The Inside Straight

The Cold Hard Facts – Leyser v. Gold $6 Million Lawsuit

Harrah's Restrained From Awarding World Series of Poker Championship Winnings

By Lisa Wheeler



After receiving an inside tip from an informant within the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas on Tuesday morning, Aug. 22, a local newspaper reported that a lawsuit was on file in Clark County District Court, with a claim against 2006 World Series of Poker Champion Jamie Gold.



Later that day, the story exploded and was picked up by almost every news medium across the U.S. and Great Britain. Rumors were rampant, and blogs and forums were littered with assumptions and second-hand accounts. Every poker community and group was busy sharing various theories and analysis.



Here are the facts of Leyser v. Gold, taken straight from the lawsuit recently filed in Las Vegas.

The Plaintiff



Represented by Chesnoff & Shonfeld is Bruce Crispin Leyser, a former UK executive television producer who was drawn to Los Angeles in pursuit of sunshine, fame, and fortune. His focus was quickly diverted to another lifelong pursuit – gambling. After four years, Leyser had achieved moderate success. Then over the course of two weeks following the WSOP, he rose from being the subject of gossip to world fame – while possibly acquiring a fortune.

The Defendant



Sam Isreal will represent 2006 World Series of Poker Champion Jamie Gold. After dominating the action from day four to the final hand of the main event, this man has garnered the lion's share of press coverage by local, national, and international news media. Gold's name, title, and image are also splashed across the front page of virtually every poker magazine, poker blog, and online news site. His story now populates other media niches – some not as praiseworthy.



Two Flags and 34 Minutes


On Monday morning, Aug. 21, attorney David Chesnoff filed a 28-page legal document with the Clark County District Court in Las Vegas on behalf of Crispin Leyser. The "Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages" included an application for temporary restraint from the $12 million in WSOP championship winnings. It took only 34 minutes for Chief District Judge Kathy Hardcastle to approve the application, requiring a $1,000 security deposit, lest the defendant suffer wrongful repudiation. Just two weeks prior, several hundred pounds of crisp, cool $100 bills poured freely over the felt of the final table. Now it's destined to remain imprisoned within Rio vaults for another 15 days (until Tuesday, Sept. 5).

Common Facts



Gold and Leyser, both avid poker players, came together in July at the World Series of Poker at the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. They first became acquainted in the television entertainment industry and shared other interests. Gold and Leyser discussed a possible television show venture, and Leyser claims they began to develop a relationship as a result of these conversations.



Gold described to Leyser his brand commitment to Bodog, an online poker website. Gold was required, under contract, to secure celebrities who would wear logo attire during the WSOP main event. This is a common practice by online poker rooms, as celebrities act as billboards that attract ESPN and other media, ensuring the Bodog brand is captured on film. In exchange for this service, Bodog agreed to pay Gold's entry into the WSOP $10,000 main event.



Leyser claims that Gold suggested he strike his own deal with Bodog, and says Gold also mentioned his seat might be up for grabs, since he had pressing work issues back in L.A. and may forgo playing in the main event. Leyser claims that Gold even offered to give the seat to him in exchange for a couple of celebrity billboards. This is when the alleged deal was struck, and the two agreed verbally that whoever secured the seat would share in 50 percent of the winnings.



Leyser went off in search of celebrities. He returned with B-list actor Matthew Lillard, who played Shaggy in the Scooby Doo movies, and Dax Shepard, a comedian seen regularly on the television show Punk'd.



There was no deal struck between Bodog and Leyser.



Bodog insisted that Gold play the sponsored seat in the main event, according to their original agreement. Leyser expressed his disappointment at not being able to play and not knowing what his share of the prize pool might be. Since it was unknown until the fourth flight of the main event exactly how many players would participate, Gold could hardly muster an estimate. Leyser claims that this is when Gold assured him half of his winnings.

The $6 Million Phone Call



Gold played the main event of the WSOP, which spanned a two-week period. Gold gained a substantial chip lead early on, and on Aug. 10, he'd maintained that lead going into the final table. That morning he called Leyser and left a message on his voice mail.



"Hey, it's Jamie. Thank you for your message. I slept pretty well so we should be fine. I have a real good plan on what to do for today. Thank you for all your help. I wanted to let you know about the money. You're obviously very well-protected. Everything will be fine. But nothing's going to happen today, that's for sure. I have the best tax attorneys and the best minds in the business working for me from New York and L.A. And what we're probably going to do is set up a Nevada corporation and it's going to … I have to pay out of the corporation.I can't just pay out personally because I could get nailed. So it might take a few days, so please be patient. I promise you, you can keep this recording on my word. There's no possible way you're not going to get your half after taxes. So please just be with me. I can't imagine you're going to have a problem with it."



Gold then requested some space and privacy to allow him to focus on his game and the events of the day.



"I just don't want any stress about any money or any of that sh— going on today, or even after the end of the day. I'm sure you're going to be fine. You're going to be very well taken care of, absolutely fairly. We're just trying to handle this properly, and after now, I don't even want to talk about it or think about it. But please just trust me. You've trusted me the whole way. You can trust me a little bit more. I promise you there's no way anybody will go anywhere with your money. It's your money. All right, I send you love. Thank you for your support."



