LIVE'S PHILADELPHIA POKER ROOM. THE ART OF SOLVING ISSUES WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THEM.

What rule violation do you believe you witnessed. Be specific because as stated so far this is not even close to clear. Be sure to include what you man by deal continued dealing

He's implying that one player attempted to bet out-of-turn and then pulled his chips back. Of course, OP conveniently fails to discuss why everyone else at the table who saw this clearly suspicious move decided to say nothing.

Couple if questiins Chepok,

out of curiosity...are you primarily an online player?

And then as stated above, why are you giving very little details? Context matters here

He wasn’t acting out of turn. He was seated to my left, I folded, and it was his action. This wasn’t some accidental situation where chips slipped past the betting line. He deliberately grabbed all his chips and pushed them forward, crossing the line.

Later, the casino—via their VP of Legal—claimed it wasn’t intentional. But intentional or not, the game should have been paused and the situation verified. That’s all I’ve been saying.

And if this was such a 'non-issue,' do you really think they’d need a corporate attorney to explain the sacred laws of the betting line?

As for the other players, the ones who limped in weren’t exactly eager to make his bet binding. Why would they? Seeing a flop for $3 is a lot more appealing than seeing one for $300

I've worked in a half dozen rooms in my dealing/flooring career. Not one of them would stop a cash game to review the film to see if a player crossed the line or committed to a bet with forward motion once the dealer has clarified that a betting motion wasn't made. Especially if most of the players at the table corroborated what the dealer said.

The fact that you heard from the VP of Legal reached out to you speaks more to the amount of noise you've made and the fact that you reached out to gaming than it has to do with any uncertainty or doubts the poker room has with the way the ruling was handled.

I have never played at the !Live casino you are talking about.

I have played in a casino (Taj Mahal) where a dealer made a mistake (that cost me about a $300 pot) and the Floor came over and ignored the Dealer's mistake (which wouldn't have gotten me the $300 but would have instructed the Dealer on how to act in the future) instead blaming it on a player who did in fact make a different mistake and when i went to the room manager he said he would do nothing about it (like not educate the Floors and the Dealers). So I decided not to play there again.

I would basically come to the same conclusion about what happened in the !Live Casino in PA. The guy absolutely went all in by pushing his chips across the line whether its a betting line issue or whether its a forward motion issue. I'm guessing the dealer didn't see it or didn't want to deal with what he saw and that is a critical error. The Floor sided with the Dealer and not the players which to me is unacceptable. As did the room manager. I absolutely would never play in a room where their decisions are about protecting their staff rather than making sure the game is being handled fairly (in other words protecting the players). It also doesn't really surprise me that the gaming commission favored the room and tried to make it seem like they did the right thing.

The guy who did it was a jerk to you. Which is not unusual because you tried to hold him accountable for his behavior.

A different kind of incident but one in which the Floor at Mohegan Sun refused to look into an issue that had to be looked into (one table that started late got 20,000 chips per player when the rest of us only got 15,000 chips). Finally she did look into it after about 30 or 40 minutes after finding out about it and told me she was going to look at the tape and be back in 5 minutes. She also wouldn't tell me what the resolution would be if it had in fact happened. Which was beyond ridiculous. So when she wasn't back in 5 minutes I went to the Gaming commission (I had bounced out and needed to know if I should buy back in or not) and that's where it went south. It turned out the Gaming Commissioner who knew the head of the poker room asked him how it should be handled and he said just play on. And that was the decision. And my decision was to not go back to Mohegan Sun. About a year and half later I went back to see how they were handling it before tournaments, I talked to Floor I knew (from Foxwoods) and he hadn't even been told of the incident. So I didn't go back until recently because Foxwoods no longer does their MegaStack series. And still they weren't dealing with it. They still started late tables only with alternates (so in addition to possibly getting the starting stacks wrong they also were allowing collusion to happen if cheaters decided to do it). I spoke to a few people then and then a few months later and the third time I went back they fixed it. All late tables included people who were already playing and not a lot of the late players. So all is now good at Mohegan Sun.

