John C. Turmel, B. Eng. 8-37 Colborne E. Brantford, N3T 2G3 Tel: 519-753-0645 Email: turmel@ncf.ca re: Suggested improvements to Brantford Charity Casino Dear Trish: I've heard that there are going to be some upcoming rule changes in April and after 15 full-time years playing as a Poker professional all over North America, mainly at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, I've had the chance to study what works in running a smooth game and what does not from the point of view of both the keeper of the game and the found- ins. Here are suggestions to eliminate problems that plague your game. PRINCIPLES OF EFFICIENT GAMING: (1) Maximize action and player participation: Many house rules like "no two people can leave for lunch at the same time" or "miss 2 big blinds and you're out of the game" are predicated upon the desire to ensure the fullest game for the players. Players crave many other players in the game for maximum action. (2) Maximize convenience and minimize restrictions: Players should never be penalized where no advantage was gained. Before I get into what I think would make providing a happier gaming environment easier for you and your dealers, I would point out these suggested improvements are in no way an indictment of the Brantford gaming facilities. The Ontario Lotteries and Gaming Commission copied existent poker casinos rules and the existent problems came with them. My purpose in going into such detail is to use my influence via the Internet to urge these improvements throughout the whole industry. So please don't feel picked on because you are the first poker room operator I've dumped a whole history of suggestions onto. Rather, appreciate that these are "once-and-it's-fixed" suggestions and if you get rid of all these little mechanical aches and pains once and for all, you will end up with the smoothest Holdem game possible. A) DEALING B) BETTING C) SEATING D) POSTING E) BUYING CHIPS F) SHOWDOWNS G) THE HOUSE A) DEALING ========== The original Ontario Lotteries and Gaming Commission Charity poker rules were based upon my 1993 Casino Turmel Poker Rules which were guided by the statistical principle that the "order" of the initial random shuffle need not be preserved to remain fair. Any unknown next card is as fair as the initial unknown card. To cement the fact that it is not necessary that the original random distribution be preserved, I permitted my players to call for a cut anytime during a hand. Few ever did but if anyone could demand a new random ordering of the remaining cards at any time because it really doesn't matter, why would anyone want to waste time re-ordering the deck when it really never matters? Automatic Card Shufflers ------------------------ If you hope to compete with the faster games offered online, the greatest imperative is to eliminate shuffling time by installing a machine to shuffle a second deck while the dealer deals out the first. Time lost reshuffling due to misdeals and exposed cards ------------------------------------------------------- The dealer's function is to deliver 2 honest random cards to each player. The order in which the unknown cards are dealt is irrelevant. For instance, as the deal is completed, if someone notices that the button had not been moved, they call a misdeal and reshuffle because everyone got the wrong random hands in every poker room in the world but Casino Turmel. Knowing that a newly-shuffled unknown ordering of cards is no fairer than the originally-shuffled unknown ordering with the button in the wrong place, we would move the button and not shuffle again. If a player has not been dealt a card in the first round, the dealer would not try to back up the cards but would deal the player a card on the second round and then deal a last card at the end. The order of the unknown cards dealt is irrelevant. By accepting that all random distributions are fair, there is never any need to lose time gathering in the cards to re-randomize the random deck. No misdeals and no reshuffles are great rule. More player participation ------------------------- If a player arrived before the betting had started, he'd be dealt 2 cards off the top in order to maximize participation. As long as all players can benefit by being dealt in late, they're getting what they all want, more players on average in each hand. Player angst at losing beautiful hands upon a misdeal ----------------------------------------------------- Everyone has had an evening ruined by losing their pair of Aces, or Kings, or Queens, to a misdeal. Some people even take a few seconds to mourn the loss of their beauties, turn them up, discuss their sad fate. I eliminated that angst by declaring "No misdeals." Once a gambler picked up an honestly-dealt Ace, he was playing that pot with that Ace and could never lose it. Dealers were instructed to keep pumping cards to any players at the table until everyone had two cards. There is no reason to ever let a misdeal ruin a patron's evening at your games. Exposed players' cards ---------------------- Reshuffling an exposed card back into the deck so the original holder can maybe get it back is unnecessary. If a card is exposed, the dealer should replace and muck it. Everyone saw it. It's random who benefits or who doesn't so it doesn't matter. Prematurely-exposed board cards ------------------------------- There is only one exception to the "No Reshuffling" rule. When board cards are prematurely exposed by the dealer, a rare event, they are reshuffled back in so someone with a pair who just watched his quads be accidentally prematurely exposed by the dealer gets a chance to draw them again. In Brantford, when the dealer prematurely exposes the board, no one left in the round may raise. This is one of the few really bad rules because it is patently unfair to anyone who wanted to raise who then blame the dealer. Cover card protection lost to protect random order -------------------------------------------------- The original purpose of "burn" cards was to "cover" the next upcoming card in case it had been marked by someone. Using the "cover card" to replace an exposed card and then putting the exposed card back on the deck as "cover card" defeats the purpose of having a "cover card" if everyone saw the next card coming. Once the cover card comes off the top to replace another, the next card then has to be become the cover card and the card underneath the new cover card is the next board card. Deck changes too often ---------------------- Changing and examining both decks every 4 hours is fine but changing and examining the deck every time a new dealer comes in or anytime a player requests it is far too often. Some players call for a deck change almost every time they lose a pot to change their luck. To solve the problem in Atlantic City, the two decks are interchangeable without verification. Everyone saw the other deck put into the tray earlier, everyone sees it come back now. In Brantford, the deck is sorted by the pit boss and checked every time. This is too time consuming when there is no risk of tampering with the deck while it was in the dealer's tray. So eliminate deck changes requested by players or better to let the changes take place without any examination. Much like with shuffling machines where the deck is changed each time with no verification. B) BETTING ========== Bet saddles prevent splashing bets ---------------------------------- Most players either throw in their chips which often forces the dealer to verify that the required number chips are on the table or they place their stack down on the table then knock it over to show there are 4 chips. Then the dealer has to gather up chips which have been splayed all over the table. This wastes so much time that I prevented my players from splashing their chips by drawing a circle the width of two chips in front of each seat and making players place their chips inside their saddle. No more splashing could occur and all neat piles permitted the dealer to pick up the bets and keep them in stacks within the pot for easier possible splitting of pots. Bet saddles prevent confusion ----------------------------- Often, two players at the end of the table may both throw in their call almost simultaneously and players at the other end of the table may misconstrue it as a raise. When they throw in the double bet thinking they are calling, they are informed that they have just raised. Bet saddles eliminates confusion caused by splashed bets. Forward motion with chips to check ---------------------------------- Forward motion with chips sometimes induces another player to throw in a call which then is declared to be a bet once it has entered the pot making everyone else in the round upset at having to put in money by accident when no one really wanted to. If a caller rhythmically throws in his calls at almost the same time the bettor's bets, forward motion with chips is used by sharpies to discern if they are going to be called so they can withhold the bet at the very last second. Fake betting motions should not be part of the game. The rule that "forward motion with chips constitutes a bet" is a good one and should become an industry standard. $1 raises allowed, no add-ons ----------------------------- Player A bets $20, Player B calls and raises $1 all in. Player C is now faced by another $20 re-raise from Player A because of B's $1 raise. In most casinos, such a small last all-in raise is not considered a raise but called an "add- on" which may be completed to $40, not $41, by the next raiser. Only when the "add-on" is half a bet or greater does it count as a raise that permits a re-raise from Bettor A. I think the "one half bet to count as a raise" rule should be an industry standard. No bets less than red $5 chips ------------------------------ Less that 5 white $1 chips should not be counted as a bet upon a player going all in. Nothing less than a red chip should be bet in a red chip game. Extra whites don't count. C: SEATING ========== Restriction of opening button to Seat 10 ------------------------------------------- Before dealing the first hand, most casinos deal out a card to each player with high card winning the advantage of being the button. Ties on