Countries Head to UK for Online Gambling Summit
Conference First Step to Creating Online Gaming Regulations
By Bob Pajich
Representatives from more than 30 countries visited the United Kingdom on Halloween to talk about regulating online gaming. The United States was not one of them.
The UK held the online gambling summit to start conversations with countries that allow Internet gambling, to figure out how to reach a consensus on how to provide a regulatory framework.
Sometime in the second half of 2007, online gambling will be legal in the UK. The country's Department for Culture, Media and Sport is reaching out to both online gaming companies and other countries to ensure that any online gambling that goes on in the UK is regulated in order to be fair and safe.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport secretary and main spokesperson Tessa Jowell envisions that online gamblers will recognize that sites located in the UK will be among the safest in the world as a result of the regulatory rules that the UK's Gaming Commission plans to implement. No regulatory rules were set at the conference.
The Gambling Commission's job will be to protect online gambling customers. The job of taxing the online sites will fall to the UK Treasury. The tax rate has yet to be set, and the consensus among online operators is that the tax rate must be competitive to the rates of countries that currently allow and tax online gambling sites. PartyGaming and other companies have said that if the tax rate is too high, they will be less likely to relocate there.
The UK is by far the largest and most powerful country that plans to tax and regulate the online gambling industry. On the other side of this ideological ocean is the U.S. Although some form of gambling is legal in just about all states, a majority of U.S. lawmakers refuse to look at online gambling other than as an illegal activity.
A week before the conference, Jowell had some harsh words for the U.S. decision to attempt to curb online gambling. At a press conference at the conference, Jowell said the gambling summit was an act of acknowledging the power of Internet gambling, and that there are several ways to deal with online gambling.
"When it comes to looking at gambling, you have three courses of action," she said. "Either let the free market operate unfettered, prohibit, or regulate. We have developed a framework for regulation."
The framework was established by UK politicians when they passed the Gambling Act of 2005, which created rules to regulate or restrict all forms of gambling in the UK. The Act was established to keep gambling crime-free, make sure that gambling is fair and open, and protect children and vulnerable adults.
Ironically, supporters of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act claim that the only way to keep gambling crime-free and protect children is to prohibit online gambling altogether by trying to stop the money flow between Americans and online sites, which is what the UIGE Act will attempt to do.
This goes against the thinking of Jowell and proponents of taxing and regulating online gambling in the UK.
"Of course we also want online gambling companies to come onshore. We will welcome them here because we believe that allowing those who want to gamble to do so over the counter, not under the counter, is the best way to protect children and vulnerable people and keep out crime," Jowell said. "The risks of prohibition, I think, are very well-established. Our concern is that if Internet gambling were to be prohibited, it would be driven underground, and precisely the kind of protections that we want to extend to people would be impossible."
Bright Skies in the Aftermath of the UIGE Act
By Shawn Patrick Green
It's been two months since the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), just enough time for the waters to recede a bit and let onlookers assess the damage. Some see PartyPoker's pullout as the beginning of the end for online poker, while those playing on sites still accepting U.S. players are more apt to ask, "Damage? What damage? Things are better than ever!"
Judging from the major weekly tournaments over the last month, it seems the latter group of soothsayers might be onto something. Attendance at four major poker sites still accepting U.S. customers - PokerStars, FullTilt, UltimateBet, and Bodog - is setting records and continuously increasing. In fact, PartyPoker's absence in the playing field, in addition to U.S. players' still-burning desires to play poker online, has caused both PokerStars' and FullTilt's weekly guaranteed tournaments to achieve their highest-ever prize pools.
It would be naïve to say that the landscape of online poker remains unchanged since the institution of the UIGEA, but whether the change is for better or worse is certainly a debatable and constantly evolving issue. At this point, online poker in the U.S. is safe and continuing to expand. PokerStars has become the new worldwide leader in poker and FullTilt is redoubling its efforts to scoop up the abandoned U.S. players and become an even greater force in the industry.
A Broken Record About PokerStars' Broken Records
During October, one couldn't help but feel like a broken record when talking about all of the records being broken at PokerStars. The normally scheduled weekly $1 million-guaranteed tournaments resumed, hot on the heels of September's record-setting
World Championship of Online Poker (WCOOP). While the initial tournament was business as usual in terms of entrants, news of PartyPoker's pullout spread, and by the second week of the month, entries in the
Sunday Million spiked up by more than 650. This equated to 6,157 players, more than the tournament has ever had before, generating a record prize pool of $1,231,400. Håcken, a Swede, took down the tournament to make $176,000.
Not to be outdone (by itself), PokerStars bested its own numbers the very next week with 6,413 entrants vying for $1,282,600. A three-way deal based on chip counts meant that first-place finisher osten87's prize of $103,318 was less than both Halkeye's second-place prize of $124,397 and Iteopepe88's third-place cash of $104,735. However, all of this was chump change compared to PokerStars' final tournament of the month.
On the last Sunday of October, the PokerStars
Sunday Million had both an increased buy-in ($530 compared to the normal $215) and its biggest prize pool yet, $1,392,500. The ultimate winner, dizney1984, managed to pull in the largest-ever first-place prize in a PokerStars weekly tournament, $183,116, despite a three-way chop based on chip counts. Had the tournament ended without a chop, the top prize would have been a staggering $250,000.
FullTilt Follows PokerStars' Lead
PokerStars wasn't the only site to have record-breaking turnouts. FullTilt broke its own records, as well, with the last two $250,000-guaranteed tournaments of the month luring 1,726 and 1,780 player, respectively. Of course, as FullTilt's tournaments continue to grow, so do the prize pools associated with them. The last tournament in October paid out $356,000 to the players who cashed in the event.
Bob Wolf, an independent marketing consultant for FullTilt, said the site fully expects the growth to continue in the wake of the UIGEA. Wolf hinted that FullTilt is already planning to increase the $250,000 guarantee in the near future to reflect the growth.
UltimateBet and Bodog's Tournament Entries Spike
The upward swing also affected UltimateBet and Bodog, both of which traditionally have to fork up overlays for their tournaments, making their overlays relatively insignificant compared to previous months. Following in the footsteps of PokerStars and FullTilt, both UltimateBet and Bodog saw spikes in tournament attendance in the last week of October. Both tournaments saw their fields increase by more than 10 percent compared to the previous week.
Bodog was shy only a negligible 10 players from the 1,000 needed to meet its guarantee in its last tournament of October. UltimateBet was a little further behind at 966 entrants, but, compared to 863 from the week before, this amounted to a huge increase. UltimateBet and Bodog have seen steady or increasing numbers for their tournaments to the point that it wouldn't be surprising to see both break the shackles of their overlays immediately and start exceeding their guarantees on a consistent basis.
Repeat Offenders: Final Table Seats Are Just So Comfortable
Something about the final table of major online tournaments is just so addictive to certain players. Three players liked their final-table experiences so much the first time, they decided to return the next week, as well. They probably had to reserve their seats well in advance.
The first repeat offender of the month was GBecks, who, after landing a third-place finish ($53,130) in the PartyPoker
Sunday Million Guaranteed tournament, finished in second place in the FullTilt $250,000-guaranteed event for $37,408. GBecks made more than $90,000 from those two finishes alone.
Later in October, cardno took second in FullTilt's $250,000-guaranteed tournament for $48,328, and then came back for more the next week for a ninth-place finish ($5,294) in the same tournament. Cardno's total cash won for October was more than $53,000. In the same two weeks, MiracleGro acquired an affinity for third place in UltimateBet's $200,000-guaranteed tournament. He nabbed third two weeks in a row for $18,500 each time, to put his earnings at $37,000. MiracleGro's first final table was also graced by Kyle "kwob20" Bowker, the Internet superstar and double-bracelet winner from the PokerStars
WCOOP. Bowker finished fifth ($11,000) in the tournament.
October's Winners:
PartyPoker Sunday Million Guaranteed
(Note: Oct. 8 was the last tournament before PartyPoker cancelled the event.)
Oct. 1 - TipTripTrap - $156,860
Oct. 8 - ringel - * $97,350
PokerStars Sunday Million
(Note: Oct. 1 was the WCOOP main event, which was covered in last issue.)
