blonde poker forum

9 players returned at 3pm today for the Final of the 96 runner £300 Freezeout which began yesterday.

Chip second was, not unexpectedly, the mercurial Ali Mallu - but he was disqualified even before the Final resumed!

It seems he had a "dispute" in another Grosvenor Casino earlier this week, but thought no more of it, & played Thursday & Friday in Blackpool. Returning this afternoon for Day Two of the £300 Freezeout, (the Final) he was not allowed to enter the building, on the grounds that he was now "barred".

That's between him & Grosvenor, so we can't debate the reasons for that here, though suffice ro say there ar two versions, & the truth is probably between the two.

However, what WAS interesting was what would happen to the Comp, &, specifically, his chips. There were 576,000 chips in play, he had 135,000 of them (just shy of 25%), & we were playing for a prize pool of £30,000, including £3,000 generously added by Grosvenor.

The decision? Ali was "awarded" 9th place, (£800) & his chips were removed from the table.

Question 1 - Irrespective of the reason for, or correctness, of his Ban, do you feel it was right/fair that he got awarded 9th place Prize Money? Should he have got more, less, none at all?

Question 2 - Should his chips have been removed from the table?

And finally....

3) What should the other 8 players have done in this situation?.....

Above all, I do hope Ali & Grosvenor sort ou their differences. Grosvenor Comps without Ali Mallu just ain't as much fun as the could be. He's a formidable opponent, but one you wanna take on.

Question 2..

Leaving the chips in play is bad news for all but the chip leader EV wise (by my reckoning)

Removing them is probably the fairest thing to for everyone.

It's such a bizzare situation, i think leaving them like he was late in arriving is probably the right thing.


If i were one of the other 8 i would press for a 9 way chip count and distribute the money purely based on chips, it's the right thing to do imo

It was suggested by some players, & rejected by others, that they shoul be left on the table.

Ditto the 9 way chop based on chip count was suggested & rejected by several.

A VERY unusual situation!

who won ?

How can there be 2 different versions?

who were the other players?

I think they did the right thing.

The more i think about it the more i think the chips should be left on the table, its ludicrous to take them off.

The players who rejected the 9 way deal should be ashamed of themselves.

I am also shocked that Blackpool didnt let him in to finish of the comp, how can u let someone start a comp but not finish it, when the event that got him barred happened days before. If he had stood up and hit a dealer or something during this comp then fair enough, this is just crazy.

Every story has two versions! One by Grosvenor, & one by Ali, which he told me. But as I don't know Grosvenor's side of the story, I can't really say any more.

Tough one on Question one.

If someone is disqualified in 9th place, when they are found with aces and eights up their sleeves, do they still get the prize money?

If I said I did, would you believe me?

I guess you could say Grosvenor Mallued him

IMHO, If they let him start the comp, they must let him finish, UNLESS he commits an offence after he has started.

I don't think it's fair to let him enter, and then disqualify him when he makes the final in good shape.

Hmm...

Tough decision. I know how strict Grosvenor are with their bans, he should've been let back in to continue the game but they didn't so I think that the chips should've been divided equally between the players. 9th place money is acceptable because they couldn't have given him any more than that.

I agree with RED-DOG, if they let him start it, they should let him finish it.

the problem with the chip equity is that is over-values the bigger stacks, so the smaller stacks would be shooting themselves in the foot if they agreed to do it... and I dont think they should leave his chips in play if he is disqaulified, how can a person DQ'ed move up a pay ladder?

Saying all that, I agree completely with Red that if they are gonna let him start, they should let him finish.

I agree with you and flush on that Red.

The overnight situation was, in Seat Order (after the re-draw), with blinds at 2k-4k for a full 45 minute level......

tikay                                                                 36,000

Mark Greenwoood (aka The Chaser? from AWOP?) 29,000

A Booth                                                           42,000

Ali Mallu (DISQUALIFIED)                                   135,000

Andy Bradshaw                                                 62,000

Ron "Victor Meldrew" Haworth                            28,000

P Ioannou                                                      141,000

J Morgan                                                         36,000

R (blondeite "Action Man") Trigg                        60.000

I had an early misread, followed by Mark Greenwood, & then the unlucky Action Man, who had a big setback with AK.     

I departed shortly after exiting, I am sorry to say the atmo in the Final was not exactlty "warm", though I'm very pleased to say we all shook hands when I departed.                       

I agree with RED, if he was ok to start the comp, he must be allowed to finish it

Giving him 9th place money is bad too..if you leave his chips on the table then a few might get knocked out( shortstacks etc) while he is blinded away thus you are denying him a chance to ladder up, making the ignominy even worse!

If I was one of the 8 remaining, I'd be arguing loud and strong for a nine way chop out of fairness to a competitor hard done by. Unfashionalble maybe. Equitable? I think so.

But was he hard done by? we don't know the reason for the ban. If Mr M knew he was likely to be banned from other/all of the chains casino's then on his head be it if he gets pulled out before the finish.

So the big stacks should get punished?

Like i said, if you let him start the comp let him finish.

I can't see how he can be disqualified either, let him blind out.

9 way chop, followed by an 8-man £800 buy-in STT.

Was suggested, & rejected. (By the players in both cases).

Ioannou is Cid fae Cincins surname.

Chip leader any relation?

I don't believe he was aware of any imminent Ban. He told me there was an argument elsewhere on Wednesday, & nobody had said any more, he assumed it was history. He arrived today to find himself barred.

Final paragraph - strongly suggested, & strongly rejected. (In both cases, by the players).

I don't understand how you can all be saying he shoulda been allowed to finish without knowing what he is supposed to have done? If hypothetically it was something minor like counting cards at blackjack then of course he should be allowed to finish, if it's something really horrific or hypothetically cheating at poker then they would be right IMO.

I realise that lots of people here are friends of his and know what happened. I don't know the guy and have no idea what happened but I can think of lots of hypothetical reasons why it would be the right decision.

OK, maybe not equally, but fairly

Guilty or innocent, he could find himself barred for life. Grosvenor have no obligation to offer an explanation

There is no right of appeal, no independent review of the evidence. Grosvenor are judge, jury and executioner.

Next week, it could be you or I. That's the scary part.

He was allowed to start the comp at Blackpool bcause neither he NOR Grosvenor Blackpool were aware of any pending Ban.

To be fair, a very difficult situation for Grosvenor Blackpool, as well as for Ali, they were both "in the dark" as to the pending Ban.

One has to have sympathy for all parties here, what a tricky situation to to resolve!

Not fair on the big stack.

If you have 1,000,000 chips and your opponent has 1 chip

1,000 chips are given to each player.

1,001,000 now plays 1001, his chances of winning have increased by around about 9,000%

Extreme example, it is still true though, even if one player has 50,000 and one 55,000

I agree , should of let him finish the comp  8)

this is true. I was speaking to a player this week who was banned from a Grosvenor four years ago, for socialising with dealers in a pub!.

Wrote two letters since asking to be reinstated, no answer to the second one and she asked me as the new forum rep to help her. Of course I have no influence.

I am a friend of his, & a big supporter of Grosvenor, but I just don't know the right solution to this, & I was part of the debate!

I CAN say that the Ban was not for any "cheating" type incident, both parties would readily concur on that.

Did the players denying the chop know the circumstances under which Mr Mallu had come to be barred?

Would this have factored into their desicion?

it just beggars belief they could ban Ali, they make so much of him. whatever he has done and i haven't spoke to him so i don't know. surely they should of let him finish the comp or the players should of refused to play until he be aloud to continue. if they players did the correct thing this situation would not of happend if they refuse to let him in do an equal chop don't give him 9th place its like rubbing salt into the wounds

Ali does a lot of money on the tables as far as i am aware.