Jamie Gold beat out the other eight players at the final table and was awarded the $12 million, the coveted championship bracelet, and a Corum diamond-encrusted gold watch. The money remained at the Rio and, even before the lawsuit and restraining order, Harrah's claims Gold has made no attempt to collect. Harrah's had contacted Gold before the lawsuit was filed, and Gold explained that lawyers and accountants were working out the final details.



Leyser is demanding $6 million. Gold hasn't paid. Leyser hired legal counsel and Gold followed suit. Leyser claims the breach of their contract has caused and will continue to cause him irreparable harm. He's also stated publicly, "If Gold obtains the total sum of the winnings, I will suffer further irreparable harm." On Page 5 of the complaint, Leyser claims, "Gold is a gambler and there is the possibility that he will dispose of the funds." Leyser also accuses Gold of intentionally causing him emotional distress, and that the act was outrageously beyond reasonable and prudent decency.



Harrah's and the Rio are waiting for the courts to decide, or for the two to come to an agreement. But the cashiers at the Rio are ready to prepare "Exhibit A," Form 5754. The form is used by casinos when more than one party shares winnings. This ensures that each party accepts responsibility for taxes at the time of payout. Harrah's states that it has prepared the form for half the amount of the winnings, or $6 million minus some amenities, and Gold can collect this portion of the winnings as soon as the restraining order expires or has been lifted.



Gold responded to the lawsuit a few days after it was filed through a PR firm. See the sidebar to read Gold's statement.

Jamie Gold Responds
Here's Jamie Gold's response, issued by B/W/R Public Relations and his legal representatives:



Jamie Gold is disappointed that the plaintiff, a person he has only known since July of this year, has elected to file litigation rather than continue the parties' discussions in an effort to find a resolution to this matter.



Mr. Gold believes strongly in the American judicial system and believes that it is better to present his case there than to try the matter before the court of public opinion. He is pleased to have had the opportunity to participate and win the World Series of Poker and is pleased with the quality of the tournament, his outstanding opponents, and Harrah's, the event organizer.



Mr. Gold further appreciates the support of his fans and sponsor, Bodog.net, and hopes that this unfortunate litigation will not detract from the outstanding efforts of the entire field of participants in the World Series of Poker.

Ask Jack

Want to know how a multimillion-dollar poker tournament is run? Have a question about a specific tournament poker rule or past ruling you've encountered?



Card Player is giving you the chance to pick the mind of one of the game's finest – Bellagio Tournament Director Jack McClelland. You can send your questions to [email protected], and McClelland will share his 25-plus years of industry experience with you.

Bob: I was a big fan of the World Series of Poker tournament when I was a kid watching Amarillo Slim on ABC Sports back in the '70s. I started running an annual poker tournament (40-50 players) for friends and family about 10 years ago. My original plan was for it to be a no-limit hold'em tournament, but back then, hardly anyone had even heard of the game, let alone know how to play it. So, I made my tournaments seven-card stud. I am happy to say that with the game's recent popularity, I was able to switch to no-limit hold'em about four or five years ago.



The problem I am having as the tournament director (and participant) is that more and more problems occur during the night that I don't know how to correctly handle. In the past, I have relied on my common sense and logic to handle a problem, but I am sure that my judgment was incorrect on several occasions.



I have many questions that could be easily answered if I had a book to reference. Is there a book available on how to run a tournament that you highly recommend? If not, here are a few of my many questions:



What is the proper procedure for moving players to another table? (I try to move players based on where the blinds are for both tables, but players sometimes think it should be the random draw of cards.)



When is it a misdeal and how do you handle misdeals (especially with the burn cards being exposed or not burned)?



What is the proper way to seat players at the final table? Is it via random draw or are they seated strategically based upon chip counts?



What is the best way to handle disagreements between another player and myself (a participant) when I am also the tournament director?



Jack McClelland:



1. When moving a player to a shorthanded table, I take the next full table to break and move the player who will be in the big blind the next hand to the worst possible position at the shorthanded table. That way, the worst thing that can happen to the moving player is that he is in the big blind, where he would have been anyway, and sometimes he gains several positions. If that happens, it's OK, because the new player moving in already is at a disadvantage.



2. On a misdeal, if any of the first two cards flip up, the blinds start over. Otherwise, turn up the exposed card and give it to the player, complete the deal, and then replace the exposed card with the burn card. If two cards are exposed, start over.



3. The final table is a complete random draw, and the dealer high-cards for the button.



4. The best way is to never play in tournaments that you are running. If you do, you must be prepared to graciously take the worst of most decisions.

Andrew Mitchell: I am wondering what type of education and training I should begin to focus on if I were interested in working toward a position as a tournament manager.



To help you better answer my question, I will give you a little context about myself.



I am a 20-year-old college student, currently taking classes at a Maryland community college. I am looking to transfer to the University of Maryland in one semester. I have been playing poker since I was 16. During the few years I have played, I have enjoyed pulling together tournaments as much as I have enjoyed playing in them. Poker gave me a great social outlet during high school, and I found the confidence to speak to and organize people I'd never ask for the time of day.



