Did Will Kassouf violate WSOP tournament rules by his table talk/gestures here? (2 Viewers)

[jbutler]

Finally caught up on some of the WSOP episodes last night and saw this retarded spectacle in episode 4. Clearly the guy is irritating, but I thought Jack Effel looked like a jerk.

I'm accustomed to floor people being completely incompetent, so I wasn't at all surprised when one told Kassouf to stop talking (though that is also ridiculous), but at least I thought when Jack came over that the guy would simply be told, "Hey, be nice - you gotta get through a whole day with these folks," and the woman would be told to suck it up and be an adult and not cry that she wants silence while she tanks.

Anyway, see for yourself. It's the very first hand of the episode (starts at about the 1:00 mark):

So far as I can tell from a brief skim of the rules (full set here), the applicable provisions would be:

Sec. IV, 40(c):

All participants are entitled to expect civility and courtesy from one another at every Tournament table and throughout the Tournament area. Any individual who encounters behavior that is not civil or courteous -- or is abusive in any way -- is encouraged to immediately contact a Tournament official. Participants who violate this rule are subject to penalty in accordance with Rules 40, 41, 42,111, and/or 112.​

and Sec. IV, 47:

Any participant who taunts another participant through theatrics or gestures or engages in any form of inappropriate behavior intended to disrupt other participants in the tournament will be subject to penalty in accordance with Rules 40, 111, and 112.​

Those two provisions can be found on pages 6 and 7, respectively. I would imagine if someone takes the time to read the full document there is other relevant language.

 

[Mr. Cheese]

He's a total douche nugget

 

[jbutler]

He's a total douche nugget

Very true. But I don't see a rule prohibiting him from being a douche nugget.

 

[MegaTon44]

Dude's an asshat but I didn't see a violation

 

[Ben]

He clearly violated tournament rules by failing to follow the clear instructions of tournament staff. All else is debatable. He seemed to understand this while he was doing it, and took his (well-deserved) penalty in stride. We don't know anything that transpired before the camera cut, but I certainly wouldn't say that Effel et al. necessarily weren't right at that point to tell him to STFU.

That said, I like the guy. He's welcome at my game any time. His opponent is not...

 

[mooremo]

I would like to see him and Dan Chapman at the same table, Chapman was an ass early on.

 

[jbutler]

He clearly violated tournament rules by failing to follow the clear instructions of tournament staff.

This is the best argument for a violation for sure, but I still think I disagree with the ultimate penalty because Effel should have recognized that the instruction that he not speak was itself was out of line.

That said, I like the guy. He's welcome at my game any time. His opponent is not...

Seconded. She's the problem with live poker much more so than him. Yes, he's annoying, but she was clearly angling to get his hand killed which would have been far, far worse than whatever irritation he caused her (and everyone else at the table).

 

[upNdown]

Those rules seem sufficiently ambiguous that the floor could get involved here, and tell him to shut up.
Whether or not he thought the "shut up" order was justified, he's an idiot for disobeying it and at that point the penalty was totally justified.
I thought the biggest floor screwup on this one was the floor allowing the clock request. Yeah, she was being a big baby, but they could have given her another minute before starting the clock.

 

[upNdown]

That said, the guy who called clock tried to apologize, but she wouldn't let it go. So I had a big smile when that bad beat took her out.
Buh bye, whiner.

 

[phaze12]

I really see nothing wrong with what he did. Annoying, yes. But if you play, you deal with people like that all time. She was stalling imo. Was folding all day, every day. Sorry to bring this up, but if it was between two men I don't think there would have been a penalty. Eifle looks bad on this decision.

 

[jbutler]

I would like to see him and Dan Chapman at the same table, Chapman was an ass early on.

Doesn't ring a bell and I googled, but still no luck. Do you mean Colman?

Those rules seem sufficiently ambiguous that the floor could get involved here, and tell him to shut up.
Whether or not he thought the "shut up" order was justified, he's an idiot for disobeying it and at that point the penalty was totally justified.
I thought the biggest floor screwup on this one was the floor allowing the clock request. Yeah, she was being a big baby, but they could have given her another minute before starting the clock.

In cash games things have to get really out of hand before I would ever call the clock on someone. In tournaments, I wish people would call the clock a lot more. She had plenty of time, but spent it all getting frustrated by his blathering (which of course was his intention).

I really see nothing wrong with what he did. Annoying, yes. But if you play, you deal with people like that all time. She was stalling imo. Was folding all day, every day. Sorry to bring this up, but if it was between two men I don't think there would have been a penalty. Eifle looks bad on this decision.

Exactly. I would love for these idiots to have to spend one day in the average low limit casino cash game. They would lose their minds.

 

[Pinball]

maybe he hasnt broken any rule but he was far away from fairplay.

 

[CdnBeerLover]

I'm pretty sure he violated 113 (talking about the contents or strength of his hand is allowed only if no other player is facing a decision), since she was facing a decision. My understanding is that you can talk about your hand if you are the last to act and are making a decision.

There is also 116 (etiquette) which covers excessive chatter meant to disrupt participants in a hand. Seemed clear that he was attempting to disrupt her ability to concentrate.

And there's always rule 45 (the "ruling for the good of the game" rule).

That said, any shred of compassion for her evaporated as soon as she started lobbying for his hand to be killed.