Oct. 8 - Fenster - $162,280
Oct. 15 - Håcken - $176,090
Oct. 22 - osten87 - * $103,318
Oct. 29 - dizney1984 - * $182,116
FullTilt Monthly $500,000 Guaranteed
Oct. 15 - copi - $126,789
FullTilt $250,000 Guaranteed
Oct. 1 - SleimanM - $56,276
Oct. 8 - tajikrose - $58,784
Oct. 22 - Jennez - $74,218
Oct. 29 - Dangerous Plyr - $76,540
Ultimate Bet $200,000 Guaranteed
Oct. 1 - Pwnasaurus - $45,000
Oct. 8 - MSUsFinest - $45,000
Oct. 15 - Farkouh - $45,000
Oct. 22 - gobboboy - $45,000
Oct. 29 - horseshoe 6 - $45,000
Bodog $100,000 Guaranteed
(Note: Bodog's results were picked up by Card Player after PartyPoker's pullout.)
Oct. 15 - UND_Dominate - $25,000
Oct. 22 - wacamaster - $25,000
Oct. 29 - BriR99 - $25,000
*Payout reflects a deal made at the final table.
OK, after all of the questions I have answered, I think it's my turn to ask one! This is to all poker dealers: Do you want to make more money?
Obviously, since I am the guy who answers the questions and happens to be a former dealer, I'll go ahead and field this one, too. The answer is yes - and here is how:
With the recent restriction to Americans of some of my favorite online poker rooms, including my own, I have been forced to play more live games. What I have noticed in my return to the local cardrooms in Las Vegas is tons of no-limit hold'em games of all sizes. Another thing I have noticed is an issue that has probably never been discussed and one that I think is very important - so much so that I just can't hold my tongue. Luckily for me, I have been given the opportunity to share my opinions in a public forum.
So, dealers, the following is a situation that I witnessed in my $25-$50 no-limit hold'em game. After some significant action, Player A bet $1,200. Player B then counted out $1,200 from his stack, leaving only $56 left. The remaining $56 was in the form of one $25 chip, six $5 chips, and one $1 chip. Player B then pushed the $1,200 into the pot and said, "I call," and then put his remaining $56 from the table into his hand, as if to imply that he was all in. The dealer put the river card out, and with no discussion from either player or the dealer about Player B's remaining chips, the cards were turned over and the pot was pushed. Player A won the pot and Player B left the game with his $56.
Now, this may not seem like a big deal, but I believe it is, for a couple of reasons. Unfortunately, it is the dealer's job to be the bad guy at the table and enforce all the rules. In my opinion, the best way to keep all players happy and make more tips is to just simply follow all the rules. No player will get mad at you for enforcing a rule; however, many will be furious if you don't. For example, in this case, had you made sure that Player B put his last $50 in the pot (most games stipulate that all money in increments of the lowest-denomination chips in play in the game count; in this case, all money in increments of $25 was in action), nobody would have had any reason whatsoever to be upset with you.
However, by not forcing the remaining money to go in, Player A might get very mad. I myself have been in Player A's situation before, and did not speak up at the table because I didn't want to seem like a greedy, bloodsucking animal and complain about a few extra dollars; however, silently I was begging the dealer to make Player B put his money in there. I can't say how other players think or react, but I know that the dealer involved in my situation didn't get a very good tip, but would have gotten an extra tip had he enforced the rule. I assure you, nobody at the table will get mad at you if you speak up and make the money go in. It is part of the game.
Here is another reason for making sure that all the money goes in: Let's say that you have pushed the pot to Player A and shuffled up the cards for the next hand. Now, you glance over and see that Player B is still sitting at the table with his $56. What now? Do you deal him in? Does his $50 still play? I am not really sure, but I think that, technically, since he has enough to cover the big blind, he is still eligible for a hand. So, now you deal him in, and he either plays his hand or not, but two other players get involved in the pot, which results in significant action, and you have now affected the outcome of the game for more than just players A and B. By doing this, you may have just created yet another silent enemy who will never tip you again, and you don't even know it. So, to all poker room personnel: Since I want you to make the most amount of money possible, and I'm sure you do, too, please spread the word.
Harrah's Announces 2007 World Series of Poker Director, Starting Dates
World Series of Poker is in Good Hands Again
By Lisa Wheeler
Harrah's Western Division Vice President of Specialty Gaming Howard Greenbaum announced that Jack Effel has stepped up to become the 2007
World Series of Poker tournament director, while this year's tournament director, Robert Daily, has accepted the duties of next year's event director.