What did he do for them to bar him!

lol james he would most likely of lost 1st prize and then some before he left the buliding

lol yeah

Yes & no.

They were aware of the alleged reason for his ban, but their decision was nothing to do with that.

was tikay of the "chop it up lads, its only fair" school amongst the players?

what were the arguments against?

A lot has been said before about Grosvenor banning anyone in competition to their business. Isn't that why Rob didn't go to BB3?
As for the ruling as ever it comes down to a lack of rules to cover situations like this. Where is Poker425 when you need it?
Distributing the chips seems an easy solution, but if it was an online comp the chips would just sit there to be blinded away and I think in the absence of a rule that most players would expect this to happen live.

It WAS suggested that we would refuse to play it out, but....

1) Several players would not agree.

2) Various versions of why Ali was barred started to circulate, & in the light of this, the decision was made to "play on".

3) The "chop" was suggested, & rejected.

It'd be pretty tough to frame a set of Rules to allow for a contingency so unusual as this, imo.

But I agree, "online" the chips would stay there, & just blind away, & this was my first thought today. Then Ali may have "laddered" a few spots, rightly or wrongly. From a personal point of view, that would have eased my conscience, but one can see & respect every side of this very complex moral dilemma.

I can't, why disqualify him from the comp, it makes no sense.

Agree,  Why couldnt it wait another 24 hours?  then none of this mess would occur!

I vote for his chips to stay in play and for Ali to receive the prize for whatever position he finishes.

Not that, if he is barred thats 1 thing, but why disqualify him from the comp aswell?

IMO if they have disqualified him he shouldn't have gotten 9th place, his money should have been refunded only.

Good point, I guess it depends on why he was banned.

He was disqualified, not disconnected.

If someone is disqualified in an online comp, one would think their chips would be removed from play too.

Leaving them on the table is bad for the short stacks, evenly distributing is bad for the big stack. Removing them is fair on everyone left in the comp.

I don't think that's really the issue though. Grosevenor made a desicion that was popularly deemed unfair for the 9th player, and the remaining 8 players were unable to agree to do right by him.

To be fair, If i was on the table and someone I didnt know was banned as in this case I wouldnt accept a chop.
It may have been some players first time on a final table, why chop it for someone that has just been barred, the players who opted against this option probably didnt know him and for all they know he could of been banned from cheating.
I would of thought the chips should have been distributed to the remaining players un proportion to there stacks at the time, to keep the right number of chips in play.

i think they should have hung him                         ;ifm;

I would class Ali as a good friend and have respected him since I very first started playing the game. If I had been at the final table I would not have been able to play on and would have left the casino. Although I am broke at the minute I do not want to win any comp by default and I really do believe this is a disgraceful decision by Grosvenor. Whatever ali has been banned for has no relevance (and he would never be a cheat before anyone thinks that), he started the comp so should be allowed to finish it. Giving him his money back is a disgrace- if he had dropped 10k on the blackjack last night (a possibility for Ali) would they have given him his money back as he shouldn't have been allowed to play?

If you think back to the wsop 2 years ago tony and the conversation we had over breakfast one morning about the omaha comp (heads up f bomb) remember what I said then- this is exactly the same for me.

http://www.blondepoker.com/index.php?q=node/6572 (http://www.blondepoker.com/index.php?q=node/6572)

Can anyone work out who Anon is?

How is it a disgrace to return his entry fee? no more disgraceful than allowing a barred player from laddering into a higher place. Mistakes were made and there is no perfect solution.

Hence the reason to allow him to finish the comp

Why does that matter?

And have a barred player possibly win the comp?! I'm sure the rest of the players (that may NOT have known Mr M) would have been really happy about that.

Surely taking this amount of chips from play would effect the structure? 20-25% of chips removed from play is a lot of chips.

Thats why i said to hold the barring off for 24 hours, Then if he did win then he did it "innocently"

So why did he get barred? Anyone know?

Unfortunately they didn't hold off on the ban, so the situation has to be dealt with some way. TBH I think it's bad enough that it too so long for the ban to become known and acted upon, so I can't see how they could then delay implementing it just to look better or for ease.

Every single player at the final table knows ali. I am surprised a deal wasn't done between them all to be honest to chop the money in a fairer way. If I had been there I can only imagine how heated the debate would have got because I would not have been playing a single hand and anyone who did not agree would know they would never have dealings with me again (quite a few are close friends as well). No way should this comp have been played to a finish and I would love to know who didn't want to deal although I would rather find out all the facts on this before commenting further.

Well as i said i doubt i would of chopped if i didnt know anyone there, and know the full situation behind the ban.

I presume that Ali has no right of appeal to the ban other than to their goodwill to change their mind. It will be interesting in due course to find out what happened so that others do not make the same mistake.
As for Ariston's comments I agree to some extent, but maybe others didn't want the risk of a ban for sticking up for someone that has been banned. After all it does seem that casinos can do what ever they like?

Why is it relevant if you know the disqualified person or not? I fail to see the relevance.

Vote now!

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=18487.0 (http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=18487.0)

So Ariston is saying if it was a total stranger that got banned in that position he would do the same thing?
I doubt it.
\If it was a friend of mine and I knew him as a good character, then i would do the same as Ariston. people stick up for friends or people they know.

Fair point, but would a fair proportioning of someones stack still be arbitary to an extent?

Also, taking a lot of time to administer.

Maybe a proportional rolling back of the blinds when signicant chips are removed from play?

there are a certain number of players on the circuit you could trust totally and Ali is one of them. He is one of the most respected players in the UK and there is no way I could have played the competition to a finish and won by default, I would rather leave and ante away and take whatever money they deem fit to give me. You cannot buy reputation and I dont ever want to win at the cost of someone I would class as a friend. It would be just my luck that the only ranking event I win was under a cloud and always be "yeh but you wouldn't have won it if ali was still in". I would rather finish 7th and be able to live with myself that I stood up for something I believed in.

incidentally I would do the same for many other players as well, people I could trust. If it was someone I didn't know and it was suggested they had been banned for cheating in another casino for instance I may then think yeh fk em but with Ali this is not an issue. He may have had a druken argument with a pit boss over a blackjack dealer or something but I would stake my reputation on him not being a cheat.

It seems to me that what has happened here is the powers that be had no idea that Ali had made the final when they barred him.

The receptionists have no option but to refuse him entry if he has been supended, and the TD is left with very little room for manoeuvre.

.

That what i was trying to put across Ariston.
It may have been difficult for any strangers playing away from "home" to make a decision with very limited facts at the time.

I was just messing, sorry Russ i will remove it.

I will remove my quote of Flushies post, I won't comment further.

Its a shame that Ali is barred, he is good for the game and a good guy too.

Going back to whether the chips should have remained in play is a very difficult decision , either way it can cause problems.

1/ Problem caused by removing them:
 Imagine there is 1 million chips in play , Ali and A Nother both have 400k , giving  each of them  40% of the chips in play . If you remove Alis chips , A Nother now has nearly 70% of the chips in play.

2/ Problem with leaving unattended chips in play:
This actually happened at this years short handed event at WSOP.
I ll post link as it explains it better than I could.
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/7/wsop-updates-whos-chips-anyway.htm

So there is no easy answer.

I do feel sorry for Steve on this as he is in a no win situation and is still relatively new in the job. awful position for him to be put in and totally out of his control. Taking ali out of the situation completely there is an argument for taking the chips out of play, dividing the chips equally between the other players or leaving them there and letting him ante away. The best way to solve it? I wouldn't know and wouldn't want to have to make the decision as there is no fair way to resolve the situation and whatever happens it will favour either the big stacks or the small stacks.