high card are settled with the precedence used in Bridge: Spades, Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs. In Brantford, Seat 10 is always given the button first making it a wise move to always start with that advantage to get the extra 8 free hands and move later. Such and advantage should be assigned by chance. Restriction on taking open seats -------------------------------- Seated players must have priority for open seats. When a new player arrives to take an empty seat, the dealer should ask if any seated player would like it first. Locking up the empty seat right away for a not-yet-arrived player causes several peeves that do not occur when the seat is taken only when the new player arrives. Seated players may change their minds ------------------------------------- Before the new player arrives, if a seated player gets beaten on one hand, then a second hand, then a third, he has good reason to want to change seats but he may no longer because the not-yet-arrived player has been given priority. Locking up seats before the new player has arrived is a unnecessary restriction on the rights of the existing players. Restriction on moving into the button seat ------------------------------------------ Most casinos do not permit moving into the button seat when that person leaves. I never saw the need for that restriction as long as the person posts when he moves more than the permitted number of players. Forcing people to change seats right away now causes another unique problem when it involves moving into the empty button seat. After a hand where I had been the button, the small blind left his seat. I wanted to move 1 seat over and though I was effectively the last player in the next hand dealt with the puck on his empty chair and would gain no advantage by taking that seat, I was made to sit out the hand because "you can't move into the button." Penalized even when I gained nothing. So every player in that particular situation of being the next-to-button man ends up being punished one hand to balance a presumed advantage that did not exist. If a player gains no advantage by moving, there is never reason for restriction. I would either grant the exception for the man just in front of the button who gains zero extra hands by moving or, since I hate exceptions, I'd scrap the "no moving into the button" rule completely. New player in small blind ------------------------- When the small blind leaves, the big blind posts alone. Should someone want to take the small blind seat, there is no need to change the game structure if the new first person gets to post the big blind alone instead. In Brantford, both players post big blinds. Though this is still fair, it is an exception (2 big blinds) when the normal structure works fine. Either way, the table faces a hand with the first seat as big blind all alone. No telephone reservations ------------------------- Maximizing participation by filling empty seats fast is what the players want and is achieved faster using telephone reservations. I find it surprising that a 21st century casino isn't using a 19th century device to operate the game reservation list like other casinos do that was invented right in Brantford. Now, when the next player is paged, the listperson has to wait several minutes before concluding that he is not going to show up. With house phones, a paged player has 10-15 seconds to get to a house-phone and call in his seat lock-up before they call the next name. Seats get assigned in seconds if the listpersons use a phone rather than the minutes it now takes if they're don't. All hotel-casinos permit their patrons to get on the list without leaving their rooms. I've now moved to Brantford and live 5 minutes away, which is about as analogous to having a room in a large casino-hotel as can be. But unlike a casino- hotel where I can call to reserve a seat, call to find out where I stand on the list, or even be paged in my room when I'm next up, here, I can only call to find out that there are 10 names on the list but they won't add my name to the list nor tell me where I stand once I'm on that list. I have to come down from my room to personally speak to the listperson and have my name added to the list and then come to ask the list-person how far my name has moved up in the past hour. All the while I could be using up the same time speaking to the same list-person from my room. I have no doubt some business admin type pointed out that maximizing the time poker players have to wait maximizes the chance they'll go play another game while they wait. The same reason people waiting play are left standing with only four chairs. If they want to sit, there are chairs at the Blackjack tables. Of course, this added chance to get other action is gained at the inconvenience of people who are only there for poker action. Making your poker clientele needlessly waste time in the hopes they'll play Blackjack violates the principle of minimizing player inconvenience. Not using telephone reservations in today's high-tech world seems a serious over-sight. Online Reservation Terminal --------------------------- Best of all, probably unique, and easy to install, speaking as an electrical engineer, would be a computer terminal at the front door where people can click the game list they want and type in their own initials. This list can then be piped onto a screen that everyone can see. It can also be piped online through the Brantford Charity Casino's website so players could also make reservations before leaving home with a roll-over feature so that if they haven't arrived when their name is called, it's automatically rolled over to the end of the list after the required 10-15 seconds. People in their rooms could, like me, could check where we are on the list and not bother calling the listperson to find out. D: POSTING ========== Restriction on jumping "seats" vs jumping "players" --------------------------------------------------- The purpose of making players post a blind when they jump more than a certain number of positions away from the button is to negate the advantage of the extra free hands they receive. If no advantage is gained, such restriction is unnecessary. Most casinos permit jumping two players without posting, Brantford permits a jump of one seat without posting. That's fine but the problem occurs when one has to post for jumping one player and one empty seat or jumping two empty seats. Since jumping empty seats confers no extra advantage, it should not be counted in the permitted allocation of players one may jump. The rule should be that you have to post if you jump more than 1 player, not 1 seat. Wait equivalent hands and rather than post ------------------------------------------ One nice touch appreciated by all who have ever played at the Taj Mahal is that if you move 5 seats away and would have to normally post, you may choose to wait out 5 hands so that you give up the free hands you would have gained and thus re-enter the game without penalty in exactly the same position. Again, no penalty is needed if no advantage gained. It also permits people a few hands to take a short break. Use deck stub to determine who gets seat ---------------------------------------- When a new seat opens up, the stub of the deck should be used or any two cards pulled at random, or flip a coin, or do odds and evens, or do paper, rock, scissors, anything but a complete shuffle. Small blind moves ----------------- When the small blind changes seats, he must forfeit the small blind. Many casinos leave it live to compensate the the free hands that moving seats has cost the player. Restriction on moving when less than 6 players ---------------------------------------------- At the Taj Mahal where players can jump 2 players, they may still change seats in short-handed games and it never proved to be a problem. In Brantford, players may only jump 1 seat without posting so any problem of excess seat changing should be even lessened. This restriction seems very unnecessary. Do not have to post both blinds after dinner -------------------------------------------- When a player sits out a round and then does not come back in on his big blind but comes in behind the button in better position, he must post his big blind and forfeit his small blind. Letting some enter in better position without forfeiting their small blind because they went to lunch is insufficient grounds. There should be no such exemption. If the player does not re-enter the game on his big blind, then going to lunch should not save him posting both blinds in the better position. Not allowed to finish the round of hands paid for ------------------------------------------------- When players pay their two blinds, they have pre-paid for the next 8 "free" hands. When time is called and they are leaving, they must get up right away and lose the accrued hands they paid for even when no one is waiting to take their seat. As long as no one is ready to assume the seat, letting players finish the round they paid for to their blinds before leaving would maximize player participation, cost the casino nothing and be an appreciated touch of class. Playing-over boxes ------------------ To maximize player participation, no two players may be permitted to leave the table for lunch together. Some casinos including Point Edward in Sarnia have solved that problem by covering a player's chips with a box and letting the next player on the list "play over" while he's gone until a seat opens for them. Then the next on the list can "play over." This maximizes player participation and permits more than one player from the same table to take a break without inconveniencing the game. Play-over boxes please players who like a full game and please the diners who may have more time to eat and leave more than one at a time. The play-over person pays the time and buys the whole session. It also scraps the "miss two blinds and you're out" rule. Just the other night, knowing an average round takes 15 minutes, I went home to pick up some papers and was back within 10 minutes but it had been a fast round and I had just missed my second blind and had to give up my seat. Out of my seat for being away from the table for under 