Title: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 12:23:37 AM as a relative novice to large parts of the poker game i keep trying to learn (despite tk bollokin me at the broadway;) , inorder to do that you have to ask questions , now this may be a daft novice question but i really dont know the answer.
so pease dont laugh it is a serious question. one which fter following the mallu thread i need answering please. 1. Why is it illegal in the uk to allow your starting chips to stay on the table in a tourney as you have to be physically in the building. yet the rule changes the next day when you are on a final table .. if your late(s i was in walsall) my chips stayed there.... surely their is one gaming rule , is there a dispensation made in the gaming laws for finals ... bit weird and like i say probably me being a bit thick. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 12:30:34 AM as a relative novice to large parts of the poker game i keep trying to learn (despite tk bollokin me at the broadway;) , inorder to do that you have to ask questions , now this may be a daft novice question but i really dont know the answer. so pease dont laugh it is a serious question. one which fter following the mallu thread i need answering please. 1. Why is it illegal in the uk to allow your starting chips to stay on the table in a tourney as you have to be physically in the building. yet the rule changes the next day when you are on a final table .. if your late(s i was in walsall) my chips stayed there.... surely their is one gaming rule , is there a dispensation made in the gaming laws for finals ... bit weird and like i say probably me being a bit thick. It's very simple Nick - they are the Gaming Commission Guidelines. Yes, I know, they make no sense, but them's the rules. They are there to protect you. (!). And I never "bollocked" you at The Broadway - when I do, you'll know you've been tikayed. ;) xx Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 12:35:19 AM so you they state u cant start day 1, but you can compete the next day if your not there .......... how bizarre.
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: bobby1 on January 03, 2007, 12:36:40 AM Has anyone ever seen or read this set of 'rules'?
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 12:41:20 AM i was thinking the very same thing
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 12:43:59 AM I don't believe they are "Rules" as such, more guidelines. It's left to the Venues to interpret them. As the venues are, naturally, extemely protective of their Licences & want to stay right side of the GC, they ensure they are compliant by being "belt & braces". I am unsure what the GC's stance would be on removing someone's chips from the table though, but one must assume they'd be supportive if said person was a Banned Member. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 12:44:44 AM I have them somewhere in my computer, Heaven knows where, let me have a butchers.
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: bobby1 on January 03, 2007, 12:48:59 AM I once went to Naps in Leeds for their rebuy comp. I arrived at 9.00 for a 9.30 start and the comp was sold out which was a big surprise as many others arrived later and were disappointed. With about 20 of us left on the sidelines we asked if there was any chance of playing 11 a table, then at least some of us could get in -which we were told' Gambling commision rules mean we can only play 10 handed ' yet 2 days earlier we had played 11 handed in another casino.
I think some tiimes that phrase is used as a kind of 'catches all' excuse. regards Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 12:51:38 AM I once went to Naps in Leeds for their rebuy comp. I arrived at 9.00 for a 9.30 start and the comp was sold out which was a big surprise as many others arrived later and were disappointed. With about 20 of us leftv on the sidelines we asked if there was any chance of playing 11 a table, then at least some of us could get in -which we were told' Gambling commision rules mean we can only play 10 handed ' yet 2 days earlier we had played 11 handed in another casino. I think some tiimes that phrase is used as a kind of 'catches all' excuse. regards You were hoodwinked! Napoleons in Sheffield often play 11 to a Table, as you know, & I've played 12 to a table in Notts. But yes, I imagine the Venues do "hide behind" the GC from time to time. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: bobby1 on January 03, 2007, 12:53:32 AM I once went to Naps in Leeds for their rebuy comp. I arrived at 9.00 for a 9.30 start and the comp was sold out which was a big surprise as many others arrived later and were disappointed. With about 20 of us leftv on the sidelines we asked if there was any chance of playing 11 a table, then at least some of us could get in -which we were told' Gambling commision rules mean we can only play 10 handed ' yet 2 days earlier we had played 11 handed in another casino. I think some tiimes that phrase is used as a kind of 'catches all' excuse. regards You were hoodwinked! Napoleons in Sheffield often play 11 to a Table, as you know, & I've played 12 to a table in Notts. But yes, I imagine the Venues do "hide behind" the GC from time to time. We actually explained that we had played 11 handed(and some 12 handed) but just got the GC rules mate, nowt I can do. i Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: Wardonkey on January 03, 2007, 12:55:50 AM I've read 'em a million times, I had to learn them back to front when I was working for Gala.
