"It can only be attributable to human error"

I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.


I was reading the forum pages of allvegaspoker.com today, and came across a story from "South Point Perry," an experienced dealer/floor person. He has been among the most vocal critics of the Excalibur's decision to install PokerTek electronic tables. Here's what Perry says happened during a recent trip to the Excalibur (full story here):

We then proceed to the Excalibur. Maybe you have heard, they made some
changes. At 1am in the morning they have 3 games going. This is only a week into
this Photodrek experiment. Mike and I ask Bruce the floor guy to set up pot
limit Omaha. We sit down and play PLO high heads up, $.50/$1.00. A third player
sits down, Justin, a dealer at Harrah's.

We play for three hands. I make a full house and the machine SPLITS the
pot. At this point we stop the game and call over Bruce. This is where the early
birthday gift comes in. It takes Bruce 45 minutes to get in touch with a
PokerTek. He lets us know that the game was mislabeled on the computer. I ask if
he can transfer the money. He says no. In a capped game, this is significant as
I would almost have the same amount as Justin.

so the machine F*#&ed up. Well, I don't like to curse, lets say it
PokerTeked up. Justin, was very patient and a totally gentleman through the
whole thing. He's an Excellant dealer too. Visit him at Harrah's. Bruce tried
everything he could to make the situation right. I bring up these two guys
because if this stupid calculator/PDA/Adding Machine/Nintendo thing is going to
work, it will be because of patient Compitent employees. Not because of the
black box.

Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

It sounds like the machine was set on Omaha/8 rather than straight Omaha. The first odd thing about this is that Omaha/8 is almost always played limit, rather than no-limit or pot-limit. It seems impossible that the players wouldn't have noticed this right away, because the menus for limit and no-limit are very different. (I've done both.) So I have to guess that they can set up an Omaha/8 game as pot-limit. I suppose that that is admirable flexibility, but I don't think they'll get a lot of call for that combination.

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.

The other thing not explained in the story is how things were labeled. That is, were the consoles showing PLO while the game was actually playing O/8? Or did the tech simply push the wrong button, and O/8 was both playing and being displayed as such, without the players noticing until the split pot occurred? Enquiring minds want to know.


I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.


This incident reminds me of a story from the second time I used the Excalibur machines, the second night they were open. I wasn't planning on relating this incident here, because I don't have an ending to the story, and stories without endings are inherently unsatisfying. But Perry's experience makes me think I should tell it anyway. Perhaps there are other stories that need to be publicized, and this one will help call them out of the woodwork.


This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.... I know you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.


I opened the pot for a raise with A-J. In the end, I would have won it if I stayed in, because an ace came on the river. But when I missed the flop and turn, I was bet out of the pot. Two other players stayed in. One had a pocket 7s. The other's hole cards are unknown, which is kind of the critical point of the story.

There was a queen on the flop and a 9 on the turn. I think I bet the flop, even though I missed it, and both opponents called--but maybe it got checked around. I don't remember for sure anymore, and it really doesn't matter. There was a bet and a call on the turn, at which point I folded. The ace on the river froze the action, and it went check-check.

The computer then displayed Player A's 7-7 and pushed him the pot. Player B's cards were not revealed. Here's where the first oddity occurred. You can set your options to always muck your cards and never show them where it is not required. If you don't have that option turned on, and you either lose a pot or win one without having to show (i.e., because you make a bet that nobody calls), the system will ask you if you want to show the high card, the low card, or both. I was watching Player B, and he clearly wanted to show what he had, because he thought he had won, but he was not given that option. We concluded that he must have the "auto-muck" option on, but after the hand ended, I watched as he opened his menu, and it was not on. So the first peculiarity is that he wasn't given the opportunity to show his cards.

Of more importance, though, if he is correct, is that Player B claimed that he had a 9 in his hand and should have won at showdown. He was adamant about this right from the start. Of course, nobody else saw his cards, so there is no independent verification of this. But I can tell you that he certainly looked and acted, from the very first instant that the pot was going to his opponent, like a guy who had just been cheated out of a pot that rightfully belonged to him. I am certain that he sincerely believed that he had a 9 and should have won. On the other hand, there have been a few occasions when I have been metaphysically certain of what my hole cards were, and then discovered, to my great chagrin and astonishment, that I was wrong when I turned them over at the showdown.

The player talked to the PokerTek folks. They eventually stopped the game and, from the central monitor at the poker room desk, had the system replay the hand. That was pretty cool. Unfortunately, it didn't clarify anything, because it didn't show Player B's hole cards on the replay, which was the only meaningful question.

Out of curiosity, and because I thought I might be able to help him explain what had happened (English was his second language, so he sometimes had a bit of difficulty conveying his thoughts, as well as the technical aspects of what he did with respect to the menus, trying to show his cards, etc.), I followed B to the central desk while he and the PokerTek people tried to resolve the claim.

They couldn't. As it turns out, players' hole cards that are not revealed in the usual course of play are stored in the computer, but in an encrypted form, and by design nobody at the Excalibur can unencrypt them. They have to send the data files back to company headquarters for analysis. This makes some sense from a security standpoint, but is understandably frustrating to the player who thinks he got swindled out of a pot, and can't get an answer right away.

So they took the player's name and contact information and promised to get back to him when they had an answer.

My guess is that it is more likely that the poor guy honestly had a memory glitch, and he did not actually have the winning hand. But ya never know.


Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.


(For those who haven't gotten it on their own, the title of this post and the italicized inserts are all quotations from the very scary HAL 9000 computer in the Kubrick/Clarke classic 2001: A Space Odyssey, as captured on IMDB's "memorable quotes" page for the film. Of course, any perceived resemblance between HAL and the PokerTek computer is purely coincidental.)


Addendum

LasVegasMichael, another participant in Perry's game, gives this additional information about the incident:

The machine was labeled (on the screens) as PLO, not PLO 8. His computer
said that it was PLO High Only, yet the program was PLO 8.

Come to find out, Excal only had the program at the .50/1 level for PLO8.
Ot play PLO high only, you would need to play 1/2.