10 minutes and I still had time on the clock paid for! Play- over boxes permit you to replace the "miss two blinds and you're out" with "miss two or three time collections" and you're out. E: BUYING CHIPS =============== Pit bosses act as chip runners ------------------------------ Floor people should not act as chip runners for almost every buy-in. When a person throws a $100 bill on the table, the dealer announces that the player has "money behind," then selects the right number of "Buy tokens" to substitute for the cash which is then taken by the pit boss to the cage. I've seen up to three floor-people lined up at the cashier. Players must remember "shy" bets owed ------------------------------------- While the pit boss is off buying chips, any called bets are taken from the pot and placed in front of the caller to represent the amount he's shy in the pot. After the hand, the dealer informs him that he owes that much shy to the winner of the hand and goes on to the next hand. When the pit boss returns with the buyer's chips, the "buy buttons" are returned to the dealer and it is up to the players to remember to pay the shy owed. Once all 10 players have a couple of stacks of Red $5 chips, there's no need for more Reds and selling Blacks saves the pit boss the trip to the cage, saves the player having to remember the shy, and eliminates the "buy-shy" system completely. Selling a black $100 chip would take the same amount of time as selecting the "$100 Buy" chip to represent the sale while the pit boss is gone to the cage. A couple of rows of Black $100 chips that could be quickly sold to players who make change amongst themselves would save 60 floorperson trips to the cage. Let $100 bills play in the pot ------------------------------ Many casinos allow $100 bills to play like black chips in the pot. The winner gets the $100 bill but must keep it on the table. Saves time in the cage and at the tables. Good idea if the government doesn't have any reasons against. Tray "unfills" waste time ------------------------- After the dealer has added more and more time collections to the tray that have not been sold because the chips are provided by the pit bosses from the cage, the game is stopped to permit the tray to be "unfilled" of its excess. Those chips should have been sold and "unfills" should never waste players' time again. Buying less than $100 --------------------- I seen no reason why people who want to add less than a full $100 to their stack before the play of the next hand are prevented from doing so. This is wholly unnecessary. Players should be able to add as much as they want at any time between hands. F: SHOWDOWNS ============ Having run poker games for over 30 years, I have always enforced the "showdown" rule at the end of all betting for all players still in the pot. When the dealer called "showdown," all hands had to be turned face up for all to see. When the Ontario Lotteries and Gaming Commission originally adopted my Casino Turmel rules, they too enforced showdowns but have since permitted players the "privilege" of mucking their losing hands without showdown. This is a privilege that should be abrogated. It is a privilege because in all casinos, any player may request to see the mucked cards and many often do. Why make players ask to see what they have a right to see, especially when it sometimes gets the loser upset? Showdowns prevent Collusion --------------------------- Exposing all remaining hands at the end prevents certain forms of collusion. Showdowns prevent slow-rolling ------------------------------ It also prevented slow-rollers from spoiling the mood of the game. We've all seen these nasty little people with great hands who don't like giving the losers the bad news too quickly and prefer to let them get their hopes up before dashing them down. I find this despicable and I'm amazed they don't realize how bad they look when they do it. When I've got cinch or close, I've always made it a habit of throwing them up right away and reducing any pain. Showdowns prevent delay ----------------------- Showdowns save time. Making everyone turn up their cards before looking for better hands prevented the loser who wants to take a few seconds to mourn the passing of his dogs from making the whole table take the time to mourn with him. We've all seen players who insist that all their beautiful losers deserve a funeral, sometimes taking a full 10 seconds praying farewell before throwing them in "face-down." Showdowns prevent telldowns --------------------------- It also prevented telldowns. Some players believe that to show one's cards is to lose an advantage. So they always try to hide their cards even when it is up to them to show their cards first. Rather than turn up the cards when their bet is called, they do a "telldown" and say "flush wins" hoping the flush will be shown and they can muck their cards without showing. If the person says "no flush," they might say "small pair," hoping the other guy gets tired of waiting to see the hand and turns up the bigger pair letting him muck his hand away without showing anyone again. Because