What? Total Agreement?

I often sit at a poker table and wonder what it would take to get nine poker players to agree on one thing. Ask nine players at a table who is the greatest athlete of all time, and you are likely to get nine answers. Ask nine players if they would like to move to a different table because someone spilled his beer all over the table, and you will get at least two or three who don't want to move. The next time you are playing, ask the players at the table who is the best poker player at the table – I'm pretty sure that you see where I am going.

With that being said, what do you think it would take to get 46 players to agree on overriding a tournament policy that could have an effect on the outcome of the tournament? That is exactly what happened on day No. 2 of the Tournament of Champions.

I was fortunate enough to be there when this occurred. When the tournament got down to 46 players (45 players would be "in the money"), the tournament director announced that we would be playing hand for hand, meaning that every table would play one hand at a time. The reason for this is to ensure that no players have an advantage by forcing all tables to play the same number of hands when it gets to the point that there is only one player remaining before all players are in the money.

We had played hand for hand for approximately 45 minutes, and it was apparent that everyone was getting agitated. It seemed that every person who went all in won at least part of the pot. The small stack at my table went all in twice, once having to catch one of two eights in the deck on seventh street to survive. He did, and we played on. The 45th-place finisher was to receive $4,000, and people were beginning to get on edge.

After consulting with the powers that be, the tournament director asked over the loudspeaker if any of the 46 players objected to not playing hand for hand, and just playing it out on the clock. I laughed to myself, as there was no way that everyone would agree. Then, something strange happened: No one said a word. There was some mumbling, and I looked around to see if what I was hearing (silence) was for real. I was in decent chip position, and it wasn't going to affect me either way. I had been attacking the blinds and antes, as most of the players were playing very cautiously. The tournament director then asked again if anyone objected, and when no one spoke up, we were off playing real poker again.

Although I didn't object, and didn't care which way the decision went, I personally don't think this should have happened. I can guarantee that there were some people who wanted to object, but didn't because no one else did. What this did was change the pace of the tournament, and possibly the outcome. When we resumed play, it didn't seem that anything moved faster. Not one table wanted to play fast, and it seemed that almost every player was taking a little longer than normal. This could possibly have had an influence on a hand that was played. The reason that the rule was put into place was to make it fair for all players, and we had just agreed to make it unfair.

I guess this just proves that poker players aren't so hardheaded after all. This situation was a once-in-a-lifetime happening. I will never again see 46 players agree on anything.