From: mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer)
Subject: JACKPOT *TILT* AT BICYCLE CLUB 
Followup-To: rec.gambling 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: rec.gambling 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:51:24 GMT


On Wednesday, November 4 at 6:30 am a 5-10 HoldEm Jackpot in an amount
in excess of $36,000 was hit at the Bicycle Club in Bell Gardens.  
(A HoldEm Jackpot occurs when aces-full or better is beaten by
four-of-a-kind or better, both hands playing both hole cards.)  At
the BC these Jackpots begin at $5,000 and are supplemented by a $2
rake per hand (the small blind);  Jackpot amounts are recalculated
at 7am and again at 7pm daily with contributions added in the time
window 48 hours after they are collected.  Needless to say, the
club had been *very* active for several days before this size 
Jackpot was hit.

The unique aspect of this particular Jackpot was that as per usual
the deck was checked for accuracy before "completing" the deal and
it was discovered that the deck contained 53 (!) cards, including
two spade aces.  I have had some difficulty ascertaining all the
accurate details of this incident since I have had to rely on poker
players (a notably dubious source);  the casino floormen seem *very*
reluctant to provide any details.  But as I understand it...

The players and the dealer acknowledged that the 53rd card entered
the deck some 3 - 4 hands prior to the Jackpot deal when a porter
who happened by the table spotted a card on the floor, picked it
up and handed it to the dealer, who then added it to the deck.
It was further determined that this card came from an exchange
of decks at that time, and therfore the back of the card was of
a different color than the rest of the deck.  Nonetheless, this
wasn't noted *by anyone* until the deck was spread and counted.
This card was *not* part of the deal, but obviously influenced 
the shuffle.

Apparently there are indeed written rules governing the payout of 
a Jackpot with a host of disqualifications, including the presence
of a kibitzer or any foreign materials on the table (i.e. cigarettes,
chip racks).  The primary disqualification is in inaccurate deck,
as I understand it.

Nonetheless, after many hours of consultation BC management decided
to pay the Jackpot, ruling that none of the players were at fault
and that therefore they could not be deprived of their just reward.
(The Jackpot is divided  75% to the loser of the hand, 25% to the
winner.)  We do not know whether they considered the position of 
the rest of the players who were thus deprived of the opportunity
to play for such a large Jackpot.

It might also be noted that the BC began a promotion shortly over
a month ago wherein Jackpots are *doubled* every Sunday - Thursday
at 11am - 1pm and again at 6pm - 9pm, and *tripled* those same
days at 10pm - 11pm.  The funds for the Jackpot may come from 
the rake, but the funds from the double and triple payouts must
come from cardroom profits (with, I understand, some override
from the general Jackpot fund).  

We don't think this has anything to do with the decision by BC
management.  Do we?


-- 
Mark Singer    
mss@netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling