Last week at the World Series of Poker, a controversy arose surrounding a ruling made in a hand between Daniel Negreanu and Artur Martirosian.
After Negreanu limped in, the action folded around to Martirosian on the button, who put in a raise. Both of the blinds folded and, before Negreanu could act, Martirosian threw his hand into the muck. The floor was called and a ruling came down that saw Negreanu awarded the blinds/ante, along with Martirosian's calling chips, but not his additional raising chips.
Negreanu argued that the rule opens up the potential for players to angle-shoot. It's important to note the incident came in Event #47: $100,000 High Roller No-Limit Hold'em, one of the biggest buy-ins of the year, and, as such, tensions may have run higher than usual.
The "dumbest ruling", as Negreanu summed it up on X/Twitter, drew opinions and commentary from all corners of the poker community on social media. One voice in particular - that of Matt Savage - was at the forefront. Savage, from a position of authority as one of the founders of the Tournament Directors Association, sided with the tournament floorperson's ruling. As a result, he drew the ire of Negreanu and many of his online advocates.
As part of our two-part talk with Savage - see part one here - we asked him to expand on his take on the situation, and why it may have hit a raw nerve with Negreanu.
You waded into the fray surrounding last week’s ruling controversy with Daniel Negreanu - what happened there?
Matt Savage: First of all, Daniel is a friend of mine, I respect him immensely. He's done a huge amount for the game and obviously he's had an incredible career. But, in certain situations like this, he's just wrong. You know, he came out and said it was the 'dumbest ruling' ever and that he got screwed by the floor.
Here's a rule that has been in place since 2013 and, basically, the rule says that if you make a raise and the player has not called the bet and you fold your hand accidentally, or the dealer kills your hand accidentally, you will receive that raise back. It's been in use for a long time, it's been on the TDA rules since 2013.
I feel like a player like Daniel should know a rule like that. He's a professional player. He plays big tournaments for millions of dollars and I think that all players should learn the rules and understand the reasons why we come up with those rules. For this one, there's four or five different reasons why this rule is in place.
Again, there’s a big topic out there about dealers making mistakes in these hands. Even in the Daniel hand, the dealer should have stopped that player from folding, right? Since that dealer didn't stop the player from folding in a pot where there was still other action, that player receives money back. It's not a benefit to him to just give away 5,000 and give away the antes.
If you feel like there's an angle out there, or trying to angle in some way, that's where the tournament director or the floor person can come in and say, ‘Look, you saw. You knew that that other player had a hand. You waited until he was making a decision, and then you folded that hand.’ Now, in that case, I'm not going to give the player back that money. And I think that’s what Daniel doesn't understand. In this case, the player was not angling.
There was no way he was trying to angle — to raise and then fold his hand? So, giving him back that raise amount seems logical and it doesn't seem logical to force him to pay that in a pot where Daniel has not called.
Now, of course, Daniel could have called. He could have folded, could have raised, whatever, but if the dealer had stopped that player from folding that hand, it's a completely different scenario — that hand plays out as normal. I think that it's something that we need to look at and it's an enforcement thing. But I don't believe this rule is going to change, I don't think it should change and I'm happy to defend it — I have defended it — despite all of the names I've been called on social media for making that rule.
What do you think about the point Negreanu makes, that the player who didn't make a mistake is the one being penalized?
MS: I think he's not getting penalized. I think he's winning the pot — a pot that was raised. He's winning it uncontested, right? I don't think he's getting penalized at all. Maybe, if he had a big hand or was going to win the pot, he got penalized — but he's also taking down that pot without any contestation and it was a raised pot too. There's no way to figure out if he did get penalized or if he didn't. I don't think it's as cut and dry as he's trying to make it.
Is it frustrating that, when you interact with players who have massive followings, you often end up catching a lot of unnecessary flack from their fans?
MS: Look, I've always been happy to answer questions for anybody on social media and I've always done that. I've always put it out there that I am a resource for people that are learning the game, learning the rules, and want to know more. So, I am happy to continue to do that. It comes at a sacrifice to me, my family, my career, my time, because I'm always out there answering those things.
During the summer, there's always situations where I have to be delicate on how I answer, because it's somebody else down the street that's making these decisions. I put a pinned post up on my X account that says I'm happy to answer as long as you don't tell me where this situation is coming from. With Daniel, of course, that's coming from the top levels, it's coming from the World Series of Poker. It's coming from top tournament directors and management out there.
I don't like being called a bunch of names on social media. Somebody just told me that I'm acting like Gandhi about the rules. I'm just trying to protect what we've built with the TDA and make the best decisions for the players. I'm not out there trying to be heavy-handed as a tournament director or Executive Tour Director of the World Poker Tour. I'm trying to do what's best for the game, in my opinion, and what's best for the players.
I am entirely willing and welcome for players to attend the TDA Summit if they feel like it's important or there's something on the books that they don't like, they feel needs to be changed. I'm happy to give them a forum to discuss that. I'm happy for Daniel to come in and say, 'This rule is so dumb, and this is the reason why.' And then we could debate it and if people agree with him, maybe we will change the rule. But he's not going to show up unless he feels like he's going to win that debate. In this case, I don't think he would.
Why did Negreanu respond so harshly to your comments? What do you think set him off in this instance?
MS: He thought it was a bad ruling — that it was the wrong ruling — and didn't know that rule. Daniel's not the type of guy that's going to back down once he does find out it is the correct ruling. That's the way he is. If he feels strongly about something, he's going to take it to the end. He's not going to give up. And if you watched his vlog, he's making fun of me, making fun of the TDA — I don't think that's very cool.
You know, I watch his stuff every day. I've always been a fan of his. We're friends, we sit next to each other at the hockey games, we've known each other for 20 years plus. He should have a little more respect for people that are doing what they feel is in the best interest of all the players. So, I don't think that that came off very cool him and I will, of course, talk about this with him at some point. He's busy right now trying to win bracelets and I respect that as well.
Let's work together to make it better for everybody. Let's not be childish and call each other names and act that way. That's what he wants to do and that's what he felt was the right thing to do.
Like I said, I'll get over it. He'll get over it. We'll all be friends again.
Additional images courtesy of WPT/Joe Giron