The rule in question comes from the Gaming Board Guidlines on running competions in cardrooms. It states that all players must be on the premises at the start of the competition. Most casinos require players to be seated, as this is the easiest way to ensure that they are compying with the guidelines. The use of word guideline is misleading, a casino working outside the guidlines could, in theory at least, lose it's license. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 12:55:58 AM I once went to Naps in Leeds for their rebuy comp. I arrived at 9.00 for a 9.30 start and the comp was sold out which was a big surprise as many others arrived later and were disappointed. With about 20 of us leftv on the sidelines we asked if there was any chance of playing 11 a table, then at least some of us could get in -which we were told' Gambling commision rules mean we can only play 10 handed ' yet 2 days earlier we had played 11 handed in another casino. I think some tiimes that phrase is used as a kind of 'catches all' excuse. regards You were hoodwinked! Napoleons in Sheffield often play 11 to a Table, as you know, & I've played 12 to a table in Notts. But yes, I imagine the Venues do "hide behind" the GC from time to time. We actually explained that we had played 11 handed(and some 12 handed) but just got the GC rules mate, nowt I can do. i That's called "a jobsworth", as in, "more than my jobs worth, mate" so conveniently uttered by those unwiling to stick their head above parapets. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 12:57:36 AM I've read 'em a million times, I had to learn them back to front when I was working for Gala. The rule in question comes from the Gaming Board Guidlines on running competions in cardrooms. It states that all players must be on the premises at the start of the competition. Most casinos require players to be seated, as this is the easiest way to ensure that they are compying with the guidelines. The use of word guideline is misleading, a casino working outside the guidlines could, in theory at least, lose it's license. The distinction between "Rule" & Guideline" is interesting for the very reason Patrick suggests. Not a rule, but go against it & you are dead......FWIW, they are Rules. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 12:59:47 AM so , thanks wardonk is the start of the second day wrapped up in this ................................
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: dik9 on January 03, 2007, 01:19:36 AM Guideline 3 states that you must be on the premises at the start of the competition.
If it is day two and you were late, your chips remain, because at the original start of the comp (on the original start date), you were in the building. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 01:23:46 AM I guess the top & bottom of the Ali Mallu affair is simply that, it has nothing to do with the GC. If you are Banned by the Casino, you cannot enter the Premises, & thats that. One imagines there is a GC "Guideline" that suggests as much - "Banned Members may not enter Licensed Premises bla bla bla".
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 01:24:42 AM thanks dik , i understand that , as you say guideline 3 states xyz,,,, but does it state in guideline 3b what the rules are for the start of the secone day... i know im stating the obvious but were does it actually state the second day etc.............
or is it just .. it doesnt say it so we will change he originall ruling Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 01:29:47 AM i know its late and your pension comes tommorow so you can get to specsavers mate but THIS QUESTION IS BORNE OUT OF THE ALLIGATE and we have moved on to the general ruling re entering a csino late on the second day.
