Before reading my opinion, I
believe there are two great perspectives on this issue written by Neil Johnson, FOR and Dan O’Brien AGAINST. These give a bit of background and some more content. As an aside, Dan also addresses other topics important to the future of player's being represented properly. This prospect will require initiative and dedication by players to more than just playing the game. I will also link to Matt
Savage’s article (Read Here) supporting the rule change. I will refer to these articles in my post.
So do you know why poker dealers burn
a card before dealing out a flop, turn, river, or round of stud cards? Long
before online poker increased the popularity of poker games, gamblers attempted
to cheat. Marked cards were a simple way
for a cheating player to know the next card. A player could clearly see his marked card on
the top of the deck and act accordingly. Of course, the knowledge of this card
to one player and not the others harms the integrity of the game. Countless
other examples like this one are relevant to the current debate about the
“First Card Off The Deck” Rule (FCOTD). Ultimately, I want to explain that protecting
the integrity of the game is really the only core issue that matters in the
debate.
When Neil Johnson wrote his article
about his support for FCOTD, he said three times he’d seen a player come back
to a hand (in a tournament without the FCOTD rule), see another’s hole cards,
and act accordingly, adversely affecting the game. He “had me at hello” right here. Does anything else truly matter if this
happened? Protecting the integrity of the game is the most important job of
tournament directors. It’s why the
majority of rules exist in the first place. Now, I don’t know Neil personally,
but what incentive does he have to lie here?
Do tournament directors and dealers get extra credits for killing hands?
The poker community needs tournament directors to give their opinions about
these issues and form rules balancing the integrity of the game with what is
also good for the game. Integrity trumps the comfort of a player. Aren’t you
there to play the game?
Beyond this point, everything else
is a marginal point; however, I’ll address some of Dan O’ Brien’s arguments
against the rule. Some of his points are
highlighted and indented with my response following.
1. Rules Should Err On
the Side of NOT Killing Hands
“Rules should place as little
restriction on players as is necessary in order to uphold game integrity”
I couldn’t agree more with the
quote starting off his point, but I fail to see how the 10-20 seconds between
the first card and the last card is anything less than a “little restriction”
on players if the main point is upholding game integrity.
2. Dealer Function
With the "last
card" rule, dealers can immediately kill hands as they are deemed dead
when the last card hits the button. With the FCOTD rule, dealers cannot kill
hands while in the midst of a deal, causing dead hands to be pitched to stacks.
This creates unnecessary arguments and a rift between players and dealers as
emotional players don't want to give up the hand in front of them. It becomes
especially heated when players look down at a strong hand, causing additional
tension between players and staff. The fix for this, pitching dead hands to the
center of the table, creates confusion for dealers and often misdeals as it
becomes difficult to track which stacks should be pitched to and which should
be passed over. At the very least, it slows down deals considerably as dealers
are forced to think about where each card should be pitched.
In two years at the WSOP, I’ve been involved
in a dilemma with this rule at the hands of a dealer. I was entering the
tournament area in the first instance.
Knowing the game was Omaha where four cards are dealt to each player, I
liked my chances of getting to my hand.
As my fourth card was dealt, I reached my seat and the dealer continued
pitching the remaining five players their last card. He then reached for my hand and killed
it. I can’t explain the distress this
caused when I was told I wasn’t checked in to the tournament, so my hand was
dead. Of course, this ruling is
incorrect, but with FCOTD rule, I know my hand is dead so I walk to my seat
instead of sprint. Since I’m wronged
here, however, I now have to create a stir and an argument and slow up the game
and make others around me feel pretty uncomfortable. Nobody wants to play with
the guy who argues with the dealer the minute he sits down. I don’t want to be that guy. With FCOTD, I realize there have been errors
in killing hands (most notably Daniel Negreanu’s hand in Barcelona High Roller),
but in my experience throughout Europe vs. the USA, there are fewer
discrepancies when FCOTD is employed.
Also, asserting dealers are going
to be slow seems like a bold and inaccurate claim. I’ve seen plenty of capable dealers pitch
dead hands to the middle as well as others mess up. I’ve also seen dealers pitch a player’s hand
that wasn’t seated towards the middle of the table, but then the player arrived
and demanded his hand. In one instance,
another player mucked his hand through these cards and the hand was declared
dead anyway. With FCOTD rule, this never
happens.
Now, I’d like to address the socializing
argument. I’ll be brief. Players who
don’t speak English are essentially screwed out of their native language for the
preference of game integrity in card rooms all over the world. I would be willing to wager that 99 times out
of 100 players speaking a different language at the table aren’t cheating. Because of the tiny minority who would or
have cheated, we sacrifice players speaking in their native language while
playing to ensure cheating isn’t a possibility. Surely, this can’t make those
players feel comfortable or even welcome in different countries, but we do it
because game integrity trumps player’s desires.
Overall, I believe the debate is
misplaced and not actually respecting a minor sacrifice for something that
eliminates a scenario that one tournament director has witnessed on multiple
occasions. In my tweets to Daniel
Negreanu about this issue, he discounted this point as well, basically implying
that it doesn’t happen and someone would need to be the fastest human ever to
accomplish this task. So are the
opponents calling Neil Johnson a liar? I
don’t know. I truly don’t think the opponents of the rule get it. Game integrity trumps all. It’s why we have burn cards, English or
native language only rules, and countless other procedures. It’s why tournament
directors penalize players for getting out of their seats on the bubble. Information known to one player and not
another is unfair or even the mere possibility of this happening is enough to
take action to prevent it. I’d rather take Neil at his word than worry that any
player will be wronged in the future.
Surely, a dealer has accidentally flipped over your ace of spades and
turned your ace-king suited into king-three off. You wanted that ace, yet for
purposes of integrity, you can’t have it. Ultimately, this rule will be a minor
inconvenience of 10-20 seconds and players will adapt while securing the
integrity of the game.
