new big blind didn’t put up any chips. The dealer saw two blinds and pitched cards to everybody.

Now the (official) big blind, thinking he was under the gun, folded, as did the player behind him. At this point, somebody stopped the dealer and the Tournament Director was called over. Ultimately, they brought in über-TD and poker legend Jack McClelland, who ruled the hand a misdeal. This was a somewhat non-standard ruling since two players had acted (both folding).

At least according to the at-the-scene reporters, one of the key factors in McClelland’s decision was that “none of the players have their proper cards.”

I think that was the wrong decision.

Now, please understand that I have incredible respect for Jack McClelland. He has been running poker tournaments since they invented playing cards, he is a genuinely fine guy, and his positive influence on the game of poker is inestimable. And in fact, Jack was the Tournament Director for one of the first (and yes, very few) poker tournaments I ever won.

But Jack, my friend, I think you’re hanging your hat on the wrong peg here. There are no “proper cards.” There is nothing magical or “right” about the particular sequence of cards that the dealer put together before pitching the cards. In fact, at Full Tilt Poker, there never is a “sequence” of cards. You can think of it like the TV lotto selection where the balls are flying around in a chamber and one is randomly sucked into the chute. Conversely, PokerStars and Cake Poker pre-shuffle a virtual deck and deal from it. But those are all perfectly legitimate ways of randomly distributing cards.

Consider this: suppose the dealer pitched two cards to each player all the way around the table (making a single orbit rather than two). Or dealt counter-clockwise. It wouldn’t matter a bit, now would it?

Here’s where I’m going with this rather pedantic sidebar: stop worrying about people having the “right cards;” there are more important issues. If everybody has two cards and nobody has seen anybody else’s cards, then everything is fine. It’s just a different shuffle – one of 8 x 10^67 possible arrangements of a deck of cards.

The important issue here is that two people have acted. I mean, suppose one of the players had raised? Now are you going to say, “Sorry, your pocket queens don’t play” to someone?

You see, Jack, if we toss out the silly notion of “proper cards,” then this problem largely dissolves. Look, I’m not 1/100th the Tournament Director you are, but I’m going to play TD here for a minute. If I get any salient facts wrong, please forgive me, but I think my argument still stands.

Here’s the scenario: The wrong blinds are posted, and two players have acted. The first person to act was actually supposed to be the big blind. That is unfortunate for him. His hand is dead and he forfeits the big blind. We feel sorry for him, but he should have paid more attention. The next person to fold was actually the under the gun player and now order is restored.

There is one fly in the ointment here: suppose the player who thinks he’s under the gun (but is actually the big blind) raises. This is going to be a mess no matter what, but I don’t think it’s any worse the way I call it than the way you did.

Summary: These mishaps are inevitable when humans are dealing the cards. When they occur, one of your prime goals should be to preserve any action that’s taken place. If no action has happened, fine, start all over. But once a couple of players have acted, you have a responsibility to keep the train moving. Dropping any concern about “proper cards” will simplify the restoration process and, in my opinion, produce a better overall result.

One other thing: Jack, next time I’m in Las Vegas, I’d like to buy you a beer or whatever you’re drinking. It’s the least I (or any of us) can do to thank you for everything you’ve done. And I promise I won’t say a word about how to run poker tournaments.

Lee Jones has been in the poker business since the late 1980s and an executive in the online poker world since 2003. He is also the author of “Winning Low Limit Hold’em,” which is still in print over 15 years after its initial publication.