To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.
See the first part of this post for the setup of the hand, here.
Behold, O LORD; for I am in distress: my bowels are troubled; mine heart is turned within me; for I have grievously rebelled: abroad the sword bereaveth, at home there is as death.
Lamentations 1:20 (King James Version)
It's a Bodog SNG 10-seat single-table tournament, with the standard 3-place payout structure (50%/30%/20%). We're down to three-handed, and I'm in the big blind with a stack of 5935 when the hand starts. Small blind is the short stack with 1320. Button is the big stack with 7745. We all post antes of 25, and the blinds are 100/200, making the pot 375 before the cards are dealt. Button now has 7720, small blind has 1195, and I have 5710 left. We have been playing at this level for quite a while, and though I haven't been watching the clock, I expect the blinds to go up to 200/400 (still with 25 ante) after this hand or maybe the next.
BLUFF: Had he decided to play, would there have been a subsequent meeting with the Standards and Conduct Committee regarding whether or not he was allowed to take part?
SM: We don’t generally make the discussions of the committee public because the players on the committee want to be able to have confidential discussions about the players, so since he chose to withdraw, I don’t think it would be fair to speculate about what would’ve been the next step.
SM: I explained the process to him. I explained that if he attempted to play in the league, in the main event, that it was gonna be very likely that the Standards and Conduct Committee would then suspend him pending a hearing and that y'know he would then have a formal disciplinary action against him by the league, and he didn't want that.QJ: So the committee had made its decision, despite, like I suggested, not having taken any action yet, the committee had made a preemptive decision of how it would act if Mr. DiVita was to refuse to withdraw. Is that right?SM: The committee did not take any official action, but the committee would have taken action in Mr. DiVita's case y'know if he had attempted to play. Yes.
Michael DiVita now claims that he did not withdraw voluntarily from the EPL, and he plans to sue the league if they don't fork over the $20,000 he believes he is owed. He says he was forced out. If true, this directly contradicts what the league's ethics consultant, Stephen Martin, said in his interview with Bluff magazine. Yesterday I expressed my skepticism that Martin was being honest in his description of events. Though I have no firsthand knowledge of what occurred, DiVita's version of the story sounds more plausible to me than Martin's.
Richard Marcus (my opinion of whom you can read here) has a blog post today titled, "Poker Pros Fleeing the US For Fear of Online Poker Cheat Allegations!" Note that it ends in an exclamation point, not a question mark.
A bunch of US based poker pros who are citizens have been getting out of "Dodge", which in this case is the United States of America. Some notables who have recently fled are Mike Brooks, Phil Galfond, Jon Agular, and Vanessa Selbst. They have all given reasons such as "looking for work" but is this not a cover to avoid problems and even possible prosecution by the US Department of Justice over online cheating accusations?
If Mr. DiVita wants to take part, he would have to request eligibility from the league based on his criminal history. We’ve set up a process where people can request a hearing and appear in front of the Standards and Conduct Committee and ultimately appeal to the Commissioner if they feel like regarding eligibility issues or for disciplinary action. If he wanted to play in our league going forward, he would have to go through that process…There is no guarantee that someone will be eligible to play.
Initially when the league and the Standards and Conduct Committee were formed, we made a general decision not to take action against players for pre-league conduct and things that happened before the league was founded, with some exceptions. One [exception] being that if an action by a player was so severe or significant that we needed to take a look at those issues or something that had an ongoing impact on the league after it started.Yet there is no explanation of why DiVita's convictions from 20 years ago, nor his arrest (with charges subsequently dropped) in 2008, have "an ongoing impact on the league after it started." Why does Mike Matusow get a pass for his conviction on drug-trafficking charges, but DiVita has to answer for his far older convictions? Is it because the latter are categorized as sex crimes, and Epic Poker has made an institutional decision that sex crimes are worse than drug crimes? If so, where is that determination to be found in the EPL's documents?
While criminal conduct is clearly outside the scope of permissible professional conduct (and persons who engage in serious criminal conduct are subject to League discipline), our standard of conduct as professional poker players is considerably higher. It is not simply enough to avoid being convicted of a serious criminal offense.
Everyone associated with the Epic Poker League is expected to avoid conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of poker and the League. This expectation applies to all players, tournament officials, employees and anyone else associated with the operations of the League.So the League's commissioner got paid by a dirty site to continue to bring them business after it was publicly known that the site was dirty, while she knew that the company's core function (even when conducted honestly) was illegal. Can somebody please explain to me how this constitutes "avoid[ing] conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of poker"?
If you'll forgive me, he's common... He's like an animal. He has an animal's habits. There's even something subhuman about him. Thousands of years have passed him right by, and there he is. Stanley Kowalski, survivor of the Stone Age, bearing the raw meat home from the kill in the jungle. And you - you here waiting for him. Maybe he'll strike you or maybe grunt and kiss you, that's if kisses have been discovered yet. His poker night you call it. This party of apes.
Matthew Hilger, in Card Player magazine column, September 7, 2011 (vol. 24, #18), page 30.