Funny how people get really upset when someone makes a gag that might question their reputation/integrity, yet are happy to cast that shadow on other peoples reputations and integrity ....  its a strange world.

 ;popcorn; ;popcorn;

I was just trying to be funny!

Kev you have a point but i don't want to get involved, lol.

Says it all Craig, good Post.

To make it even more difficult, Steve was not there this afternoon!

One has to feel some sympathy with Grosvenor, the whole thing is jolly difficult to resolve in a way that is fair to all.

It would have been much easier to resolve tomorrow.

the only people whos reputations have ever been questioned by me have had no reputation worth a toss imo. I would never question anyone I would class as a mate or someone I thought was a decent sort. When shadows are cast they are usually cast for a reason. I did not ask for the posts to be removed above I had a discussion on msn with flushy where I told him i was offended and didn't think his comments were funny. I will take shots at me all day every day about almost anything but I draw the line at that and told him so. He appologised then removed his post- I removed mine as they looked out of place without the original post.
cheers for your feelings on me though.

Interesting situation, this one.

I've played with Ali a few times at least and he seemed a decent fellow.

I'm not sure his friendships or relations with the other players left at the final are completely relevant though.

Purely from a TD perspective, I would more times than not leave his chips in play and award him whatever place money his unatteneded stack finished in. I believe this would have the least effect upon te rest of the final and be fairest to the removed player (in that no conduct during his tournament was the reason for his abscence) as this allowed his accumulated efforts from the previous 2 days to see some chance of futher profit.

Asking other players to chop/not play it out is unfair to them. If the 8 agreed on it fine, as TD I'd be happy about it, but I don't see a compelling moral obligation to chop.



Best Case: Grovesnor aren't idiots and let him finish the tournament then bar him.

Next Best: Get the players to agree to finish the tournament somewhere else with Ali in attendance. (A hotel room perhaps?)  Did anyone think about this as a possible solution?

Next Best: Finish the tournament and allow his stack to blind into an upper placing.

Blah Case: remove chips and give him 9th prize money

Worst Case: Remove his stack and don't give him anything/just a refund.


I understand some have strong feelings on this subject, but before you make your decision on what was right, consider a similar situatiion in a $500 tournament somewhere in yankland. You're at the final with 8 random yanks and one isn't allowed to play because he got in an argument with whoever about whatever. Would you say "hey boys lets do the right thing and chop it up in fairness!" if they were just 8 random starngers?

It was all a ploy to stop Tikay coming 9th

That's funnier than what Flushie said.  rotflmfao

I was under the impresion that when you enter a poker competition the casino has a "duty of care" to look after your interests in that competition. Having accepted your entry money as a player the casino is obliged to look after your interests. If subsequently you misbehave  / abuse a dealer, and get banned then that is your fault and you lose your entry.
 But in Ali's case the incident had happened before the competition started and should have been resolved prior to Ali starting this comp.

Legally I would love to know how this stacks up but would like to think that gambling laws are there to protect the player.

 :goodpost:

Rumbled.

I managed a brilliant 8th, & I outlasted Ali.........There's a first for me.

This whole reputation thing is a bit weird. I FULLY understand that any serious player should be highly protective of his integrity/reputaion within the community and Aiston is well in the right to take offense if his rep was questioned.

That said, it's a bit ironic that several UK based players with decidedly shady "poker histories" routinely get woohooed, ballyhooed and well doned by most of the blonde community. (There not blondeites(at least that I know of)  before you ask)

i wonder what ali thought the correct outcome would be

personally i think if i was in the final and spoke to ali outside after he was refused entree  he would tell me to go on and play my best poker and to win the comp

i guess a lot of us have no idea who have the shady histories but please feel to PM me some stories:)

I don't think one has to feel any sympathy for Grosvenor for precisely this reason - whilst I appreciate how much they add to poker in the country generally, this seems to be a situation which could have been quickly and easily resolved by letting Ali stay and finish the competition. If there isn't any process in place to implement this then that is a managerial and commercial mistake on Grosvenor's part which they should rectify to avoid a repeat of this situation.

I don't see the irony.

You can be prudently mindful of your own reputation, for there are many who will be quick to judge.

This shouldn't mean you now have to then judge others for their past discrepencies. You should still be free to ballyhoo whomever you wish.

probably one for another thread that ron.

The comment flushy made was a joke but I will always take offence on that line, he has apologised and thats the end of it for me.

What if I was to say "You're bald and chubby!" WOuld that be something you might take offence to?    ;D

It's ok, I do now. ;)

Not knowing the inns and outs - I am not commenting on what was "right" or "wrong"

BUT, knowing how much Ali spends in the Casino - if you dont believe me, watch him play roulette!! Then to Bar him MUST of been for something serious.

Then again, maybe it wasnt ?!?!

We will never know I suppose.

Nice bloke though Ali, have played many times with him. ALWAYS a gentleman.

how could i take offence to that ron? I would take it as a compliment as in fact I am both bald and a fat bastard so chubby is quite nice tyvm.

Thought i should say i apologised for causing offence to Russ rather than the joke itself, he asked me to take it down as it offended him, i think he is being over sensitive but he asked and i never meant to cause offence so took it down.

Integrity gate is seriously affecting the Ali vs Saddam count.

Choosing my words with some care here, it's my understanding that Ali feels he has a case to take to the GC, & he wil be consulting solicitors if Grosvenor do not satisfy him. He thinks they have no right to, in effect, "confinscate" his chips.

I hope they get round a table & sort this out. Ali spends a fortune in Grosvenor, & Grosvenor know this. Unless he's committed a heinous sin (& I hope he has not) common sense should prevail. Of course, if Ali has been naughty, well, to be fair, he must pay his bill.

OMG, me and Tikay on the same wavelength?!?!

DAMN I MUST be getting old! ;p

I bollocked you on msn and told you to put it right not take it down. A simple line on the forum would have sufficed. I have never been one to ask to have threads or posts removed. I class you as a mate which is why I came onto msn and told you I was offended and you said sorry, end of.

For Tikay: What is the source of your love for Groevsnor?

Granted I've been out of ole blighty for 11mos but they never really seemed very interested in poker players and almost always treated them as a means to the end of getting more arses on their casino tables.

a year or 2 ago I would agree with those sentiments but Grosvenor in the last 12 months have tried to improve their treatment of poker players and have been probably the main player in the UK market increasing the popularity of poker. Until the bar is raised when rob opens dtd they will continue to be so. I really do hope this isnt just a case of Ali shouting at a pitboss over a blackjack dealer as he has probably given so much to them over the tables he has probably covered the cost of the upcoming refit at blackpool. I feel for the staff who had to deal with this today as they couldn't win no matter what they did.

My "love" for Grosvenor is quite simple. Imagine the Tournament Poker Circuit in the UK without them. It's that simple.

Add to that, they've never been anything except civil, polite & hospitable to me personally, & I've spent a whole bunch of time in Grosvenors having fun. Do unto others as they shall do unto you.

I also try, always, to ensure BOTH sides of every argument are made in an even-handed way. It's easy to knock Grosvenor, but their job is not easy, not at all.

Finally,  I've won 107 Festival Finals in Grosvenors. (Approximately).

Give or take the odd 106

106 is even

i think you have caught the 0 and 7 key inadvertently there tony

but it would be odd if tikay won that many.

decimals are important tk  ;D

We're forgetting all those festivals Tikay won where the only competition were amphibious squid like creatures from the Guiness advert.

