A Major Change ... and More

The World Series of Poker main event will be starting soon, and it will feature a major change. Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably are aware that the final table will be played in November, four months after the tournament starts.

I first became aware that Harrah's was contemplating this change months prior to its announcement. I first thought that it had to be a joke; there was no way that they would make such a change. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized what a great change it would be -- for Harrah's, ESPN, and the WSOP. I don't think that it's a good change for the individual players, but I think that in the grand scheme of things, it's a good change for poker.

After the official announcement, I had heated debates with several people in the industry about whether the change was good or bad. I found myself arguing both sides of the issue, depending on whom I was debating. I think there is a case to be made for both sides. I don't blame some of the players, who aren't interested in "poker," for being mad about it. If I were deciding how it impacted only me personally, I wouldn't like it, either. But, I am involved in poker in many different ways, and I see the bigger picture. I think that this change will be good for the WSOP, and in five years, we will wonder why it was ever done any differently.

Of course, there are some very legitimate concerns about the integrity of the game: collusion, deal-making, partnerships, and so on. But I believe those are all things that will work themselves out, and I believe Harrah's will do what it needs to do to make sure that it goes as smoothly as possible.

Switching gears, in my last column, I wrote about a sticky situation in which a player had pitched one of his cards into the muck, while tabling the other card -- the one he "needed" to win the pot. He wasn't aware (he claimed) that he had to show both cards. In that column, I suggested that he should have won the pot, but been given a stern warning. What actually happened was that his hand was declared dead.

Several people responded to that column, providing their opinions on what should have happened. As is often the case, a majority of the people who responded disagreed with me. Those who agreed with me probably tend to shake their heads in agreement instead of sitting down in front of a computer and sending me an e-mail!

Most everyone suggested that the player's hand should have been dead, but for a few reasons that I did not mention in my column.

From Robert's Rules of Poker (Version 11): "A hand may be ruled dead if the hand does not contain the proper number of cards for that particular game."

Several people thought the player should have had a dead hand because of that rule. While I acknowledge that the rule, as it is written, is a good one, it is not a rule that is always going to be the determining factor. There are situations in which a hand can and will win based on extenuating circumstances. I propose that the situation I described is one of those cases. All levels of players make innocent mistakes. The rulebook is designed to protect innocent mistakes and punish angle shooters; this is supported by the following rule, which is located three rules after the above-referenced rule in Robert's Rules of Poker:

"Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management's discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player."

If the "dead hand" rule was an absolute rule, there would be no need for this rule, which allows a hand to be retrieved from the muck.

That doesn't mean that I believe a hand without the proper number of cards should always be eligible to win the pot. A player who has been known to do this in the past, or has been warned in any way, should have his hand ruled dead. But why would a player muck one of his cards when he has the best hand, knowing that he might lose the pot? To cheat.

Several people suggested that cheating was a reason to rule the hand dead. What if he mucked two cards, or a duplicate card? That is a possibility, and one not to be taken lightly. But every decision made at a poker table is not made with the assumption that everyone is cheating. As I said before, innocent mistakes happen, people get warned about them, and they usually don't make them again. Ruling against novice players or innocent mistakes with a heavy hand is not good for the game of poker.

Here's one last thing: Almost everyone who responded to me about that column mentioned something about the other players having a right to see the other card. One person said, "The other player has paid to see his opponent's hand. That information has value. To deprive him of the information he has paid for is a great injustice." As I have written in several columns in the past, no one has "paid" to see anything. There is no rule that allows a player to ask to see another player's hand because he is curious. I have been pleased to see that many cardrooms are starting to clamp down on this rule and not allow anyone to ask to see a called hand just because he is "curious."

Mike O'Malley is a consultant for www.PartyGaming.com, and can be reached at [email protected]. His website is updated regularly at www.rzitup.com.