Reseating / Cheating Hubbub at Festa

By: Dan Michalski – October 30, 2006

Poker Shrink might find this interesting ... apparently there was some Jimmy Sommerfield-esque reseating going on in the main event of Festa al Lago earlier this month. In a nutshell, once they got down to like 99 players, Jack McClelland (whom Jimmy Sommerfield credits with teaching him all he knows about tourney direction) had the players redraw for seats every time they lost nine players. It seemed odd and there was a bit of grumbling ... and eventually Mike Matusow "went ballistic" and received a penalty. This led to the field chanting "Let Mike play! Let Mike play!" -- though they wouldn't join him in his commands for no one to play another hand.

In the end, Matusow was allowed back in the tourney before his penalty was up, and McClelland explained that the extra reseating was an effort to address some apparent collusion going on in this big-money tourney.

I learned about this from poker pro Tom Schneider (who cashed). Click here to hear his retelling of the incident on "Beyond the Table" (starting at 8:14).

 
Tags: cheats, festa al lago, reseating
  Dan Michalski's blog

I can confirm the story; it did happen. What I find so hard to believe is that poker players, particularly professional poker players would actually hear the words:

"We are reseating to prevent collusion..."

and not go completely ballistic. That is not an explanation that is condoning fraud. Reseating the players more often is just plain lame and I was shocked to hear a tournament director of the stauts of Jack McClelland say it in public. If you think someone is colluding, watch them, catch them and throw their butts out.

But, in my humble opinion, this is just another example of poker players having no collective sense, no collective power, and deserving exactly what the corporate casinos give them, which is the short end of the stick.

Poker Shrink – October 30, 2006 – 6:01pm
reply

Oh, and I would explain the Sommerfeld reseating system again for Michalski but he is too much of a brick to ever understand.

Let me just say: This was not an example of it.

Poker Shrink – October 30, 2006 – 6:03pm
reply

fair enough on the brick comment. :)

but when it comes to collusion, it's such a hard thing to prove, so isn't the attempt to keep the tourney going fairly, um ... er, fair?

Dan Michalski – October 30, 2006 – 7:00pm
reply

If you think players are colluding you have to stop it and mixing up the tables to the disadvantage of all the other players is, imho, a weak ass response to cheating.

Poker Shrink – October 30, 2006 – 8:35pm
reply

I think the Shrink is right on here. If the 'collusion' was not obvious, why were they doing the reseating? If management was concerned enough to fiddlefuck the system in the first place then throw out the cheaters. Seems like they arent treating the disease here, they are just using a very dumb method of alleviating the symptoms.

Bill

wildbill41 – October 30, 2006 – 10:43pm
reply

Post new comment

* indicates required fields


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


*

  • Allowed HTML tags: <b> <img> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <s> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
More information about formatting options