A different incident happened at the Venetian where the Floor didn't handle a very similar situation to yours well and it went south. I was in a hand with a guy who on the turn took his whole stack of chips and swung it past the line (forward motion was the thing at the Venetian). He also said "All In" which I heard from across the table (he was in the 10 seat and I was in the 3 seat). The dealer pulled out an all-in button and fumbled with it and it landed back in his tray. I asked the dealer if it was an all in and the dealer said it was. So I pushed my chips forward as the dealer was picking up the all in button again. The player pulled back his chips. I called the Floor over and the Floor did not ask the Dealer what he heard. He did not ask anybody at the table what they heard. A guy in the 5 seat who apparently was a friend of the player who went all in said "he no say nothing" over and over. And the guy in the 10 seat also said "I no say nothing. I no speak English". As the Floor was asking the Dealer if he ever put the all in button on the table (which the dealer said "no" to) the player mucked his hand though he wasn't facing a bet. The Floor then ruled that the player would get a one round penalty and lost the hand but didn't have to put his chips in. After the Floor left a player in the 9 Seat told me across the table that he also heard the 10 Seat say "All in". So I went to the Tournament Director and told him that we had a cheater at the table and I told him what had happened with the Floor (knowing full well I wasn't going to win any chips but I wanted the player to be thrown out of the tournament for cheating). The TD told me he would look into it. At the next break I went to the TD and he told me that the Floor had assured him that's not what happened. That he had asked and nobody at the table had said they heard the "all in" statement. In fact the Floor never asked or I, the Dealer and the player in the 9 seat would have spoken up as probably the players in the 1 and 2 seats who told me the ruling was awful. I told the TD that his Floor had lied to him that all he had to do was ask the player in the 9 seat and he said that he was standing by his Floor. And I told him I was done playing at the Venetian. Which was true for several years when I was in Vegas (before Covid). The TD changed when I went back about two years later and he told me he would never have allowed the player to keep playing once it became clear he had been cheating. So now I feel like the Venetian cares about the players even if it means holding a Floor accountable for a mistake.

Until you get the assurance that !Live will try to defend action at the table based on what actually happened, I wouldn't play there. Trying to make it OK for Dealers to make bad mistakes means that in the future in a hand you are in, you might get a horrific ruling in order to defend a dealer.

If it was that simple, why did they need to consult the VP of Legal before giving me a clear answer? The director of operations could have easely explained the same thing in writing. But she wanted to have a phone conversation instead. The fact that the VP of Legal had to personally respond to me suggests they weren’t sure themselves at first. You could even see it as a form of intimidation—like they’re saying, 'Hey, we brought in the big guns.
As I said before, since when do casinos need corporate atorneys to interpret the sacred laws of the betting line.

Intentional or not, the player who made the move should have received a warning. That’s exactly why the game should have been paused and reviewed."

To Mr Rick
"I sympathize with the situations you've been through—it really takes experiencing mistreatment firsthand to truly understand how frustrating and unfair it can be. That’s exactly how I feel about what happened to me. There were multiple ways they could have handled the situation fairly, ensuring that all parties felt heard without accusing anyone. Instead, they grouped up against me the moment they realized the dealer had either made an incompetent ruling or was siding with the player for other reasons. The rest of the table, uninterested in whether the bet was actually binding, naturally turned against me. They clearly didn’t expect this issue to escalate as much as it has, and I’m sure they regret it now. One thing is certain—I have no intention of ever playing there again

I assume the corporate attorney called you because the Governor of Pennsylvania had a prior engagement.

One of the things that is unclear to me is whether the villain released his hands from the chips before reaching out to bring them back in. Since the movement was "suddenly" I'm going to guess the answer is no. In many rooms, players can remove chips if they are not released. You didn't say the villain said "all in" so I have to assume he did not. Nor did the dealer say "all in" to the move. Nobody else at the table seem to support you in your claim there was a rules violation. In fact, you don't even know the rules of the room.

Therefore, this looks like at most a case of angle shooting. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it means an action THAT IS LEGAL but considered not fair play. At most the villain was going to get a warning and play was going to continue. The only reason you got a letter from legal is that you filed a formal complaint to the gaming commission and they are required to respond to you. It is not due to the merits of your complaint.

I really like the way you introduce yourself at the start of the discussion—as a former dealer and floor—like you have all the inside knowledge, and people reading will naturally lean toward your side. Very strategic.

Oh, I truly appreciate the effort you put into this condescending little lecture—really, top-tier stuff. If only you'd read my post with the same enthusiasm, you might have realized that I never needed a crash course on angle shooting. But hey, I admire the mental gymnastics required to twist this into 'no real issue' while completely ignoring the fact that the room itself escalated it to legal. Almost like they knew they screwed up and hoped intimidation would make it go away. But sure, let’s pretend it was all just standard procedure. Comedy gold.

I'm a huge rules nit, to a fault. However, filing a complaint with the gaming commission over an alleged "rule violation" that no one else saw when you were already out of the hand suggests that you have major issues related to navigating seemingly routine social situations.

The additional fact that you're responding to all comers here with indignation and defensiveness makes it apparent that there's something not quite right with your circuitry.

Sir. You read this forum discussion, and you couldn’t contain yourself, immediately resorting to personal attacks. So far, I have simply engaged in a debate about differing opinions with other participants without insulting anyone. Meanwhile, you—an apparent champion of social norms—chose to launch a personal attack rather than contribute to a constructive discussion.