the house lets them, these people are under the impression that it is part of the game and do waste the table's time trying to hide their cards all the time, every time. I have sometimes been forced to end this abuse by stating "I'm playing showdowns and I'm going to show my losers and I'm going to want to see all everyone else's losing hands too. I'll show you mine, you show me yours." This upsets some people. Instead of making one of the players abrogate the privilege that's causing the abuse, the house should abrogate the privilege of hiding cards at showdown by enforcing showdowns as under the original Ontario Charity Poker Rules where these problems could not have existed. Showdowns shave many seconds from every pot for many good reasons and once you're used to it, you forget the days when you jockeyed to show your cards last so you could hide them if you weren't winning. Showdowns prevent folding with no bet ------------------------------------- Mucking cards without being forced out by a bet changes the game improperly. The more players in the hand, the more the pot is said to be "protected." For a player to drop out of protecting the pot without being forced to is about as unsportsmanlike as one can get. It always vexes someone. With that threat of another player gone, someone, either he who now bluffs more easily to get called and lose or he who calls more easily to lose, is going to resent the player who pulled his protection from the pot. Dropping one's protection of the pot implies that the player is only concerned about his failed draw and couldn't care less about protecting the pot for the rest of the table. With showdowns, players may bet or check but not fold since all remaining hands get shown down. People must not be allowed to avoid showdown by mucking their cards without being forced out by a bet. Showdowns prevent hiding winning hand if bettor mucks ----------------------------------------------------- The better bets and the caller calls. The bettor mucks his hand and the winner does not have to show. In most casinos, a hand must shown to claim any contested pot. Showdowns eliminate the problem by making both show. Showdowns maximize entertainment value -------------------------------------- From the quantity of time saved to the quality of time spent, showdowns provided for the full entertainment value of the gambler's dollar. Where they don't enforce showdowns, you rarely get to see the A8 lose to the A9. Most often, you just see the A9. You never get the gasps we get when three Kings get beaten by three Aces. Or one full house by another. Or Aces Queen-kicker loses to Aces King-kicker after a raising battle. Or the laughs when a pair of twos calls three Aces. Once they've played according to old- fashioned showdowns rules, they'll be spoiled for life. I loved it that mine was the only game where they got full entertainment value even though they may not have realized that showdowns was the reason why. To this day, many people still pick Casino Turmel as the funnest game they've ever played in. The game can never be as entertaining as when the whole table gets to see what hands fought it out. Though, as a professional poker player, I admit that allowing for the weaker players to make reading mistakes and concealing the occasional move has to be to my benefit, it's a benefit that I don't cherish. I don't need to take a pot that my cards don't merit winning. With showdowns, even if the weaker player misreads his hands, he knows he will always get the pot because the whole table always gets to see it and it's everyone's duty to correct any mistakes. "Show one show all" not enforced ---------------------------------- When someone shows his neighbor his hand, it is because he thinks it is of interest. Then it's of interest to the whole table. It is rude to show one person but not all and the house should not tolerate it. 10% rake at the $5/$10 unconscionable ------------------------------------- In the $5/$10 game, the industry standard of a 5% rake-off up to $5 is more than the $10 an hour time charge paid by the higher-limit game. Brantford's 10% rake-off, $5 out of a $50 pot where one probably put in $25, is unconscionable. G: THE HOUSE ============ No wheelchair access from the Art Stansbridge Walkway ----------------------------------------------------- The Art Stansbridge pedestrian walkway from Brantford City Center on Colborne St. to the Casino parking garage elevator exits onto Icomm Dr. There is no pedestrian, bicycle or wheelchair access out of the garage nor a way to cross over the median to get to the casino on the other side. Everyone crosses to and from the parking garage over the median. I have had to climb over the snow-covered curb, then over the snow-covered median, to get to the casino side-walk. It would seem unreasonable to ask patrons parked in the parking garage to walk to the light at the corner of the street and back. I think the casino should consider asking the city to install a cross-walk or access through the parking garage before someone gets hurt. No deposit boxes or deposit facilities -------------------------------------- Playing at even the smallest $5-$10 game, players often end up coming or leaving with a couple of thousands dollars in cash. Many would prefer to leave cash on deposit with the casino or in a safety-deposit box. Lacking this safety feature could cost might cause someone to be mugged after winning big at your tables. I would bet that a large number of regular players would leave their chips and monies with the cage, as I would, and the charity would have the benefit of the interest while those dollars are deposited in the bank. Even a voucher from the Brantford Charity Casino to John Turmel is safer than cash. All casino-hotels I've visited handle deposits and withdrawals as easily as any bank teller. I'm sure Brantford tellers could handle holding my money for me just as easily. North wall has no TV screen --------------------------- There are TVs on 3 walls and the north wall which faces the wide side of all tables with the most players should have one too. Many casinos have banks of TVs. Yours should too. Closed-captioning TV -------------------- Everyone I've spoken too wants closed-captioning where possible. Makes sense since it replaces the audio that is turned off. No door to shut out clanging slot machines ------------------------------------------ One would think people in the poker room are happy for the winner at the slots when they hear the alarm bell going off to celebrate the big win and a thousand metal tokens hitting the tray one after another. But after 6 minutes of alarm bell and no fire engines, the thrill wears off. I feel like tape-recording an hour on a busy Saturday night so you can hear how incredibly annoying a din celebrating slots can be. Everyone I've spoken to, customers and employees, would find it a treat if you could install a door to the Poker room which would cut out the outside noise. Can't hear the music -------------------- Music provide some of the flavor that Las Vegas casinos used to offer with live bands. Most people tap their toes or whistle and your casino does play some good music, we can hardly hear it past the ventilation and slots of noise. When asked to turn up the music, I've been told some players don't want music. I wonder why Vegas didn't shut down their bands for their music non-lovers? Few people objected to the music there and few should here. And the pit bosses can reply, rather than "some people don't like the music," that "most people like the music. Want some ear-plugs?" Radio news is always a big hit and conversation starter so playing the local Brantford CKPM oldies station with the live news would be appreciated. No friends or spectators allowed in gaming area ----------------------------------------------- Holdem is a wonderful spectator game. People need only watch it for a few minutes to very quickly realize "I can play this game". The Taj Mahal promoted the game by permitted friends and spectators into the room to watch and even sit. A lot more couples would come. Short of space, there is no compelling reason to prevent friends and spectators from watching. Building benches along the walls for spectators to sit would also be a great idea and prove very useful when you get into running tournaments. No phone-calls or cell-phones ----------------------------- Someday you may have hotel guests to cater to as well as just outside poker players. Paging people to house phones is routinely done in other casinos and as long as the caller does not slow down the game, there has never been a problem with people on the phone. At the Taj Mahal, their house phones had 30-foot long cords and I do not remember people talking on the phone ever being a problem. Many people like to do the odd business while they play and unless there is some serious imperative, I'd install house phones and permit cell-phones. No knap-sacks ------------- I always found carrying my stuff in a knap-sack handy and don't understand the ban. I now put my papers in a large purse-like bag which gets through security like my knap-sack could not. Men's purses checked, not women's --------------------------------- Though my purse-like bag is no larger than any woman's purse, because I am male, I have to go through a security check every time that women do not. What is the purpose of the security check? If someone's going to smuggle in a gun, it won't be in a checkable bag? In all my years gambling, I've never had to go through a security check before. I admit that just because I don't see why it's needed means you don't have your reasons. Men's purses re-tagged every time --------------------------------- My bag now has half a dozen security tags which deter most guards from affixing a new one once they've checked. But some go by the rules that a new tag is necessary and take the time to fill it out and affixing it to the male's purse. Once the bag's been checked, what's the purpose of having a new tag proving it's been checked. The tags say that it's been checked, and it has been checked. So why the need for the updated tag? No CD headphones ---------------- If long-session players want to quietly