Bill Chen Cheats at WSOP and brags about it
WSOP Cheater Watch
year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
http://www.liveactionpoker.com
Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
Cheater Watch
--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
posted from http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
DFSPON
wrote:
Its cheating but I dont know how you would generally police this. Chen
is a Moron for publically admitting this. He should have been
disqualified. If a tournament director actually consented to this
arrangement, I think that Harrahs would be liable for a lawsuit if
someone wanted to pursue it.
DFSPON
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<cheater...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
>year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
>Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
>http://www.liveactionpoker.com
>Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
>Cheater Watch
I don't consider that cheating. And if it is, there should be a rule against
that specific kind of deal. In terms of equity a shootout is a set of
satellites to the 'real' tournament, which is the next set of tables. If only
two people are left at that table, they should be able to split that equity
any way they like.
The only potential complaint I could see the other players having is that
they'd have to play against Chen instead of his opponent. Perhaps that
is enough to ban the practice, but if so, there should be a rule against
that specifically.
If he really did get a tournament director's permission then it is even
less cheating.
You're awfully quick to yell cheating when the situation is far from clear-cut.
phlash74
wrote:
> "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
> year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
>
> Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
>
> http://www.liveactionpoker.com
>
> Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
>
> Cheater Watch
>
> --
>
> posted fromhttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Interesting article. Chen's payout for winning his first table (he
got eliminated in round two of the three rounds) came to $6757. So he
gave his opponent ~$1600 to lock up his $2000 LL bet with Gavin Smith
(if I read the article correctly, he bet $4K against Smith's $2K when
he had twice as many chips as Smith who was at a different table, and
winning the first table was the condition for the bet). Not sure what
the blinds were at, but they were probably high enough that Chen
didn't want to take any chances even with a 21K-9K chip lead. I'm not
sure what kind of deals are or should be allowed in preliminary rounds
of shootout tournaments, but this one does smell kind of funny. If
the TDs were allowing it, then he simply made a smart decision
although it would have sucked for him if he finished high and had to
give $25-$50K to his first opponent.
Michael
Chris in Texas
On Jun 18 2007 5:52 PM, phlash74 wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, WSOP Cheater Watch
> wrote:
> > "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
> > year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
> >
> > Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
> >
> > http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >
> > Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
> >
> > Cheater Watch
> >
> > --
> > Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >
> > posted fromhttp://www.liveactionpoker.com/
>
>
>
> Interesting article. Chen's payout for winning his first table (he
> got eliminated in round two of the three rounds) came to $6757. So he
> gave his opponent ~$1600 to lock up his $2000 LL bet with Gavin Smith
> (if I read the article correctly, he bet $4K against Smith's $2K when
> he had twice as many chips as Smith who was at a different table, and
> winning the first table was the condition for the bet). Not sure what
> the blinds were at, but they were probably high enough that Chen
> didn't want to take any chances even with a 21K-9K chip lead. I'm not
> sure what kind of deals are or should be allowed in preliminary rounds
> of shootout tournaments, but this one does smell kind of funny. If
> the TDs were allowing it, then he simply made a smart decision
> although it would have sucked for him if he finished high and had to
> give $25-$50K to his first opponent.
smart math-wise or not, I don't think this should count as a win for his
side-bet with Gavin. If the TD approved it, well, tough to say he "cheated"
although it reeks of angle shooting at best. I'd be surprised if next version
of TDA rules doesn't address this particulary type of "save" deal.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
DFSPON
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ask the great cheater Russ G if this is cheating. I will abide by his
decision.
DFSPON
DELETETHIS
it is not in the best interest of the game
in the money deals are a far cry from this -- this is simple "chip
dumping" and if you think chip dumping is ok then YOU ALSO have a problem
Tanya AKA MissT74
1. He didn't cheat, the TD approved the deal. Bottom Line, TD's have the final
say so, how many times have we all argued this? You do NOT argue with the floor,
their decision is FINAL.
2. The bet with Gavin either a. doesn't stand or b. is at lower value.
They (Bill and Gavin) decided to let the BARGE list reach the decision and it
has been overwhelming in Gavin's favor that there is NO bet. Bill posted about
it first and I wonder who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying to
"sensationalize" something that doesn't need to be.
T
On Jun 18 2007 3:29 PM, WSOP Cheater Watch wrote:
> "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
> year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
>
> Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
>
> http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
>
> Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
>
> Cheater Watch
>
> --
> Latest Online Poker Legal News at
> http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
>
> posted from http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
DFSPON
> 1. He didn't cheat, the TD approved the deal. Bottom Line, TD's have the final
> say so, how many times have we all argued this? You do NOT argue with the floor,
> their decision is FINAL.
> 2. The bet with Gavin either a. doesn't stand or b. is at lower value.
>
> They (Bill and Gavin) decided to let the BARGE list reach the decision and it
> has been overwhelming in Gavin's favor that there is NO bet. Bill posted about
> it first and I wonder who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying to
> "sensationalize" something that doesn't need to be.