now fire up the horlicks and pull yer blanket back up yer bathchair ;) Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: dik9 on January 03, 2007, 01:33:27 AM There are no rules relating to how many players can be sat at a table, this is usually a TD that doesnt want to rearrange the whole seating plan, or start a new table 2 minutes before the start. And yes sometimes the guidelines are used as an improper defence, as the layman knows no better, rather than tell the truth I have seen supervisors hide behind the "Rules"? To allow the TD to set up a registration ending time is used about 5-15 minutes before start of comp usually. If these are in place, then it is unfair to be strict on them some days and waive them the next, as invariably the person turned down yesterday, would get there early and ensure it not happen ;D
Nick the guidelines are here Mods Edit ... LINK DELETED You can be as late as you like for the second the day, there is no rule. Some casinos will however double your ante and some may just take your blinds when they are due. it is in PDF form on the GC website Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 01:36:17 AM i know its late and your pension comes tommorow so you can get to specsavers mate but THIS QUESTION IS BORNE OUT OF THE ALLIGATE and we have moved on to the general ruling re entering a csino late on the second day. now fire up the horlicks and pull yer blanket back up yer bathchair ;) ooh! :o :o Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: dik9 on January 03, 2007, 01:43:59 AM I guess the top & bottom of the Ali Mallu affair is simply that, it has nothing to do with the GC. If you are Banned by the Casino, you cannot enter the Premises, & thats that. One imagines there is a GC "Guideline" that suggests as much - "Banned Members may not enter Licensed Premises bla bla bla". Casinos are private member clubs, and as such can bar people without giving any reason whatsoever, letters can be written to the GC to complain and they will investigate, but this will not ensure your entry again. Most casinos are sensible about this, but I have heard of people being barred for winning too much. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: doubleup on January 03, 2007, 01:51:04 AM Nick the guidelines are here Mods Edit ... LINK DELETED Deleted? Is there porn or manhood enhancing drugs for sale at the GC website? Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: dik9 on January 03, 2007, 01:53:29 AM Sorry that was my fault, i linked to an article in a poker site I help run ;ashamed;
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 01:54:59 AM pm dik please i really would like to read them
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 02:41:35 AM weel bugger me ive just read the gaming rules specific to poker .
the second day of the tournement is NOT covered and is totally discretionary, so if you are late the casino could just remove your chips. but they dont ..... this to me is very bizarre for such a tight industry with regards to laws , they can shut you down at the drop of a hat but their rules are very loose...... im really surprised they dont cover this , you break the guidelines if you are late on day one and then play. ie you arent on the premises but day 2 it doesnt matter if you are on the premises or not. so woudnt you think they (the casinos) would have thinktanks that cover every probabilty ,just to cover their own backs so they dont fall foul of ambigous rules.. if this doesnt highlight how we need a governing poker body then what does, if the lawmakers are so lax then we could fall foul anytime. imagine if an inspection is held at the finalday of the ept at the ...... casino in england and the inspector asks where seat 9 is , the casino responds by saying he is late , the said inspector then interprets the rule that he should be on the premisis. prob would never happen but it could. the problem we have is that ,to set precendent ,we have to have a ruling made .......... this may never happen but i bet you never thought a high profile poker player like ali could end up in the position he found himself , let alone the ret of the guys on the final table............ Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: dik9 on January 03, 2007, 02:46:05 AM But day two is a continuation of the same tourny, just as coming back off a break, thats why it isn't covered. It is the same comp. A TD would not take your chips off the table for not returning after a break, therefore should not take any chips off the table for the second day. In Ali's case he was disqualified, and if you are disqualified your chips should come off IMO anyway.
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 03:04:00 AM i know that mate im just playing devils advocate , on the basis you are ( as a td,) interpreting a piece of loose legisaltion that has not been challenged , purely on the basis that they only cover the first day .......... ie who says you are allowed to let someone be late for the second day.............can you or any other td in this country say hand on heart why the rule is there for day one,and not for day 2.
for every rule you have an interpretation sat behind it, in law these are generally led by an interpretation (that sets the law) this can then be challenged by way of a "precedent" that can change that law/. who can tell me what the reason or interpretation is for the day one rule, is it set because the player cannot play /gamble if he is not on the casino premises..........therefore he cant on anyday..................this does appear to have contradictions but an interesting discussion point and thanks for indulging me . Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: dik9 on January 03, 2007, 03:16:31 AM It is all about the entry part of the competition, you must be on the premises, as you say this can be interpreted a number of ways.