I've got two more years of undergraduate work ahead of me, possibly three. How should I steer myself in terms of education and internships in order to learn about and get a flavor for what it is like to be the tournament director of a major tournament?



Jack McClelland: Take classes on public speaking, psychology, anger management, and math. Also, classes in business administration and scheduling would help. Get a job in a cardroom and learn all the positions of the employees in live games and tournaments. Being able to adjust and think on your feet while applying common sense and logic to your decisions is crucial.

Jeff Stevenson: I am part of a group of poker players in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, who get together for a fun, but competitive, $30 plus $5 no-limit hold'em tournament in a local casino every Sunday. There has been discussion of making the blinds structure and starting chips more player-friendly, while meeting the conditions set by the casino.



Please recommend the ideal blinds structure (with and without antes) and starting chips with the following conditions in mind: Maximum time limit of four and a half to five hours and a player cap set at 60, but occasionally bumped to 70 upon the casino's approval.



Jack McClelland: Players start with $5,000 in chips and play 20 minute rounds: level 1, $25-$50 blinds; level 2, $50-$100; level 3, $100-$200; level 4, $25 ante, $100-$200; level 5, $25 ante, $200-$400; level 6, $50 ante, $300-$600; level 7, $75 ante, $400-$800; level 8, $100 ante, $600-$1,200; level 9, $200 ante, $800-$1,600; level 10, $300 ante, $1,000-$2,000; level 11, $500 ante, $1,500-$3,000; level 12, $500 ante, $2,000-$4,000; level 13, $1,000 ante, $3,000-$6,000. With 70 players, most times the tournament will end around level 11.

Poker and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

By David Apostolico


In Robert M. Pirsig's classic book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, there is an interesting passage in which the narrator "divide[s] human understanding into two kinds – classical understanding and romantic understanding." The narrator goes on to describe in detail the differences between the two ways of thought. To paraphrase, the classic mode relies on reason and laws and looks at the underlying form. The romantic mode is more creative and intuitive and sees things based on immediate appearance. The narrator offers an illustration by alluding to riding a motorcycle as romantic, while repairing a motorcycle is classic. The classic thinker relishes getting down and dirty with the grease and grime. The romantic sees a beautiful bike and wants to ride it.


What does any of this have to do with poker? Let's find out by taking a look at how each mode of thinker would approach the game. A romantic will shoot from the hip and go with his gut. He'll fall in love with his cards and pay little or no attention to such messy underlying details as pot odds or outs. The classic thinker, on the other hand, will play by the book, figuring out percentages for every holding. He'll give little or no thought to the mindset of his opponents. On it's face, neither one of these approaches seems ideal. In fact, they both seem like a recipe for failure.



Fortunately, I'm willing to bet that the majority of us tend to possess the ability to think in both of these fashions, and we can implement both modes depending on the circumstances. Even so, I'm also going to venture that most of us tend to favor one mode over the other. If we know which mode we favor, we can probably improve our game by learning to tap into the other mode more often. Let's take a look at a hypothetical no-limit hold'em hand to help you determine which way you lean.


Everyone folds to you in the cutoff seat, and you decide to raise three times the big blind with J-10 suited and you get called by the big blind. You know the big blind fairly well, and know that he likes to play a lot of hands and that he is also prone to defending his big blind. The flop comes A-7-2 with two of your suit. The big blind bets two times the pot size. What is your immediate reaction? Was it along the lines of, "I have a flush draw and I'm playing it no matter what," or did you start calculating outs and implied pot odds. Granted, you need more information than I gave you to make a decision, but this column is not about how to play this hand. It's about looking inside yourself to find how you tend to think when you're at the table.



Now, most of you are probably thinking your reaction did not fit neatly into either of the two characterizations above. Rather, you recognize that the correct decision requires knowing more about your opponent's likely holdings and how he'll play out the hand, how big his stack is, how big your stack is, and what your implied pot odds are. But be honest with yourself and try to ascertain which way your very first reaction leaned. If the flush draw excited you, you probably lean toward the romantic. If you started doing calculations in your head with no emotional attachment to the flush possibility, you probably lean toward the classic.



For the classic thinkers, ask yourself if you find yourself measuring every hand in mathematical terms. If so, try going from the gut once in a while by attacking weakness when you sense it. The math is probably so ingrained in your subconscious that you'll naturally consider it anyway. There's just no need to try to prove every situation before acting. If you're a romantic, try to detach yourself emotionally from your hands and don't fall in love with your cards. Spend some time thinking through each situation. Don't ignore your instincts, but temper them with an understanding of what you purport to gain or lose with every move. Strive to find the perfect balance between classic and romantic thought. Once you achieve that, size up your opponents and determine which way each of them leans so that you can exploit it to your advantage.


David Apostolico is the author of Lessons From the Pro Poker Tour, Tournament Poker and the Art of War, and Machiavellian Poker Strategy. You can e-mail him at [email protected].