Harrah's also announced that the 38th
WSOP will start on June 1, 2007, and the final table of the $10,000 main event will take place on Tuesday, July 17, which is nearly a month earlier than the date of this year's final table.
"Jack and Bob know the poker business inside out," said Greenbaum. "Given the enormous complexity of hosting an event of this magnitude, it's important to have truly exceptional people overseeing the details. Jack and Bob fit that description."
As tournament director, Effel will oversee a wide variety of tournament operations, including dealer and floorperson staffing, tournament rules, payout percentages, structures for satellites, and second-chance tournaments.
Daily's duties as event director will include management of accounting, auditing, and cage operations, as well as office staffing, registrations, and convention services.
"Improving tournament operations is our top priority for 2007," said
World Series of Poker Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack. "Howard will provide clear leadership and one-stop shopping on all things poker, and Jack and Bob will manage the tournament and event operations day-to-day. This is a winning combination that deepens our bench and will result in a better experience for players and spectators."
With a total gross prize pool of more than $171 million and in excess of 48,000 player registrations, the 37th-annual
World Series of Poker shattered every participation and prize-money record for a live poker event. The top prize for the $10,000 no-limit Texas hold'em championship reached $12 million.
Sorel Mizzi
Building an Empire
By Craig Tapscott
Online tournament superstar Sorel Mizzi is a poker architect, building illusions within the framework of a flop, turn, and river. The house of cards he constructs, more often than not, comes crashing down on opponents who venture within.
"I make some very controversial calls and raises," stated Mizzi. "I have a different way of looking at the game. The biggest thing about poker is knowing what you can do to certain players and what you can't."
In January of 2006, Mizzi set a simple goal: to be one of the top-ranked online tournament players in the world. But after winning 50K online within a week, then losing most of it in the same amount of time, doubts crept in. He reached out to other players for advice, hand critiques, and support. Luck was on his side when an accomplished player answered his pleas.
"JJProdigy helped me to believe in myself more than he actually helped with my game," confessed Mizzi. "He always encouraged me, and was the first to believe I would get ranked quickly if I tweaked my game and also changed my name on all sites for uniformity." Their brainstorming sessions resulted in the name Imperium - Latin for empire.
Since that fateful day, Mizzi has achieved every goal he has set. He has built a solid foundation - mentally, emotionally, and strategically - drafting a unique blueprint for poker success.
Craig Tapscott: How did your tournament game improve so quickly?
Sorel Mizzi: I sent hand histories to every player who was where I wanted to be. I believed I had a natural talent, but it just needed to be refined a little bit. The biggest attribute to my game is my instincts. I still ignore pot odds a lot of the time. If I think I'm ahead in the hand or it's a decent chance that it's a coin flip, I'm calling.
CT: As far as strategy is concerned, what was the main thing you gleaned from JJProdigy?
SM: Position over cards. That made sense. If I was down to 10 times the big blind, he preferred that I fold A-10 from under the gun and push 7-3 offsuit from the button. That is one of the things that has helped me a lot. Now I've developed my own style.
CT: Could you be more specific?
SM: Everything has become psychological warfare. Cards don't matter anymore. For me, poker is a game of pure information. I really don't like playing cards as much I like playing poker. There is a mathematical strategy and a strategical strategy. If people know that I'm going to call them if they reraise me, they're not going to reraise me with air. I want the table image that I'm not going to fold, especially if I'm the chip leader at the table. From a strategical perspective, I think it's the right thing to do.
CT: You need a good read to be able to do this with consistent success.
SM: Being able to read my opponents is one of my biggest strengths. If I was unable to do this, I wouldn't be able to play poker properly. That's because, like I said, I don't play in a very standard manner. A lot of my play is based on my instincts and what I believe the other player has. I've seen so many hands that I sometimes know a player's hand just by the timing, how fast or slow he calls. Everything makes sense. What he does tells a story about his hand. I read that story very well. I didn't have that skill in the beginning, as I was relying on cards completely.
CT: You mentioned something called the new squeeze play - the three-bet?
SM: You raise in position - say, from the cutoff - late in a tournament and the blinds are starting to get big, and you have a fairly deep stack. The button goes over the top. You know he could be doing that with a lot of different hands. It's a perfect opportunity to resteal. Now, you go over the top of that button raise. It becomes another squeeze. I'm talking about doing that with air, with absolutely nothing.
