LIVE'S PHILADELPHIA POKER ROOM. THE ART OF SOLVING ISSUES WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THEM.
At Live! Casino Philadelphia poker room, I witnessed one of the most baffling ways a poker room could choose to handle a potential rule violation.
During a hand, a player at my table pushed all his chips forward past the betting line, then suddenly pulled them back. Sitting right next to him, I immediately noticed and alerted the dealer. The dealer's response? Silence. He just ignored me and continued dealing.
Seeing that the dealer wasn’t interested, I flagged a floor staff member. His response? "The hand played out, no need to check the cameras." In other words, they didn’t even care whether a violation had occurred or not—they just decided it wasn’t worth looking into.
To make things worse, the player in question began insulting and threatening me right in front of the dealer and the floor staff. Instead of intervening, the dealer downplayed the situation and told security that there was just "some tension at the table."
At this point, I went to the floor supervisor expecting a proper review. His response? “We go by what the dealer says, not what players claim.”
So, to be clear:
They never checked the cameras to determine what actually happened.
The dealer ignored my complaint entirely.
The floor dismissed it instantly, relying solely on the dealer’s judgment.
Frustrated by this complete lack of accountability, I informed them that I would be filing a complaint with the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission—which I did.
The Legal Department’s Masterpiece of a Response
The next day, I sent an email to the poker room management explaining the situation. To their credit, I got a quick response from the Director of Poker Operations, asking for my phone number. I replied that I preferred written communication. And then... silence.
When I followed up, I received an email from the VP of Legal for Live! Philadelphia & Pittsburgh. And here’s where it gets hilarious:
1. He pointed out that I had already folded my hand when the violation happened. What does this mean? That I lost my right to report a rule violation? That only players still in the hand can care about fair play? Maybe next time I should stay in the hand just to have a say in enforcing the rules.
2. He stated that the dealer had instantly determined that no violation had occurred and used their "discretion" to continue the game without stopping the action. Somehow, the dealer managed to reach this conclusion within a fraction of a second—without even needing to pause and think.
3. And my favorite part: He assured me that all staff acted in "good faith." Yes, ignoring a player’s complaint, refusing to check the cameras, and letting a player openly insult and threaten another—all done in "good faith."
So let me get this straight:
When I pointed out the issue, neither the dealer nor the floor had any idea whether a violation had occurred.
Instead of investigating, they chose to ignore it.
And later, management "confirmed" that their decision was correct all along—even though they never checked the cameras until after I filed a complaint.
Final Thoughts
At Live! Casino Philadelphia, rule enforcement works like this: If the dealer says nothing happened, then nothing happened. No need for investigation, no need for accountability. Just trust their instant judgment, because they apparently have superhuman decision-making abilities.
Oh, and if you ever witness a rule violation but you’ve already folded your hand? Don’t even bother speaking up. Apparently, fairness only applies to those still in the pot.
Have any of you experienced similar treatment from Live! Poker Rooms? Would love to hear your thoughts.
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.
Oh, perfect! Thanks for clarifying!
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.
Oh, perfect! Thanks for clarifying!
It never crossed your mind to think hey it didnt cost me any money and no one else has an issue so maybe i should leave it alone?
It never crossed your mind to think hey it didnt cost me any money and no one else has an issue so maybe i should leave it alone?
I did think about that, WhiteJesus. But when the player in question, the moment I raised my hand to get the dealer’s attention and said my first word, responded with “Go f*** yourself, I’ll f*** you up” and plenty more in that vein—paired with the staff’s complete disregard—it made me rethink letting it go. There was nothing wrong with handling the situation calmly, addressing it with facts instead of insults, and proving me wrong if I was mistaken.
But when the player in question, the moment I raised my hand to get the dealer’s attention and said my first word, responded with “Go f*** yourself, I’ll f*** you up”
So another player physically threatened you, and everyone else just ignored it?
You sounds like someone who doesn't play well with others.
I did think about that, WhiteJesus. But when the player in question, the moment I raised my hand to get the dealer’s attention and said my first word, responded with “Go f*** yourself, I’ll f*** you up” and plenty more in that vein—paired with the staff’s complete disregard—it made me rethink letting it go. There was nothing wrong with handling the situation calmly, addressing it with facts instead of insults, and proving me wrong if I was mistaken.
So now you’re just flat out contradicting yourself.
At Live! Casino Philadelphia poker room, I witnessed one of the most baffling ways a poker room could choose to handle a potential rule violation.
During a hand, a player at my table pushed all his chips forward past the betting line, then suddenly pulled them back. Sitting right next to him, I immediately noticed and alerted the dealer. The dealer's response? Silence. He just ignored me and continued dealing.
Seeing that the dealer wasn’t interested, I flagged a floor staff member. His response? "The hand played out, no need to check the cameras." In other words, they didn’t even care whether a violation had occurred or not—they just decided it wasn’t worth looking into.
To make things worse, the player in question began insulting and threatening me right in front of the dealer and the floor staff. Instead of intervening, the dealer downplayed the situation and told security that there was just "some tension at the table."
So which is it? Did he say this right after you opened your mouth or did he say it after you attempted multiple escalations for a ruling of a hand you weren’t even in?
So now you’re just flat out contradicting yourself.
So which is it? Did he say this right after you opened your mouth or did he say it after you attempted multiple escalations for a ruling of a hand you weren’t even in?
Checkraisedraw, your posts are making me quite confused.
In your first post, the main point was that I was overdramatizing the situation. I read it, found it reasonable, and responded while also asking you a question. You replied with a slightly harsher tone, firmly standing by your point, yet I still thanked you for the clarification.
Now, as someone who is supposedly just an impartial observer, you seem to have a hard time accepting my response. That makes me seriously question the sincerity of your lecture, Checkraisedraw. If you, as a neutral bystander, are struggling this much to accept my explanation, I can’t even imagine what you would have done in the casino that day if you were in my place. They might have had to call in the SWAT team!
Hahaha… just kidding. You’re a good lad
Nice dodge. Not going to address the clear contradiction?