 

[mooremo]

Doesn't ring a bell and I googled, but still no luck. Do you mean Colman?



In cash games things have to get really out of hand before I would ever call the clock on someone. In tournaments, I wish people would call the clock a lot more. She had plenty of time, but spent it all getting frustrated by his blathering (which of course was his intention).



Exactly. I would love for these idiots to have to spend one day in the average low limit casino cash game. They would lose their minds.

Yes I do, Coleman

 

[slisk250]

Totally agree with Ben's assessment...but I don't want him at my game. Loudmouth assholes better be funny and not add tension to get a seat at my home game. I'm there to have fun, not be a floor manager.

 

[jbutler]

I'm pretty sure he violated 113 (talking about the contents or strength of his hand is allowed only if no other player is facing a decision), since she was facing a decision. My understanding is that you can talk about your hand if you are the last to act and are making a decision.

There is also 116 (etiquette) which covers excessive chatter meant to disrupt participants in a hand. Seemed clear that he was attempting to disrupt her ability to concentrate.

And there's always rule 45 (the "ruling for the good of the game" rule).

That said, any shred of compassion for her evaporated as soon as she started lobbying for his hand to be killed.

Good finds on those rules. I think I agree that he violated 113. It still blows me away that that's a rule, but as it stands, it's there, so is clearly enforceable. Disagree as to 116, but I suppose it's a moot point once we determine he's violated 113. I changed my vote above to yes.

As for 45, I disagree 100% that the ruling was for the overall good of the game.

 

[shawn15p]

I can't stand watching him play. I understand trying to get into peoples heads and under their skin, but he takes it to another level, and that level is annoying.

 

[manamongkids]

Dont have any problem with people like him, I ignore all people like this. Sometimes they end up leveling themselves after overtalking.

If the whole table refuses to engage in his antics, he would eventually stop since it is getting him nowhere.

 

[lnlver]

Does a player who has the action have the right to demand silence from everyone else at the table while he/she is making their decision? I would also include influential gestures along with silence.

Obviously, if the player talks to the other one and tries to get some information, that is different. But if the player stays quiet, shouldn't the other player also be quiet if it is requested?

I also thought Jack Effel was a bit obnoxious. Maybe each dealer should be equipped with jaw muscle paralysis spray. I was reminded of when Hoyt Corkins plugged his ears when at the table with chatty Phil Hellmuth.

 

[BiGGyT]

that was painful to watch, so much whine.

 

[David O]

Totally agree with Ben's assessment...but I don't want him at my game. Loudmouth assholes better be funny and not add tension to get a seat at my home game. I'm there to have fun, not be a floor manager.

Kind of reminds me of the rumble! Although the talker was not really an ass hat!

 

[Poker Zombie]

Kassouf was clearly the guy in the back seat of the car with his little sister "I'm not touching you - I'm not touching you".

Effel did the right thing here and pulled the car over.

When will the WSOP finally realise that every hand needs a clock?

 

[lnlver]

When will the WSOP finally realise that every hand needs a clock?

I don't disagree, but I think a reasonable alternative would be a time bank. I have no idea how to implement this.

 

[phaze12]

Eifle.

Wow! Drunk at 11 in the morn.

edit- My wife is gonna be pissed when she gets home at noon.

 

[jbutler]

I don't disagree, but I think a reasonable alternative would be a time bank. I have no idea how to implement this.

Not hard, but it would require competent dealing staff and with large tournaments that's basically impossible.

But assuming good dealers, each decision has a 60 second shot clock managed by the dealer. Each player gets 3 extra time chips/lammers per day which afford up to 5 minutes (those 5 minutes to include the original 60 seconds). Use at your discretion, but once they're gone, you have 60 seconds for every decision.

 

[phaze12]

Not hard, but it would require competent dealing staff and with large tournaments that's basically impossible.

But assuming good dealers, each decision has a 60 second shot clock managed by the dealer. Each player gets 3 extra time chips/lammers per day which afford up to 5 minutes (those 5 minutes to include the original 60 seconds). Use at your discretion, but once they're gone, you have 60 seconds for every decision.

And unicorns are real.

 

[jbutler]

And unicorns are real.

If you start at the high rollers which use the best available dealers, it can eventually trickle down to regular and even maybe the smaller buy-in tournaments. No, not easy, but also not impossible except for the largest events.

 

[Poker Zombie]

And unicorns are real.

At some point they will find that "live" streaming of an event is getting nearly zero viewers because of the hemming and hawing. It is like watching a rain delay. Fewer viewers turns into less ad revenue.

They understand revenue.

 

[CdnBeerLover]

As for 45, I disagree 100% that the ruling was for the overall good of the game.

I can see that point of view. But can you imagine having to sit at at table with him every hand? While I'm not a fan of the hoodies-and-headphone crowd, this guy is too much in the other direction. There has to be a middle ground.

 

[12thMan]

I have no problem with it and it wouldn't bother me but if it is against the rules, and from the way the rules are laid out it definitely could be considered that, then I guess Eifel did the right thing.

To me his opponent came off way worse, someone apologizes and you keep prattling on about how they were wrong? That shit annoys me. If I was the guy that called the clock, legitimate mistake or not, the second my sincere apology is met with an attitude of "I'm still going to act like an asshole towards you and not recognize the fact you are owning your mistake" I would instantly turn non apologetic and do my best to call the clock at least one more time on her just to see her face.