>
> T
>
> On Jun 18 2007 3:29 PM, WSOP Cheater Watch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
> > year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
>
> > Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
>
> >http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
>
> > Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
>
> > Cheater Watch
>
> > --
> > Latest Online Poker Legal News at
> >http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
With all respect Miss Tanya, your logic that he didnt cheat because
the Tournament Director Approved the Deal is Asinine (ASS ININE). The
Tournament Director is a Moron if he did authorize it but you cant
pawn it off as his responsibility. NO SALE!
DFSPON
DaVoice
"Tanya AKA MissT74" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1182211568$100...@recpoker.com...
>
> 1. He didn't cheat, the TD approved the deal. Bottom Line, TD's have the
> final
> say so, how many times have we all argued this? You do NOT argue with the
> floor,
> their decision is FINAL.
> 2. The bet with Gavin either a. doesn't stand or b. is at lower value.
>
> They (Bill and Gavin) decided to let the BARGE list reach the decision and
> it
> has been overwhelming in Gavin's favor that there is NO bet. Bill posted
> about
> it first and I wonder who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying to
> "sensationalize" something that doesn't need to be.
>
> T
Tanya,
We're gonna have to agree to disagree about this one. I'll say here exactly
what I said on the BARGE list about the situation, in fact, I'll just
copy/paste so I don't get it wrong.
My first response was BEFORE I knew that (the absolutely moronic) TD agreed
to the deal:
<quoted>
I know I'm jumping in on this thread *way* late, however I've got to agree
with many people who have expressed an ethical problem with the deal you
made itself. Had this been a final table, or a single table satellite I
would see no problem with the deal being made, but would also say that since
you did not technically WIN the table, Gavin is off the hook and the bet is
"no action".
In a shoot-out format, what you did affected EVERYONE in the tournament, not
just the two of you at your table. I'm amazed that the dealer allowed the
deal to happen without calling over the floorperson to get a ruling, and if
I were the floorperson I would have ruled that you *must* play it out, and
your opponent must play "his best" (whatever that is). I would stand over
the table and if I suspected your opponent was dumping chips to you I would
have DQ'd both of you. Your deal was nothing more than an "elaborate" chip
dump.
Frankly, it took me a while to come to grips with the fact that you would
actually participate in this type of deal, Bill. As much as I like you and
have respect for you as a person and a player, I think what you did was
nothing more than cheating, by having your opponent dump chips to you,
whether or not he got consideration for it, because it was a tournament
where many, many others were affected.
And once again, I would call "No Action" on the bet between you and Gavin
since in reality you *bought* the table win, you didn't win the table.
Just my $.02
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
<end quoted material>
After I found out that the TD had agreed to it, I then posted this to the
BARGE list:
<quoted Bill's post and my reply>
>I asked the tournament director and got approval to
> make the deal. We were pretty open about it. I kinda
> resent the implication from that anything unethical
> was done.
>
> Bill
Was your deal announced publicly to the rest of the entire field? I think
the TD that made that decision is a clueless moron! If the entire field
wasn't involved in deciding or at least made aware so they could protest if
they felt the need, then it is totally wrong, whether the TD says so or not.
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
<end quoted material>
Andy Bloch (the Andy mentioned by Bill in the quote from the LAP article)
and others agreed with me that it was unethical, although there were many
that said, "Hey wtf, if the TD is that stupid, so be it" That is a
paraphrase of many posters, not an actual quote from any particular person.
There is one more post that I've snipped down to Bill's last paragraph and
my reply, and this was my final word on the subject:
<quoted>
<snip>
> I would support a policy which allows no deals at all.
> Absent that policy, I don't see why it's wrong to act
> openly and within the rules and make a deal.
>
> Bill
My first reply was before I'd read that the TD had ok'd the deal. Now I
feel badly about how harsh my first post in this thread sounded. While I
still believe it is WRONG, if the T.D. approved it, then you were playing
*within the rules* that the particular TD put in place, however I think it
goes against the Spirit of the rules and the game in a shoot-out. We're
just going to have to agree to disagree about your action, but the T.D.
should be run out of town on a rail!!!
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
<end quoted material>
I'm kinda surprised to see this end up on RGP, but I guess everything does
nowadays. Tanya I think you're wrong saying that "whatever the TD says,
goes" because the TD in this case was clearly WRONG. The action that he
condoned changed the tournament for EVERYONE who was still involved at all
of the other tables, not just the two players who made the deal. I like
Bill Chen, I've always respected him and his game, but I disagree with what
happened here and there should be (if there isn't) a rule that DIRECTLY
applies to this situation.
RC
--
A++ G++ PKR+ PEG B- TB-- ADB+ M+
Chris in Texas
On Jun 18 2007 7:02 PM, Tanya AKA MissT74 wrote:
>
> 1. He didn't cheat, the TD approved the deal. Bottom Line, TD's have the final
> say so, how many times have we all argued this? You do NOT argue with the
> floor,
> their decision is FINAL.
> 2. The bet with Gavin either a. doesn't stand or b. is at lower value.
>
> They (Bill and Gavin) decided to let the BARGE list reach the decision and it
> has been overwhelming in Gavin's favor that there is NO bet. Bill posted about
> it first and I wonder who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying to
> "sensationalize" something that doesn't need to be.