CT: Do you have any advice on dealing with the donks and drawouts?
SM: Poker is a stressful enough game as it is. Why make it more so by taking bad beats so seriously? Now I realize that they are the people who are feeding me. That's my mind frame. If anything, I'm very nice to the fish. I even compliment their play. Sometimes I can be a bit sarcastic, though (laughing).
Tune in at most sites and watch Imperium entertain (except at PokerStars, where he is zangbezan24, because it doesn't allow name changes). He is an example of a true gentleman at the tables and a very sharp and dangerous player.
World Poker Tour Introduces New Poker Hostess Sabina Gadecki
By Lisa Wheeler
Sabina Gadecki follows Shana Hiatt and Courtney Friel as the
World Poker Tour hostess as the
WPT kicks off its fifth season of popular poker programming.
Gadecki's television debut was at The Bicycle Casino's 2006
Legends of Poker tournament, but her career began as a beauty pageant contestant, winning Miss Western Massachusetts and Miss Polonia back in 2002.
According to
WPT representatives, their second hostess, Courtney Friel, did not renew her contract after the fourth season and producers looked for new talent. Gadecki was discovered when her New York agent submitted a photo of the young model to the
WPT and they responded. A request for a demo followed, and Gadecki was provided with sample clips of veteran hostesses Hiatt and Friel opening televised episodes and conducting interviews with poker players. After reviewing the material, Gadecki collaborated with some of her closest friends and set out to videotape her own comical version of an impressionable clip.
Donning cliché Vegas-style attire and cowboy boots, Gadecki mimicked Hiatt in animated fashion, literally kicking off her boots as she delivered the line, "So kick off your shoes and stay awhile." She closed with a brief narrated bio, and then spontaneously turned the camera on her friends who were assisting with the amateur production, thanking them for their help. When her agent reviewed the completed project, he warned, "They'll either think you're crazy, or they'll love it."
WPT producers contacted Gadecki's agent and she began touring in June.
Gadecki is currently studying at Fordham Univeristy, majoring in international business with a minor in communications. She recently finished her first year of a two-year stint at the William Esper Professional Actor Training Studio.
Honing her statuesque and lean figure with years of formal dance study, Gadecki is a member of a troop named TADAH (tap, acting, dance, and hip-Hop), led by renowned choreographer Jared Grimes, who's responsible for the early dance teachings of Mya and Mariah Carey. Gadecki also attends ballet and hip-hop classes at the Broadway Dance Center.
Online Hand-to-Hand Combat: GreenPlastic Executes a High-Level Bluff
By Craig Tapscott
Want to study real poker hands with the Internet's most successful players? In this new series, Card Player offers hand analysis with online poker's leading talent. And, as an added bonus, you can check out additional live video commentary provided by the pros at www.CardPlayer.com/h2hc.
Event: No-limit hold'em cash game - heads up
Stacks: GreenPlastic - $14,290, Villain - $20,882
Blinds: $50-$100
Preflop: Villain raises from the button to $300. GreenPlastic calls, holding the 5
4
.
Craig Tapscott: What was your opponent's play like up to this point?
Taylor Caby (GreenPlastic): This was an extremely aggressive game. He was raising 90 percent of the time from the button and was calling 80 percent of my button raises. The 5
4
is the type of hand that I will play with stacks this deep, and it is even a hand I will raise with from time to time.
Flop: Q
6
3
($600 pot) GreenPlastic checks, Villain bets $600, GreenPlastic calls.
CT: Did you think about raising with the draw to see where you were at in the hand?
TC: Many times I would raise this, but I was worried that he might push me off the hand, as I had been caught in a few bluff reraises previously. I flopped an open-end straight draw with both of us having deep stacks - a good hand. I decided to call and hope to hit one of my cards.
Turn: Q
($1,800 pot) Both players check.
River: 10
CT: OK, you've missed your draw. What now?
TC: Well, I decide I want to steal the pot. I don't want to bet the pot, because it may look like some sort of steal, and with a pair, he would probably call. I want to bet just big enough so that he will fold a very small pair or maybe ace high, but if he calls, I will lose the least amount possible.
GreenPlastic bets $550.
CT: What were you trying to represent here?