listen to their particular brand of music, I've never noticed that earphones presented the game with any kind of problem. They can hear the game conversation through their music and it's a liberty that should not be denied without substantial reason. Food ---- Many casinos not only have rolling trays to serve food, they serve it free to their patrons. People aren't messy. The Grand Casino in Biloxi Mississippi even had a permanent salad bar in the room and brought in hot snacks from the kitchen on a regular basis. No players would object to the Brantford casino restaurant serving food at the table which would once again ensure maximum players at the table and maximum sales for the restaurant at the same time. The Taj Mahal would even allow people to order in food from outside. Pizza and Chinese were often late-night favorites. No pens or high-lighters allowed -------------------------------- Over the many years I've played full-time poker, I have done an immense amount of reading and writing after folding my hands. I read my newspaper, I do the cross-words, I highlight important passages in books, I make notes. During the charity casino days in Ottawa, I was even permitted to set up my lap-top computer on a chair beside me and edit my email with no appreciable reduction in the speed of the game. Besides, you may want to install a cybercafe where patrons who use the new technology can answer their messages during breaks. You can imagine how disappointed I was when I was told I couldn't use a pen or highlighter at Brantford. A restriction on pens was a first for me. I was told it was avoid the possibility of ink from leaky pens getting on the cards but that pencils are okay. Later I was told that pencils are not allowed either. Same reason: to prevent marking the cards. I can attest that in all my years playing at tables where pens were permitted, I never saw cards marked by a leaky pen or deliberately. The rule that "players can't hold cards and pens at the same time" could solve the same problem while not restricting the use of writing implements when we're not holding cards so I would suggest the danger of of marked cards due to writing implements is not sufficient to warrant the inconvenience to players. I must say never realized how much of a bother not being able to use my high-lighter and different colored pens could be. I love living near a casino in a downtown setting, like Atlantic City, rather than deep in the woods like Port Perry or Orillia which is why I've settled in Brantford but I'd have to admit that restriction on my writing implements would be quite sufficient reason enough for me to have to move should another Ontario casino that opens in a downtown setting permit me to use my folded time in the more worthwhile way. Please get rid of the restriction on using pens when not holding cards. Flash cards for rules --------------------- A standard complaint at all casinos is that staff sometimes lack familiarity with all the rules. The best teaching aid is a set of flash-cards. The problem situation is printed on one side with the solution on the other. Practicing with a shuffled deck of flash cards guarantees practice with all, even the rarest, tricky situations. Dealers sit at empty tables --------------------------- I feel sorry for the dealers who have to sit at empty tables for hours on end without being able to read, etc. As a player, I don't need to see this. Perhaps they could practice their "Rules" flash cards? Royal Flush advertising ----------------------- One nice touch at the Taj Mahal was that when someone hit a Royal Flush they were given a special "Royal Flush" polo shirt, or baseball cap, or framed certificate. The caps and shirts were great advertising for the casino and such mementos are cherished by the players. In my 5 years at the Taj, I hit 3 Royals and have a shirt, cap, and a certificate to prove it! So this is how I always ran my games. You can see how "No misdeals," "showdowns" and "saddles" eliminated a multitude of vexing situations while speeding up the game at no cost. These are all mechanical changes that the Brantford Charity Casino Poker room can be first in adopting to optimize their game. I would further suggest that I and my credentials are well- known to the Ontario premier and some in his cabinet and I would expect their support as there is nothing to be gained by not updating to superior rules. Please be reassured that like the typical engineer, I will continue to militate for these improvements. Forever. And I can still show you ways of yet speeding up the game to World Record pace but that offer is going on the auction block public soon. Finally, I won't publish these recommendations on the Internet until after the new regulations have been promulgated later in April. Things that you do fix won't be mentioned in my eventual online post. Only any remaining complaints will continue to be appealed for. Hoping there won't be any and the TajProfessor will be able to tout my Brantford home-town Poker Parlor as the best, and close to fastest, live game in the world, I am, Resolutely yours, John C. Turmel