That's no way to talk about the Welsh!

6 hidden guests.
Well ive looked everywhere - I give up.

Damn you ALL, it irritates me to death that nobody ever believes me.

in keeping with the spirit of the season they may be behind you

I think Guinness was spelt incorrectly

I knew I would stop this thread, it was a joke for FS ;whistle;

Too many vowels in it for the Welsh...

I had to leave a tourney once


and the chips were removed

i was chip leader



reason: the missus went into labour....................timing isn't her forte....chuckle

You were chip leader, she went all-in!!

At times like that, poker seems so irrelevant.

Frankly I'm astonished at the decision to award Ali 9th place.

Obviously he should have been allowed to finish the tournie, but I suppose the manager who decided to ban him had no idea he was still in a comp. You can't blame the receptionists.

But, when he wasn't allowed in the casino, the only fair decision would be to leave his chips in play and let him get him anted away.

The players who refused to chop on chip counts should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

all a bit nice you lot, poker comaraderie is an interesting concept , everybody seems to be mates with everybody , ...................................................................


i think the answer lies in a question...

if it had been , lets say action jack,( probably the unknown on the table) who had "alledgedly" assaulted a dealer , (who had placed an official complaint about the assault )  then 2 days later got banned as he walked into bpool grosvener ,  and received subsequently received a lifetime ban pending an appeal.


what would the table have done, more to the point what would ali  have done..............would he have chopped it 9 ways ...............


i dont know alli well enough to say  , or offer my opinion on, what i think he may have done................ but i was present when a conversation took place with some of the finalist , whom based part of their decision on the fact that said peron said no (alledgly) tocreaming 1k of the top for 10 th place the previous evening.   now i wasnt there so i canT say whether this was true or not. (i will be surprise if it was true,  .) 

but i do find it very interesting how people have reacted to this......... grosvener , have rightly or wrongly got a procedure for general managers ,to act on a report of any incident involving customers, this appears to be a serious accusation .
when they take 3 days to ban somebody from all grosveners, (when they spend as much time and money as ali ) then there is a difficult decision to make COMMERCIALLY. THEY CANNOT THINK OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND WHETHER THEY MAY BE PLAYIN POKER OR BLACKJACK SOMEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY.....THEY MADE THEIR DECISION AND SLAMMED THE DOOR SHUT, IT IS JUST EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE TIMING FOR BOTH PARTIES.  (there are always 2 sides and i hope ali mallu gets it sorted cos he is a colourful character who is good for the game)...........



NOW TO PUT MYSELF UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT and ask myself the question,  a good pal of mine won the event,  if he had "alledgdly""  assaulted a dealer elswhere in the country and got banned and i was on the final table with him .... would i have chopped it............

now i dont just know ab through poker, ive known him a good few years so this makes the decision  more difficult.................does it hell.......

not for one minute would i consider whether to chop it ..........  if he had dropped such a big ballack then i would have called him a pratt .. he would have slipped away aggreeing with me and told me to go on and win it...........


havin said that we all have our moments of madness and it would be a terrible shame for both parties if they couldnt say sorry shake hands and give it one more go .
 I REALLY HOPE FOR ALIS SAKE THEY DO , COS THE ONE THING I DO KNOW IT WILL KILL HIM NOT BE ABLE TO PLAY THE CIRCUIT.

Next Best: Get the players to agree to finish the tournament somewhere else with Ali in attendance. (A hotel room perhaps?)  Did anyone think about this as a possible solution?

i think that is such a simple soloution... if he starts its grovs mistake 4 not gettin the msg arround fast enough..they make enough money to do so.

this situation is a joke but the simple soultion is above..

personally i dnt think ppl wud of agreed to this as they might of got malueed hahahahahaha

THIS IS REALLLY AMAZING ME HOW PEOPLE LIKE YOU KEITH CAN SAY OTHERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED WHEN

A.. YOU DONT KNOW THE FULL FACTS

B. ARENT IN THEIR SHOES.


 there may have been some people on that table who were desperate to play it for their own reasons .

ie . its the first time they have made a decent final...    they may desperatly needed a payday.............

it is very unfair to cast shame on innocent people  who were just there to p;ay poker and have no relationship with ali...

whether their decision was right or wrong, to cruelly denegrate them so publicly is terrible.


even though i would hve fvoured a chop if it was unanimous

I suggested this about 5 pages back but, alas, they don't like Yank reasoning round these here parts.  ::)

i was at the final table i was 5th in chips and arrived at the casino at around 2.40pm for a 3:00pm start.
when i heard the news about ali being disqualified i was upset because although i was moaning the night before about how much a pain in the arse he is to have at your table, i have known him a couple of years and he gave me a few words of wisdom bout the game when i was starting out. he is also a player you can learn a lot about playing a big stack from, and a gentlemen to boot.

I, as well as a few others were wondering what he could have done for grosvenor to barr one of the biggest blackjack punters on the circuit, and was completely miffed at the situation. Once an explanation was given to me as to why he was barred i changed my mode of thinking. (apparently he was barred on boxing day and the ban takes 72 hours to come into play 'as it were')

I for one refused the idea of a chip count because, i was not getting picked up until 8:00pm and most of all was looking forward to a good game of poker on a good final table.

The reason why ali's chips were not left on the table is because it would benefit the players on his immedieate left and right extremely and change the whole context of the game. I spoke to all the players on the final table before it was set to resume and all agreed that if ali was in our shoes he would play on as we ultimately did.  i can stress that I for one and probably all of the finalists WANTED ali to play and felt a certain injustice at his 9th place default finish.

What one must also remember is that the issue has ZERO to do with the rest of the finalists.

I conclude by saying that i disagreed to the 9 way chop because i wanted to play a game of poker, in retrospect i would have recieved more if i had agreed but thats not the point.

i applaud your honesty mate and therein rest my case, i think you have said it all .....................................

(lets hope it makes certain people reflect on their knee jerk reactions)


very well put .;) 

I'm not saying your str8 up wrong here Keith but could you answer this question for me?

cheers, still can't believe i didn't register for the £100 rebuy in time, tell the winner i'll sort him/her £300 a pint out when i see them ;-)

In a way this decision was simplified by the fact that they'd already reached the money in the tournament.  However, I'm intrigued as to what Grosvenor would have done if this situation had arisen and the bubble hadn't been reached.

By removing Ali's chips from the tournament they're effectively saying he's no longer a participant in the event.  Also, he's been disqualified for something unrelated to the competition in play.  He should therefore have been refunded his buy-in in these circumstances.  However, I get the feeling that, in those circumstances, Grosvenor wouldn't have done this and would have simply removed his chips and given him nothing back by way of refund.  Consequently, I think its only through chance that this decision didn't prove to be messier than it already is.

The most logical way to deal with it for me (even though I don't agree with the rule) if they were intent on not allowing Ali to complete the tournament would have been for them to leave the chips on the table and apply the 'blinded out every hand after the first orbit rule' that they use in some places for absent players.  I'm not sure if this rule is in place consistently at all Grosvenors but it would have certainly been a more equitable way to do things than to simply take the chips out of play.

Sheriff

I am not friendly with Ali Mallu at all. I guess I have not exchanged more than 10 words with him in my entire life.

What Ali was barred for is none of the other players business. He was allowed to start so should be allowed to finish.

If the other players wanted to carry on playing, just give Ali the prixe his chip count entitled him to and recalculate the prize money accordingly.