TC: This bet looks like I'm trying to protect a small pair, maybe A-6 or 5-5. It's a reasonable bet, and usually he would fold because it isn't worth trying to raise me off a hand here. But in this case, I'm guessing that he hit a 10 and was pretty sure that I was just protecting my low pair; so, he raised me a very small amount.
Villain raises to $1,350.
CT: Are you done with this hand?
TC: No. My bet represented me trying to protect a small pair, which is what I wanted it to do. He recognized it and tried to get value for his 10. I understood this play from him and decided to go one level of thinking deeper. I came over the top of him and tried to trick him into re-evaluating my very small bet and believing that it was instead a teaser with a monster hand.
GreenPlastic raises to $5,500.
CT: I'm sure this froze him.
TC: You're right. He thought for the full amount of time. He folded his hand because now he thinks about my original $550 bet and changes his opinion of my hand. He now thinks I have a huge hand with which I was trying to get him to reraise me. I won with 5 high.
CT: Many online players are calling stations, and would have called you down with only a 10 in their hand.
TC: True. These kinds of plays can be made only against opponents who think carefully and understand that there can be many different reasons for various bet sizes.
To see this hand animated and narrated with additional analysis by GreenPlastic, visit www.CardPlayer.com/h2hc.
Taylor Caby is one of the most successful cash-game players on the Net at the highest limits. He recently graduated with a finance degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Taylor is the co-founder and lead instructor at CardRunners.com, an online poker school geared toward cash games and tournament play.
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.
Matt: Here's something I found strange. I recently was playing a game of limit hold'em. Two players were left. The first person raised and the second player mucked his cards directly into the dealer's muck pile. The first person requested to see the hand, so the dealer went into the muck pile and pulled the two cards out and showed them. The player didn't show anyone his cards before he mucked them. The dealer said this is perfectly fine. Is this correct?
Jack: In many rooms, this is acceptable. I believe that a player should never muck his cards directly into the muck. Many things can happen, and none of them are good.
Bob: Love the column, Jack. I was playing $1-$2 no-limit hold'em in a Las Vegas Strip property cardroom recently when this issue came up: At the showdown of a hand that generated a sizable pot, Player A called a $60 bet on the river from Player B, and then flipped his hand up, announcing "Jack two." But when he tossed his cards up, they stuck together and only the deuce was exposed. There were two jacks on the board, so Player B, thinking his hand was no good, tossed his hand into the muck.
Right after Player B mucked, another player not involved in the hand slid Player A's cards apart, revealing that Player A didn't have trip jacks as he had declared, but only a busted ace-high flush draw. Player B was furious (he said he folded a pair), and the dealer immediately called over the manager. The dealer did a great job of explaining the situation, and after listening, the manager basically said that Player B was out of luck, but that he didn't approve of Player A's actions in his poker room and suggested that Player A return the last $60 bet to Player B. Player A refused.
How would you have handled this?
Jack: Both players acted incorrectly. Player A won the pot by deception. Player B acted too quickly on his hand before seeing both of Player A's cards. Player A was the offender in this case, but Player B gave up his rights to the pot by folding without showing his hand.
I would have requested that Player A split the pot. If he refused, I would have shown him the exit and reminded all players that this kind of underhanded conduct was not welcome in my room.
Shawn: I recently played in a low buy-in tournament at the Imperial Palace in Las Vegas. It was a rebuy tournament and we were playing the final hand before rebuys were no longer allowed. I was sitting out of the hand and watched as a short-stacked player put all of his chips in and declared that he was all in. Two other players had called when the dealer inadvertently mucked the all-in player's unprotected, facedown cards. The player was at first incredulous, and then furious, yelling, "What are you doing? I'm all in!" The floor manager was called, and he decided to retrieve the man's hand based on what the dealer thought the two cards were from within the muck and the man's word that they were the same two cards.
There wasn't any opposition to this resolution from the table, but it seems a bit shady to me. It may be important to note that the man doubled up in the hand. What are your thoughts?
Jack: First of all, the player needs to protect his own hand. That said, the dealer should not be able to kill the hand on his authority, and definitely not be able to pick the cards and give them back. I would have given the all-in player his chips back and not let him continue the hand, with the caveat that in the future, he protect his own hand with a card cap or a coin.
