Tournament disqualification: Agree?

If you don't subscribe to poker magazines then you might not know about this incident. Recently a player was disqualified at the final table of the WSOP Circuit event at Caesars in Atlantic City. The player in question was Lesley S. Thornburg of Richmond, Va. He was warned twice for unsportsmanlike conduct. According to numerous sources, the straw that broke the camel's back was when he shoved half of his chips into the pot then later declared all-in. You can read one of the articles here. He was chipleader at the time, but they removed his chips and gave him fifth-place money ($19K).

What do you think of this? Should this guy be eliminated because he's obnoxious? He was chipleader! THink about how many obnoxious people are in poker and we see them act like idiots on TV all of the time. When you sign up for a tournament, do they tell you this? Have you ever been to a tournament where they tell you (at any point) "If you act like an idiot repeatedly we'll throw you out and take your chips out of play?" Has the dealer or tournament director ever announced at the start of a tournament that numerous penalties could result in your ejection?

I'm not going to say how I feel just yet because I'd like to read some opinions on this. Also, if he WASN'T in the money, would he have gotten his buy-in back?

-- Chris

Comments

[imtoomuch4u]

I heard about this too, and I have conflicting thoughts. If he was never warned that he could be immediately ejected (not just blinded off), I don't think it was fair to eject him for anything other than threats or violence. I heard that he was a completely drunk idiot though, so I'm not sure if he would have listened to warnings, and it sounds like he deserved discipline of some sort. I would have probably given him at least one penalty first and definitely not let him be served any more alcohol. While he was getting blinded off, I would have warned him that any other infractions would result in ejection.

[Duane771]

I heard an interview with the tournament director on a poker show, I cant remember which one, and he said that the guy was drinking and was a disruption pretty much the whole time. It was right that he was DQ.

[NickG]

Not to get off topic too much, but am I the only one noticing this McCar advertisement at the bottom?

[Erwin Blonk]

If you are too much of a disruption, given a warning, yes, I agree with disqualifying. Some behavior is too bad for a time penalty or being blinded off. Him being drunk pretty much made sure nothing would have corrected him. He would not return to the table, so blinding off would be a nuisance to other players.

NickG: I see it too.

[Matt]

Duane,

I heard the same interview and the TD said that he had received penalties before. He continued with his behavior(drinking heavily, showing up drunk, not abiding by tournement rules), so I have no sympathy for him.

If a player is warned for his abrasive actions, receives penalties for these actions after multiple warnings, is eventually ejected from the tourney after multiple penalties, then he deserves it.

I also see the annoying ad.

[Disaster Inc]

Sounds just like a guy i use to play against on Pstars and Tilt

[Dane]

My comments are yes his actions were WAY over the top and wrong. However he did pay for his tournament chips via his buy in, so he should be able to play with them as he likes. He was the chip leader so im guessing he did something right within the tournament.

Why didnt the casino or someone not allow him to drink anymore? As a bartender myself if his actions were as described he should have been simply cut off. Within an 2 hrs he would have been able to prob calm himself down. Feed this man some water!

I think they should have just penelized this guy to death. As a player on the table DQing the chip leader sounds like +EV. However as an outsider I say allow this player to play as he likes and stop him from drinking!!

[viii_ball]

Given the description many of us heard by the tournament director, I think this situation was handled correctly. While he paid for his tournament entry, so did all the other players at the table and as a player I do not have to put up with rude, drunken or disorderly behavior. What if it had escalated into a fight between players? You would have had to remove BOTH fighters and that would not have been right.

You can put some of the blame on ESPN as they like to show misbehavior as it makes "better" TV than watching just regular poker (for the average watcher).

Bottom line is the right thing was done by clearing this guy out. He was paid so he was not out money.

BTW, that ad at the bottom is ANNOYING.

[Michael]

Should a person, chipleader or not, be kicked out without warning? of course not.

In this case, from all reports that I had heard anyway, the individual had been obnoxious for the entire tournament, had been warned repeatedly, and had been penalized several times as well. If all of that had in fact happened, then ejecting him was certainly well within the realm of fair.

Was he obnoxious because he was drunk? then maybe the staff has some blame if they kept feeding him drinks. We don't know this though. he could have been drinking away from the table or on breaks. is that the staff's fault?

Clearly there are a lot of unknowns about the story but if a player is sufficiently warned before the ejection I think it is clearly justified.

The only downside is that whether he's the chipleader or not, his play up to the point of ejection clearly had an outcome on the other players in the tournament so it does suck for them even if you just take his chips out of play. But, you gotta do something.

Michael

[aces88ss]

Verbal abuse, trash talk, even drunks at the table is part of the game. In small doses, it is even enjoyable.

But, this is a natural progression of inevitability...It was three or four years ago when the loud stinky hairy skinny guy that wore the same shirt every day and did not bath got soooo much TV time during the WSOP. Not for his poker ability, but for his obnoxious behavior. Mike Matusaw and Phil Helmuth get more air time when they lose hands than when they play well, just waiting for a, "You can't even spell poker" moment. This behavior should have been frowned upon at the time, and certainly not rewarded with extra TV face time.

But, the precedent was set, loud and obnoxious was not against the rules. That is why this player was permitted to stay as long as he did. Once he crossed the line and started handling chips in such a way as to interfere with the game, the other players had a right to ask for this to end.

The casino I play at has more than our fair share of drunks. We have a tournament director with a very strong presence. He has a three strikes and you're out policy. First issue, he will whisper in your ear. Second issue, he will come and talk to the table, again warning the villain, but also saying very clearly that this is not allowed. He tells the table that he is now looking for a reason to expel him, explaining that if it happens, his chips will be blinded off, all the while with his hand on the villains shoulders, he also whispers one more time in the villain's ear. Third time, you are gone. Trash talk is allowed, banter is allowed...Violence (and threats of violence) is not allowed, tossing cards - chips - lit cigarettes (we just went no smoking, so this will not happen as often) - your cookies(for the drunks), card abuse (once played with a guy who tried to tear up each bad hand - he got tossed quicker than the rest, only one warning), all are not allowed.

The rules and their gentle/firm enforcement make for an enjoyable time for the tourists. Granted, we are not the WSOP/WPT, but I am sure he was warned, and it was a decision he made. No sympathy at all

[Chris Cosenza]

What about just increasing the time he was penalized? Ultimately he would either sober up, learn his lesson or get blinded off. But to remove those chips also is a disservice to the other players. No?

[aces88ss]

that did seem odd to me. As I said earlier, our tournament director makes it clear that in the event of an expulsion, the chips are blinded off. It also would allow the villain to move up in prise money if someone is knocked out ahead of his stack.

OK, now I have sympathy and think that the chips removal was a mistake...But not the removal of the villain. He had been warned, and had been penalized already.

[Chi-Guy]

I think taking his chips off the table was wrong. From what I heard, his behaviour was really really bad. I can't say for sure that Disqualifying him was the right move. I think they had other options, like a 1 hour penalty with no alcohol.

They could sit down with him and let him calm down and talk to him, give him fair warning while his chips dwindle and then let him back in.

Blinding him off would be an option, although that would give an advantage to the players sitting to his right.

Brian

[Bryant]

I think he deserved to get pulled. He was warned repeatedly. He obviously has no respect for himself, the game, the tournament officials or other players.

The only part of this that bothers me is his removal of his chips. I think the right thing to do is DQ him and give him his prize money for that place. His chips should have remained in play for the remaining players.

[aces88ss]

OK, at the risk of confusing the issue with facts...I just went to my local casino and talked with my tournament director. He was hesitant to second guess another director after the fact. But he did provide me written rules that everyone agrees to in order to play in his tournament. It was long and very tiny print, but he graciously pointed out the pertinent parts.

In Deadwood, NOT on the WSOP or WPT circuit, and certainly NOT ever going to be televised, here are the options...

If the villain was disqualified, his chips would have been removed from play, and he would not have been awarded any prize money. In a disqualification, it would be as if he never existed. The people who finished before he was disqualified would have been entitled to one extra spots worth of money (a very difficult thing to do)

If the villain was penalized (including a permanent ban from the table) and removed from the table, his chips would remain in play, and he would have been blinded out, but he would have had the possibility of being moved up in finishing position if someone was busted out before he was totally blinded out.

Again, not wanting to second guess the director, the director here in town, said that there should have been rules agreed upon in advance. At some point, these rules should materialize and all of the options the director had should be shown. The 6th/7th/8th and 9th place players may have legal questions if he was officially disqualified. And the villain may have legal issues if he was only penalized and banned from the table (you can ban people, but you shouldn't be able to ban chips)...

And god, wouldn't that help to get lawyers involved. My gut reaction was to defend the tournament director, but I am starting to change my mind and think he handled it badly.

[Brett Otte]

1. What are ads? I have Firefox & Ad-Block so I haven't seen one in years.

2. I agree he should be DQ'd since he was warned.

3. No he should not have gotten any money back if he was DQ'd before placing in the money simply because you agree to the tourney rules and I know there's terms & conditions of conduct. If you could get your buy-in back simply by being a jerk then if I thought I was going to lose before the money I'd just go apeshit and walk out with my buy-in every time!

[Chris Cosenza]

That's a GREAT point Brett!!!! Imagine what a tournament would be like near the bubble if everyone knew they'd get their money back by punching the dealer in the face!!!

[Gary]

I wish they would do this more often. Mabe we wouldnt see Phil Hellmuth and mike matasow so much on espn

[NickG]

"1. What are ads? I have Firefox & Ad-Block so I haven't seen one in years."

I had that for a while as well, but it makes layouts look like shit when you have big blank boxes all over the place. At least with the ads there the page has equal visual weight.

[NickG]

"1. What are ads? I have Firefox & Ad-Block so I haven't seen one in years."

I had that for a while as well, but it makes layouts look like rubbish (spam block filters out the s-bomb??)when you have big blank boxes all over the place. At least with the ads there the page has equal visual weight.

[Blazman]

He was warned many times about his behavior and he was told that he would be kicked out if he did not comply. Once you say a punishment you have to follow through. He was warned, didn't comply, bye-bye.

If he was not in the money he DOES NOT get his buyin back, act like a jerk and you're out, period. No tolerance.

Of course America is being pussified on a daily basis, so I am sure that there are people concerned about his feelings and his self esteem, but too damn bad.

-Blazman

[jherky]

I suddenly want a home from McCar homes....must resist.

Yo should have just been blinded off and told to go sit on the toilet until he felt like playing friendly.

On another note, you cannot blame TV or ESPN or anything else for this dude's behavior. Well, you can, but that is just blaming others for your own behavior. Television, the news, video games. Blaz is right, America is becoming..."pussified" on a daily basis. As a therapist, I say eff his self esteem.

[Gary]

dont really blame ESPN for phil's and mike behavior..

how every when they keep replaying and follow them just for their blowups. people think they just want to be like them and so they imiate them.

card rooms are filled with Phil and mike wannabes and think they act like anyway they want becuase phil and mike do it.

[NickG]

Thanks for taking care of that ad.