And to answer Ron. Yes, If this situation was replicated in the States I would absolutely advocate a chop. (If a player was disqualified for an incident in the comp involved that is an entirely different matter obv)

why should the players who want to play (get a decent payday) suffer from grosvenor's or ali's mistake? although poker is my living i don't play only for the money i actually enjoy sitting at a table and battling witts against other players, why should that option be taken away from others?

I have played with Ali, really like the guy and respect him as a player.....  Has anyone asked him what he would have done if it had been another finalist- or what he felt would be fair for the other players to have done? I applaud action mans post and totally respect his views- I cant say what i would have done- wasn't there, don't know all the facts-

I also would be intrested if those criticising the finalists actions would feel the same if it were a complete stranger that it happened too.
 Also consider this... what would have happened if one of the finalists were prevented from playing because of illness(not their fault) a car crash (maybe not their fault) or being arrested ( hmm not sure about that one). Do we chop? give them 9th? what? I don't like the way the grovesnor dealt with this- however something happened outside of this tournament to cause this- just like these other examples- where is the difference (to the other finalists that is?)

how do you apportion the prize pool to give him his "fair" share, and yet leave it as a good tourney for others?

you cant do it stars way because they give the CL's x% equity in each and every payout spot above 9th (minus 9*9th place of course) which REALLY favors the big stacks (of which he was one)..so they would have to work out his chances of coming in each position according to chip stack, and that is a mathematical nightmare. You cant get fair equity on the spot, so dealing here is going to make someone pissed, thats why trying to make a deal is out of the question.

Not an expert on these matters at all, but leaving his chips on the table to be blinded out would definitely benefit some players more than others, and penalise others according to position - especially as he was the substantial chip leader.  Someone might have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but if it's a standard rule - it's not a good one (IMHO).

In every other case he would have been anted away. That would have been the correct decision here IMO.

keith you must understand that this gives an advantage to the players either side of his chips, it puts pressure on ali's button to either raise or let the sb take the free bb. Totally changes the complex of the game.

this is the case of the two evils. If you leave the chips there, you give the seating arrangement an advantage, if you take the chips out of play, it messes with the structure.

This is obviously a unique situation. Whether or not people are getting correct equity to the pound is pretty petty here. It's a matter of doing the right thing. And players making money out of this unfortuante situation is clearly the wrong thing IMO.

But, fair or not, its the rule that would apply for a player absent from play for any other reason (traffic, etc).  Jen was subject to this penalty at Luton in one of the festival comps a while back and got virtually blinded out in a short space of time and still came back to win the comp!

However, surely they should treat him in the same way as any 'absent' player as he's not been disqualified for anything he's done in the comp.  He's just been prevented from getting to the table.  Whatever rule applies for other delays should have applied here.

so why ask the finalists to accept a different decision here?

the problem is that short stacks give up maybe £500 (prolly less, who knows) to "be fair" to someone that might have broken the casinos rules. Why should you throw away money just for someone elses benefit?

I understand this totally and sympathise to a point. The players in the final were in a difficult situation. But, if Ali had not turned up, he would have been anted away.

Profiting from this situation, which you clearly did, seems just plain wrong.

hold on a minute fella. it had nothing to do with me. if i were barred they would have carried on

Rudders, check out my first post. I said anteing him away was the correct decision here.

I'm not saying they wouldn't have carried on.

I'm saying in this sitaution I think the players have a duty to do what they would like to happen if they were in Ali's place.

 was confusing with this bit- which I wasnt so sure about

i have thought about this issue all day since the final and still believe we made the right decision. the matter was to do with grosvenor and ali. I also stated before the comp that we have all had a slice of luck that the would not be playing. on the other hand i WANTED him to play, but was not prepared to do a chop. for your info i was 4th in chips and recieved 6th place money, so the chop would have benefited me retrospectively, and maybe it was an advantage (it defo was money wise) that he didnt play, but whose to say he would'nt have raised my blind with trademark rags and doubled me up and put me in a position to win the thing.

i would like to add one more thing. Tikay, eventually was the only person arguing ali's cause of to do a chop or to leave his chips on the table after we all heard of the offence he was ALLEGED to have commited. We tried to get the comp delayed as long as possible to get a decision on the matter, i didn't travel from sheffield to reach my first ranking event final to do a 9 way chop, i wanted to PLAY POKER and learn from the other players around

damn interesting arguments on both sides


i only wish i had an opinion


not smart enuff i guess

this is a great ethical question, some will say they have a duty to do what they would like to happen if they were in allis place, and others will say that they have a duty to what others would do if they were in allis place.

its a bit like the canonical question about being d/c in a HU sng, some will say "well, I would like it if they waited for me, so I will wait for them" and others will say "well, I dont think he would wait for me, so Im not gonna wait for him"

rambling nonsense over!

Maybe I've got a bit overheated here.

I apologise if I offended you here action man.

The whole situation would have been avoided if Grosevnor had banned Ali immdiately from all their properties if what he did was so severe.

But, having started a comp, and reached the final, it seems unfair to penalise him for something which didn't happen during the comp itself (If Ali had been told he would be barred from Saturday onwards then it's his fault but if he was unaware he was going to barred that's Not his fault)

We don't know what would have happened in the comp. So, we make the fairest estimate which would be to divide the prize money on chip count when the incident occurs.

If you want to carry on playing, just take out Ali's prize and recalculate the prize money.

BTW: he would have got significantly less than 2nd place prize money. My guess (without doing the maths) is he would have got about 4th place money.

If he'd done something that bad surely it wouldn't take days to ban him?

nah, no worries, just stating my personal opinions for wanting to play on. agree toatally with the above as did the other 7 finalists

I respect Rick's opinions and in no way would he try to profit in this spot. Trying to eek an extra few quid out of something like this is not Rick's style.

I respect his reasons for wanting to play on.

IMO, Grosvenor did the worst thing possible out of the 3 options, let him play, blind him off or disqualify him.

This is a long ass thread, just finished reading it!

Good post Mr Flush. But, you missed the best option of all. Not let him play in the first place.

That would require efficiency in the Grosvenor operation though

It would be nice for a Grovenor rep to offer some sort of explanation as to why he was allowed to start this comp, yet not allowed to finish it.

I do not know Ali, so am impartial, and I know that some of you are dear friends with him. However, regardless of the amount he puts over the table (this shouldn't be a factor BTW, but it does sometimes cloud judgements of casinos) the ruling should be the same for all.

If a player gets disqualified during a comp, or barred during a comp, the chips should be taken out of play and no monies returned even if he was chip leader heads up. If the chips are left in, this is a huge advantage to the players on his right.

If a player is barred during a comp that is spread over a couple of days, the same should apply.

However, this situation is slightly different and IMO Grosvenor have made a huge mistake, either a manager or a receptionist has not updated their system at the time of barring. This must be done to stop things like this happening. For instance an example, lets say someone has tried to present a dodgy card at cash desk at J10 I am quite sure by the time he tries to get to Grosvenor Broad st he would have been barred. This is an oversight by someone at Grosvenor and a potentially costly one. The fact that he was allowed in and purchased his entry oblivious to the backdated bar regardless of where he finished or position still in, should entitle him to his entry back. Grosvenor have barred someone that they must feel warrants a bar, therefore not entitled to enter, if entered by mistake then entry should be returned even if he was knocked out previously. Huge mistake from Casino me thinks. The players that had already been Mallued, could also easily say that, as he was not entitled to enter they have lost their chips for no reason. Which ever way you look at it, someone will not be happy about the situation or decision made in good faith, it is not pheasable to restart the whole of the comp without him.