I would like to think that being there at the start is fair, as people may want to register but it may be full. The fact that they are there and the others aren't isn't "fair". This is only one explanation, and am sure that others "interpret" it different. A few years ago I asked the question to the then Gaming Board why we could not have alternates, to try and aliviate this problem. And was greeted by the response that British Gaming Guidelines does not "as it stands" allow for this due to the "must be on the premises at the start of the competition" rule. This possibly can change, but it is down to an organization to Lobby the GC ;) The response at the moment is, this is the way it has always been LOL. Day two or three need not be covered because it is the same competition that was complied with at the start. I think there is some confusion regarding Ali Mallu's situation, his chips were not taken off because he was not there (as i understand), and as far as i am aware, nobodies chips will ever be taken off due to absenteeism (other than disqualified) in any part of the comp after it has started. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: Ironside on January 03, 2007, 03:17:24 AM the rules are in there so that "joe bloggs" doesnt pay his entery fee then fails to turn up, and asks for his money back
under the LAW he is entitled to getting his stake back as a void bet the casino also has to let players know the payout they wouldnt be able to do this as they would have no idea how many of the runners tan didnt turn up at start are late arrvals and how many are no shows untill they have blinded out at which time there dead stacs have affected the event but no consiquences to the person who stack is blind out once he has sat at the table (start of comp) he can no longer under the law claim a Void bet as he has partaken in a part of the event so day 2 isnt effected as he is no longer able to claim his bet back Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: dik9 on January 03, 2007, 03:23:18 AM the rules are in there so that "joe bloggs" doesnt pay his entery fee then fails to turn up, and asks for his money back This is also a problem with pre registration, I know of a few people that will pre register for 3 comps that start at the same time, then choose the best value after making phone calls to friends who are present. This is why if you pre register, you must approach the Supervisor to tell them you have arrived before the last registration is taken, as to allow players to fill their seats if they did not turn up. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: Yogi-Bear on January 03, 2007, 01:40:56 PM I agree it might be polite for pre registrations to announce themselves to the Supervisor. But why should they. They have paid their money it is their seat until the comp starts. They have pre registered for a reason, usually expecting it to sell out or knowing that they may be too late to register but be there for the start.
Any supervisor worth their money, should be able to sit several reserves and still start their competition on time. Yogi Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: I KNOW IT on January 03, 2007, 01:59:34 PM I guess the top & bottom of the Ali Mallu affair is simply that, it has nothing to do with the GC. If you are Banned by the Casino, you cannot enter the Premises, & thats that. One imagines there is a GC "Guideline" that suggests as much - "Banned Members may not enter Licensed Premises bla bla bla". Casinos are private member clubs, and as such can bar people without giving any reason whatsoever, letters can be written to the GC to complain and they will investigate, but this will not ensure your entry again. Most casinos are sensible about this, but I have heard of people being barred for winning too much. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: tikay on January 03, 2007, 02:12:18 PM I agree it might be polite for pre registrations to announce themselves to the Supervisor. But why should they. They have paid their money it is their seat until the comp starts. They have pre registered for a reason, usually expecting it to sell out or knowing that they may be too late to register but be there for the start. Any supervisor worth their money, should be able to sit several reserves and still start their competition on time. Yogi There speaks a top Supervisor. We miss you Yogi. I guess it would be politically incorrect to ask you what you'd have done with Mr Mallu's chips had you still been there......So I'll wait till I see you next & then ask you! A fascinating & very awkward problem. Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: quantify on January 03, 2007, 10:18:53 PM you know wat yogi wudda done if he was still in bpool HE WUD AVE EATEN EVERY LAST ONE OF ALIS CHIPS
Title: Re: a question borne out of the sandcastle debacle Post by: Yogi-Bear on January 04, 2007, 10:57:53 AM I always did enjoy lots of chips.
YUM YUM. |