This, sir, says more about your character than mine and makes it quite clear who actually struggles with navigating social situations. Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking the time to read my posts and engage in the discussion.

It's curious that someone who has been sarcastic to numerous posters thinks he hasn't insulted anyone.

Normies can see right through you.

why should a player outside of a hand be able to hold the players inside a hand to a forward motion rule?

honestly the way you have conducted yourself in this thread you sound like an absolute peach to play with. you’re probably being ignored by everyone because you complain about every hand and have a meltdown over the rules every time you’re in the casino.

boy who cried wolf.

Clearly, I’m not being ignored by everyone, considering the casino itself escalated this situation to their legal department. Not only did I receive a response, but it came directly from the VP of Legal, not just some junior attorney.

Now, take a moment and think—if you were the one making decisions for this casino, would you really allow a ‘non-issue’ to reach this level? Would you personally call me, ask for my phone number to discuss things off the record, then go silent for 48 hours when I requested written communication for clarity, only to have your VP of Legal respond later?

Either this was an intentional escalation, or the casino’s handling of this speaks for itself. But sure, let’s pretend I’m the unreasonable one here.

Think about it and get back to me if you can

There is no sacred law of the betting line. Not even a sacred rule of the betting line.

I have no idea of Live! Philly but some places it is a hard rule betting line. Other places it is nothing but a dealer convenience. Then there are, IMO, the really bad rooms where the reality rule is it depends on the dealer.

I am not making any statement on what this player did.

The reason you got a response from legal had nothing to do “needing” to consult legal and nothing to do with intimidation. When you involved gaming it moves to a very different level. There are many sanctions gaming can potentially issue up to suspending the casino license. That is not going to happen in this case but legal is who gaming is going to interface with.

So when you went to gaming, you involved legal.

As to why ops wanted to talk rather than write a response is they were wanting to keep things less formal and probably less binding. This is another reason the written response came from legal. That is what they do. Things in writing a highly enforceable vs oral which while often enforceable are more difficult to enforce

So either because you involved gaming, which btw they likely see you as attempting to intimidate them, or because how you approached it, they place you maybe a threat or more likely PITA. So they are going to ensure the dot the i’s and cross all t’s.

I will caution this. If you like or need to play there, you may wish to drop it. Their position is clear and is unlikely to change. You have no evidence of anything and it appears nothing to gain even if they did reverse the position. Their next step is likely to be a permanent ban. To them you will simply be too costly a customer.

Is this really the hill you want to die on. The dealer made a mistake but not one that cost anyone a major amount. This is a classic protect your hand situation. Did the other player “angle” or even cheat? Maybe. But were you hurt since you already had folded? Even if you had not folded, you can protect your interest at least to the point of knowing the ruling before you act.

Honestly I am not sure why you pushed a minor issue this hard. Not saying you are not right but this honestly appears to be NBFD to me. Many places would have already made you persona non grata.

How many attorneys do you think the local casino has? I am guessing very few. Their job is to intervene early. If things escalate to actual legal action or claims, they have a corporate dept that handles things. These folks step in write a letter to defuse the situation. If there is an adversarial response, they refer you to corporate probably with a persona non grata included.

As to the title of VP, I cant speak to casinos in general or specifically LIVE! but often those titles are needed for other reasons. Some documents must be signed by a company officer. This is very common in banks. At one time, might still be true, any loan a bank issued had to be counter signed by a company officer. Thus every branch had at least one VP and usually two so loans could close. Have a childhood friend who after college, when he could nit get accepted to law school who hired into a Savings and Loan as a VP. So don’t get impressed by some RGT, really grand title.

To Fore,

Thank you for your detailed response. You’re the first to actually ask for more context and take the time to go through my previous posts before giving a thoughtful reply.

I was being a bit ironic when I mentioned the "sacred laws" of the betting line—my point was simply that this shouldn’t have required corporate lawyers to interpret. What seems absurd to me is that poker rooms dismiss a complaint as baseless, yet escalate it themselves to legal. That kind of system just doesn’t make sense.

Even after I informed them I had already taken it to gaming, wouldn’t the more professional approach have been to simply tell me that any response would be directed to gaming instead of involving legal email me?

As for a potential ban, that wouldn’t be an issue—I have no interest in playing at a casino that operates this way. But I do appreciate your response.

I'm also the Vice President of this thread. The very fact that I'm making the time to reply to you means that you've brought a very important issue to light.

You're not just a strategist, but you also have a sharp sense of humor with plenty of flair.

Ignored by everyone in respect to how the ruling was handled, them refusing to look at the tapes, and them refusing to take your concerns seriously about future rulings. They got the VP of legal to send you something in writing probably to make their position clear that they don’t value your opinion.

But sure, getting the VP of Legal to tell you to piss off was sure an accomplishment on your end.