Chips should be taken off, entry money returned, regardless of whom the player is. It is unfortunate for Grosvenor that this has happened to a popular face on the circuit, and will be debated by friends, colleagues and possibly enemies on a forum. It will also be an opportunity for some casinos to address their barring procedures, it only takes 2 seconds to bar someone nationally on a linked system (which they have?) If this was joe bloggs, I doubt this issue would have arisen.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, as i know from posts that the majority are friends of his, and this post is by no means personally attacking Ali, I do not know what happened and the situation which surrounds it, I am just saying what the normal procedure is for this, even if it does contain a bizzare twist.


 ;popcorn;

I agree with Keiths sentiments on this and am glad to hear Tikay was the last man still arguing ali's lost cause on the table, confirms everything I already knew about him. If he had been ill or in a car crash as someone said earlier he would have anted away to about 5th or 6th most likely. To take his chips off and give him 9th was just wrong as is discussing what has allegedly taken place between Ali and Grosvenor on a forum like this. There is no way if Ali had physically assaulted a dealer he would have turned up a couple of days later to play a comp, no man would be that stupid. If he has verbally attacked a dealer then fair enough slap his wrists ban him do whatever but you cannot just throw somebody out of a final like this imo. What has happened between Ali and Grosvenor is their business and should remain that as I am sure there are 2 sides and its none of our business but what happened in todays final is of interest and I think the wrong decision has been made by the card room manager taking his chips out of play and also by the players not doing some sort of deal. No offence to you personally actionman but if I had been in that final I would not have played- I would rather walk away from the final with a clear conscience.

I dont play much live and have no idea what the Grosvener rules are but to me this all sounds VERY unfair.

Surely when the alleged incident took place Ali (who I have never met) should have been told that there was a complaint against him and a suspension of 3 days put in place while a decision was being made.

If he had been told this then presumably he would not have OR been allowed to enter the comp and all this would have been avoided.

To pull him out when he has reached the final table is just ridiculous.

It seems to me that there has been a breakdown in communication. Firstly between the Grosvenor Casinos and secondly between Grosvenor and Ali with regards to the 72 hour period.

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/captain%20obvious.jpg)

LOL

The main issue is obviously the lack of professionalism shown by Grovesnor.

I think they need to write a Check to Ali regardless. If your banned your banned

I am sure there I.T people have the technology.

This is more likely to be poor management at local level. If Ali took it to
the Gaming Board, I can see Grovesnor being Embarrassed

IMO they should of said nothing let him play out the game. When he has
finished a quite word in the ear asking him to leave.

Regards

M

Fact 1:
If Grosvenor allow this player to begin a tournament, and he does not incur a ban during the tournament, Grosvenor should allow him to finish the tournament.
Fact 2:
Given the actions Grosvenor took, there is now no fair solution.
Fact 3:
The banned player, the TD, and the remaining players are all totally blameless.
 ;hide;

first of all i must say ive played with ali a lot and i think hes a great guy,
my first point is ,,,
1 this thread maybee only 2 pages if it were mr nobody,
2 i think if ali has done something really bad and knew he could be banned this,it is his own fault,
3 on the other hand if it is not to serious,(of which imho it must be)grovesnor should be ashamed,
4 all the business about a 9 way split,well i think people must know all the facts,what he was banned for ,,,(this could be serious guys).
5 i really R.E.S.P.E.C.T. ali and his game, i really hope he isnt banned,
and wish him luck with his apeal.
6 1 last comment if grovesnor was wrong in this case,well guys you have got to R.E.S.P.E.C.T their decisions as to be fair guys they do provide a service for us poker players, i know we pay,but sometimes mistakes can happen.

as  i said i really like ali and get on great with him,but to be honest guys this must really be something serious for them to ban him and to take him off a final table,grov are not daft,they know how much of a stink this would cause,it must have been a hard decision for them,,,,
on the other hand they would have been at fault, for letting him in the casino in the first place.
good luck ali hope it all works out for you mate.....


very tricky this one guys..,.,.

I don't know the precedures for banning people but i would have assumed you need to be informed in writing.
I had a pal banned from all Grosvenors for life for putting a bottle of pils under the table, he was told in writing a couple of days later. I also asked the lady at grosvenor about an appeal and she said he would NEVER get back in!!

As for the way the comp continued IMO whatever the remaining finalists did was right (they shouldn't even be given an option).

I wouldnt chop there and then, no way.

I think Action Man was spot on.

On what to do with the chips... Work out the relative size of the blind in relation to the total chips in play. Remove ALi's chips, then calculate the size of the blinds in the same proportion for the new total amount of chips.. structure maintained and no advantage to certain seats.

Sheriff Fatman said.....

"....The most logical way to deal with it for me (even though I don't agree with the rule) if they were intent on not allowing Ali to complete the tournament would have been for them to leave the chips on the table and apply the 'blinded out every hand after the first orbit rule' that they use in some places for absent players.  I'm not sure if this rule is in place consistently at all Grosvenors but it would have certainly been a more equitable way to do things than to simply take the chips out of play......"

This suggestion WAS proposed to Grosvenor, & I believe they were, or would have been, agreeable to it's use, but it became irrelevant as the vast majority of the players rejected it out of hand.

Let's remember, this was a VERY difficult situation for everyone - Grosvenor, the players, the Cardroom Manager, &, arguably, Ali, too. I believe everyone acted sincerely, & that's all we can ask.

Been a great thread though - it just shows the variety of opinion available on a single issue!

When the Final eventually began, the mood was a bit "dark" though. One guy got put to a decision, & decided to stand up to do his "dwell", as many players do when put to a tough decision. Another player - not even in the hand - said "his hand is dead, he's not at the table".....!

I "live for Live Finals" but after all the ballyhoo, I've never enjoyed one less than this, &, thanks to "moving" with  Ac 9c & getting called by  7c 7d & busting out 8th (in effect, first to exit) I bid a hasty retreat from Blackpool. I don't blame the other players for this, or Grosvenor, or Ali. It was just one of those things, sadly.

I'd also add that Grosvenor were in a tricky spot. Steve, the Cardroomn Manager, was absent, so it was all left to the Casino Manager to sort this out, not an enviable proposition. Let's be right, poker players are not an easy bunch to please, & this thread proves that whatever decision was made would have provoked argument.

The Grosvenor UKPT will not be the same - It is like the premiership without Sir Alex.

Blue Sqaure have invested alot into the tournament with C4 - Do they know that one of the best chaacters in the UK game will be absent?????

Perhaps C4 should find 10 independants and go alone, as Mark said it could be you next, I wonder if they would have banned 'The Legand' for the same thing?

If they were enforcing this rule for any other type of absence the other players wouldn't get any say on the issue.  I don't see why this should be any different and perhaps it would have avoided the bad feeling you talked about if Grosvenor had just turned around and said, 'this is the rule, its not debateable, lets move on please'.  We still be debating the fact it was a crap decision, but it was Grosvenor's decision and they should be accountable for it.  Dragging the players into it only seems to have worsened the situation.

No, Grosvenor did not "drag the players into the decision". They said "we are removing his chips & awarding him 9th place", is was the Players that said "hey, hold up a mo". Grosvenor WOULD have listened to the players views/opinion I believe, but the players could not reach a concensus amongst themselves, so the Grosvenor "suggestion" stood.

no offence taken, i have a clear conscience as all of the players agreed that ali would have played on if it would have been any other finalist in his spot.

Exactly.....a bit of common sense would have solved the problem.

Well i think there is a much bigger point here and it has nothing to do with any of the players or what they should have done, or weather it is Ali who we all know and like it has much more to do with the way we are treated as people not just poker players by this massive company that has no clue of how to treat people.

1. we turn up for comps that are on the whole poorly run with some rules that are chopped and changed and rulings that are often incorrect/unfair or dam right stupid.

WE STILL PLAY

2. we pay juice on every comp and don't always receive half the standard things which should go hand and hand with this self deal , old tatty tables , poor lighting, etc.

WE STILL PLAY

3. if we have a problem or would like an input it is mostly met with an unfriendly or unhelpful reception.

WE STILL PLAY

I think it is long overdue as players we need a proper national set of rules/guidelines and player representative that police the competions for both sides of the felt players and cardrooms alike that are both knowledgeable and have a proper understanding of poker and how to deal with disputes fairly and sensibly.As long as we carry on handing over are money to this massive company and getting treated like mugs we will carry on being treated as the mugs we are.This is a company that when they decide to bar you that they send you a 4 line letter telling you that you are no longer welcome with no reason as to why. To try and get back into this company is not the easiest of things but really when you look about at the other casino companies and poker rooms were would you rather be a place that you  always feel that they don't really give a shit about you or a place you like and enjoy playing poker in the Stanley's and London clubs group of companies for starters. I think my money now is always on the other side now after the way i have been dealt with and also the feeling that to get back in takes a serious amount of groveling but for what badly run comps buy a company that will **** you as soon as look at you. OK the GUKPT looks great but lets wait for the reality and then judge. Many thanks to all that have tried to help get my bar lifted but after my good old chat with the lovely John Butler of Rank Leisure i think my days of playing in the Grosvenor's are done. Well good luck to the rest of you but don't step out of the very varying rules that they like to implement because it could be you next.

Lloydy, why did you get a ban ??  was it for running your own game ?

yes kev it was


1 player at a GC invited another player to lloydy's game without his knowledge. Management found out and barred him for it. 

Running an illegal rival game seems fair reason for a ban to me.

Flushie is to tact what Lazaroonie is to hang gliding.

:D

not a rival game as a business a home game with mates why the wife was expecting my 4th and not aloud out much but all blown out of perportion and local scumbags stirring trouble. but hey thats poker plenty more places were they are happy to have players and happy to look after us all properly

An extremely late entry for post of the year, gets my vote.
 rotflmfao rotflmfao

Extremely early surely ;)

Well it was made at 10:30 on the 31st

Im shocked ! I have no idea what has gone on here but it seems a bit strange to me, If Ali was banned then that is upto the casino but if they let him start the comp in error they should have let him finish in my opinion. However I would like to touch on something , I have witnessed various displays of outrageous behavour in comps over the years including the threatening of players or dealers and my own pet hate of people standing up and shouting the worst kind of things when winning a pot very few if ANY of these examples have resulted in a ban for the offending person EVEN if the person concerned made a habit of doing it, ( being synical maybe the amount they stake on the house tables during breaks affected the decision ) I find it very hard to believe that Ali would have done anything this bad unless pushed to the limit in some way as in my opinion the man is a gentleman and a credit to the game

In reply to Aristons coment about the other players I feel that a deal should have been done as well as this is in my opinion the only fair way to handle the situation however money does funny things to people 3 years ago in the main event at a Walsall festival we came back for the final table where Paul jackson was chip leader ( I think if not near to ) terrible news greeted us from the cardroom manager that Pauls wife had been taken very ill and had unfortunately passed away ( thank god this was incorrect she was very ill but hadnt passed away ) anyway obviously this meant that our chip leader would not be returning, Every single player at that table with the exeption of 1 very well known player who you would think didnt need the money as much as the other players voted to call it a day and pay Paul his winning money on a chip count basis, But due the fact that all players didnt agree the comp went ahead as normal, So to try and arrange deals in bad situations isnt as easy as it sounds when you have 1 player who is being a bastard

We must be careful here Andy, not to mix up apples & pears.

The issue of whether Ali should have been allowed to play is one thing, & has been thrashed to death on here, quite well in my view.

The issue of player behaviour is quite seperate.

First off, Ali's alleged misdemeanour was NOT in a Tournament, & while that makes it no lesser or greater an (alleged) "improper act", you are talking in your Post, if I am not mistaken, about player behaviour in Tournament Poker.

You & I have partaken in hundreds of Live Tourneys, but in the UK, neither you & I have EVER seen a player reprimanded or disqualified. Maybe once, but thats about it. Why so? Because we dont really have TD's, in the UK. To be more precise, we DO have TD's, good ones too, I'm sure, but they don't run Cardrooms. That's not a criticism of Cardroom Managers, but those guys have their hands tied to a degree, & are constrained by other considerations.

Go to Mainland Europe & it's totallly different - they empower their TD's over there to act as they see fit, & they do - one sees time penalties & disqualifications regularly, & player behaviour is so much better. In Scandinavia, where the players are pilloried & mocked for their loose play, their table manners are quite exemplary. Even America, devoid of the slightest understanding of morals, ethics or good manners (step aside for a Mad Yank intervention, eeekkkk) impose Penalties for improper behaviour at the Poker Table.

So until that's addressed, player behaviour in the UK will continue it's downhill slide.

Happy New Year Andy, let's see a bit more of you in the Venues this year, you are much missed. Well, your value is......

xx

i don't think the players should decide wot happens to ali chips as in most cases  they will just look after themself and not work on the best deal for ali . the casino should have rules set down in black and white so when these sort of things happen you know where you stand

--- They have - 'if you are banned  by us when we find out that we have done it- we wont let u in.'

 rotflmfao  you really should post more Rudders

Just spent ages reading this thread. So the big question what did he do or is it going to run till April 1st.For a AAA punter to get banned usually would mean the perp being in jail for the next few days 10k a pop punters just dont get barred they might take their custom to the opposition. Very curious.

I can understand this, but isn't it the same if someone just decides to go the cinema for a couple of hours? Do you still remove their chips because it's a disadvantage. What about when Hellmuth is hours late to the WSOP. Do you remove his chips? WSOP 2004, one of the chip leaders slept in on the last few days, his chips didn't suddenly disappear.

And remember when Jen was 2 hours late for the UK Open £200-er at Luton? They left her chips on the table.

A real difficult conundrum for Grosvenor, it has to be said!

perhaps they should have called in Carol Vorderman

How about sheffield i was playing there and had built up a few chips, i went for a chat with Jon Raab i was away for about 5 minutes when the cardroom manager came over (very thankfully) and told me to get back in my seat as i had missed 3 hands, apparently the next hand i would have to post 1BB, then 2BB the hand after then 4 then 8 etc, pure madness, after 3 hands!!!

arithmetic progression of blind removal in Sheffield?


I prefer geometric progression removal personally, fairer on the big stacks

Grosvenor used to have this rule, they have changed it now thankfully.

The sad thing was when i sat back down, the other players had a go at the TD, i was the table CL by quite a margin and they felt it was unfair for the TD to warn me about this rule. Sad how poker players don't want to just win a fair game.

It does just show how things ARE getting better.

Just had to comment, as i think is a great bloke and always up there towards the end of any competition he has played here at Broadway.
We did have that rule (miss 3 hands) but we changed it after day two of one of our major comps. A player was coming back from a fair distance to play day 2 , he also had alot of chips in front of him. We had to do something to try and keep him in the comp as a nice gesture and because we don't want to lose any customers as they are all valuable to us. There were 2 tables left and all the customers agreed that cuz this gentleman was gridlocked in traffic, we took an ante a round and not every hand, subsequently he did get ante'd out in the end but the customers and the casino tried to give this very nice man a chance to get involved and was hoping he'd get here, i think the finalists in the end got together and returned his entry of £500 as a token of gesture, which we thought was very nice.

Nice one Sir!

Is that you, Raj?

I'm going to assume that is a TIC comment so I'll let it slide ONCE.
Any futher defaming of  da U, S, and Aers  may be met with severe repurcussions.

 ;nemesis;  ;nemesis;

 :o :o :o

You're going to laugh at our spelling of 'through' again?  :dontask:

Ignore him floppy, we invented spelling.

it's ok, only another year and a bit of Dubya before we get Hillary...That will completely restore our faith in US foreign policy.

everyone be very careful or they may invade your back gardens

I'm safe, no oil in my back garden ;)

The US funded my decking and new patio, now they have thier tanks on it...


make up your minds yankees, please

DATS IT MUDDDAS!

Kev
Tikay
Ariston

Fancy an all expenses paid extended visit to the lovely beaches of Cuba?

Any further defaming may lead to yall being declared "illegal combatants."




So many bombs, so few targets... ;whistle;

Cuba?

why would me or kev want to visit somewhere famous for drinking, smoking big cigars and loads of young and nubile prostitutes?

on 2nd thoughts....................

can I read your article about it?

He said all expenses paid ...LOLOLOL  is he good for it ??   Does he know about our "expenses" on tour ??

or your legal fees and vaccination costs?

no point writing one, flushy would only tell me the prositutes weren't young or fit, the cigars were a figmant of my imagination and all the drinks were non alcoholic.

Ok, everyone only post on this thread. You go and post on the internet board or the HA board and you'll be hit by a precision bomb. Here, on this thread, where he'll be aiming, is the only safe place to be.

Ahh, it's the old "they've got WMD" argument is it? You've not found the ones in Iraq yet.....the ones they deffo had, according to Dubya.

 ;nana; ;nana;

Post of the day. Stand still, the yanks are bombing us!

Ive got a WMD hidden away. Would take an extremely accurate precision strike though I'm sad to say.

Hang on couldn't we use the mighty Eurofighter to defend ourselves? What, it's still not ready?  ::)

Defend ourselves? Against Americans? Kev's bag of crisps will be enough.

We all know that Saddam sold the WMD for the bag of money that he was found with in his hole.

Unless you're standing next to the Yanks....then you're in real trouble. they find opposition troops too hard to shoot so they take shots at their own, in my experience ;)

Id rather have them on our side than against us, even if their aim is crap

You have to keep your money somewhere, and maybe he's not keen on manbags?

Must of been well hidden!!    ;nana;

after speaking to Ali i got to say his ban was correct i doubt he will ever be aloud into a grov again, but i still stand by what i said in the begging the players were a disgrace in the way they let him be banned during a comp, i have been in this situation before and we refused to play until the player was reinstated, thankfully he was aloud to finish the comp,( but if he hadn't we would of done an equal split and he was a shortish stack!) but then had to make a hasty exit do not pass go sort of thing this is just 1 of the ways Danny is so missed in blackpool he would not of let this happen and would of come to a suitable arrangement

IMO : the blame for this disgrace lies partly with Ali for what he did, but also on the players for not standing up there is no excuse if i no the player or don't know the player i would not of let it continue there some really nasty guys on the circuit and it shows here i heard the excuse we though we might be banned thats just rubbish no way they would ban you for standing up for someone ignorant to think that in my view,

what my weapon lacks in mass it more than makes up for with the destruction it causes

Sir,

I don't believe even for a nanasecond that my conduct in Blackpool on Sunday amounted to "a disgrace". Indeed, I'd go so far as to say I did everything I could to ensue the matter was handed "fairly, taking into account all the facts". I have not stated all the facts as I know them on this thread, but I DO know the facts - the reason for the ban, why it was handled the way it was, and most importantly, the debate I had with my fellow-finalists before the Final was allowed to begin. It's true that I would have preferrred the thing to have been handled different on Sunday, but ALL the Finalists have the same right to a "voice" & unless you were present, it's not easy to comment fairly.

My conscience is 100% clear, & I doubt if, given my time again, I could do more than I did to ensure "fair play" for all. I have spoken to Ali numerous times, on the day, & since, & I think you'll find he has no criticism of my actions whatsoever.

Happy New Year. ;)

i like  ALI   a lot ,but come on guys hes saying he should be banned,, surley this is all ALIs fault and no one elses,,,then he should take his medicine,,,to be honest its nobody elses fault but his own for entering this tourney knowing he could be banned ????? (sick coz he is banned we all like ALI very much),,,.but come on guys..,,,if it were your wife or husband he was alledgedly to have assaulted how would you feel..,,,.,.this must be serious for grov to ban him,.,.,..,., as we all know,,,., how  good he is for poker and the income for the casinos,,,....,, i just hope they can sort it out for him..,

rotflmfao ;tightend; you got me!

i am not sure but i think you will find that if a person has been banned and then has been let back in by mistake the casino in question are leaving there self's open for a bo**ocking from the gaming board, so from thier point of view they must not allow him to re-enter as he is not a valid member., which could get the casino closed down. Also all grosvenor do state in their rules they must all display at all times that any-one deemed to have left the game will have thier chips removed from play and if in the money will be given the next available payout. We all agree to these terms in all games we play when we registar.

There you go, a man who deals in facts.

It's not just Grosvenor all casino's have no obligation to offer an explanation, as for the appeal he can approach the Gaming Commission if he wishes and they will look into it.

your talking out of your arse!, its funny how many hero's there are when they were not in the situation. there are so many factors which the players had to considerate, than for everyone to say just chop it up!  think your statement is bang out of order

well said action man

..... have posted on this subject already however

Grovesnor did not act well in this episode he should have been allowed to finish the comp however

those branding the other finalists(including Tikay) a disgace are themselves just that- a disgrace (for all the reasons that i have mentioned in earlier posts). Action man did not need to post an explanation here, he did so in detail so perhaps a little less abuse would be appropriate?

Its so funny how people have slated me for going against deals in the past, then change their minds on this situation and say that a deal SHOULD be done.

Use the same argument you have used against me when I have been against deals - "Its upto the individual playes involved - no one else!"

Well said Action Man btw.

Only read a few of these replies, but imo he was exceptionally lucky to be awarded 9th place. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, of the abnning (and I don't know the guy) he knew he must have known that he was banned when he entered the comp. He should have been given a refund and that is all. Definitely correct to remove the chips too, unless they are distributing them equally based on chip count as seat draw would have a huge bearing on the result.

The Grosv should not have allowed him entry in the first place, but once their initial mistake had been recognised, they couldn't act in any other way than to eliminate him.

Don't know if I have missed an update on this, but is he still banned?

Yes. From all Grosvenors, for the foreseeable future.

oh no he isnt....................................

has been back at the grosvenor / g casino since january this year.

ha, live finals errrrrm live finals ............oh i remember them. Glad to see mallu back in the fray.

 Aspades

IMO

Most sensible option for the casino would have been to let him play the final and then impose the ban...

1) It would have been viewed as a correct and decent customer related decision.

2) It would have saved bad publicity and a lot of arguing and

 3) it would have proven to the poker playing/and paying  public..how sensible and forward thinking Grosvenor is....but Alas once again a lot of the common sense and fair play seems to have "left the building"

Will they ever learn?

Well you have had almost eighteen months to think about it.

rotflmfao

 Aspades

OOOps should look more closely at the "New" heading on threads....LOL

still salient tho...

I seem to recall at the Walsall GUKPT a few players on our table trying to bribe John Raab to dig out the CCTV footage of Ali's famous right hook!