>
Well, I disagree with you on the "leaking" here, Tanya. If a Harrah's TD made a
horrible decision that affected other players still live in the tourney (which
he did), I think that is public info and the more people that know about it the
better. I don't care much for liveaction poker, but I see nothing wrong with
news of this getting out for discussion.
Then again, Harrah's will pay attention to any complaints about as much as they
are about other WSOP complaints. Nada.
Heh - not only should there be "no bet", but Chen should have to pay something
to Gavin as a penalty. "Fooling friends" is fine with bar bets and prop bets,
but this just stinks.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>1. He didn't cheat, the TD approved the deal. Bottom Line, TD's have the final
>say so, how many times have we all argued this? You do NOT argue with the floor,
>their decision is FINAL.
>2. The bet with Gavin either a. doesn't stand or b. is at lower value.
>They (Bill and Gavin) decided to let the BARGE list reach the decision and it
>has been overwhelming in Gavin's favor that there is NO bet. Bill posted about
>it first and I wonder who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying to
>"sensationalize" something that doesn't need to be.
Now THAT sounds fair. Whatever the bet was, I doubt it countenanced a situation
like that which Chen engineered. Having gained an advantage outside the
scope of what was agreed on, he has voided any bet IMO.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<"minus200(DELETETHIS)"@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>anyone that thinks this is OK - has no idea about ethics
>it is not in the best interest of the game
>in the money deals are a far cry from this -- this is simple "chip
>dumping" and if you think chip dumping is ok then YOU ALSO have a problem
Suppose I'm in an SNG satellite. It's down to heads-up, and I have twice
the chips as my opponent. I make a saver deal and he dumps his chips to
me. He dumps his chips to me and then I transfer the agreed upon funds
to him and play the tournament.
The only two people with equity in that single table were me and my
opponent. Who was being cheated?
Aside from a shootout being CALLED two tournaments, what's the
equity difference? It's effectively a winner-take-all freezeout with the
"prize" being entry into the second round. If you had exactly the
same structure, but they called the first round a "satellite" what
would the difference be?
In either case, the only two people with equity in the situation
are the last two remaining players.
Boise
This is the most astute observation of the thread. I don't think deals
have ANY place in poker because the "collusion" of two players ALWAYS will
affect the game. But in this situation there is no collusion or chip
dumping. Like another poster said, the only downside for the other
tourny players is that they no WILL play Chen. Other than that the
outcome is essentially the same and no harm is done.
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to Die.
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
they
> are about other WSOP complaints. Nada."
I would like some one to make a note in the official record that I read this
and made no comment.
Irish Mike
"Chris in Texas" <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1182213137$100...@recpoker.com...
Jim Mercurio
> "Then again, Harrah's will pay attention to any complaints about as much as
> they
>
> > are about other WSOP complaints. Nada."
>
> I would like some one to make a note in the official record that I read this
> and made no comment.
>
> Irish Mike
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is more the tournament director's mistake. The fact that they
didn't just stand up and have Chen be the winner, that they actually
had to dump the chips, should have been evidence that this is not a
DEAL like ones are made at tournaments. And if it was legal, then it
should have been over. So if it was legal, Td fucked up by making
them play the hands. And if it was illegal, he should have told Chen
so and disallowed it.
Patti Beadles
Jim Mercurio <ssj...@aol.com> wrote:
>This is more the tournament director's mistake. The fact that they
>didn't just stand up and have Chen be the winner, that they actually
>had to dump the chips, should have been evidence that this is not a
>DEAL like ones are made at tournaments.
That "fact" may not be the least bit factual. To the best of
my knowledge, neither Bill's initial email nor any of his
followup comments said that his opponent dumped chips to him.
The deal was "I win the table, you get 25% of my equity."
I know Bill well and have traded action with him for years.
I would be surprised if the side bet had any impact on his
deal.
I don't believe Bill cheated. I do think it's an ethical grey
area. I absolutely believe the author of that blog article
wrote it a significantly less-than-honest manner.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
www.urbanscapephoto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
James L. Hankins
"Patti Beadles" <pat...@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:f57h9e$983$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <1182221261.3...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Jim Mercurio <ssj...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>This is more the tournament director's mistake. The fact that they
>>didn't just stand up and have Chen be the winner, that they actually
>>had to dump the chips, should have been evidence that this is not a
>>DEAL like ones are made at tournaments.
>
> That "fact" may not be the least bit factual. To the best of
> my knowledge, neither Bill's initial email nor any of his
> followup comments said that his opponent dumped chips to him.
> The deal was "I win the table, you get 25% of my equity."
I don't get it. The other player gets 25% of his equity in exchange for
what? Why would the other player do that? Here is the e-mail that was
posted on the web site:
"Partway through the first round I made a 4000:2000 "must win table" bet
with Gavin Smith, when I had about a 2:1 chip lead (he was on a different
table). SO Gavin busts, I get heads up with a 21K:9K chip lead on my
opponent. He agrees to take 25% of my equity for the rest of the tourney for
me winning the table."
This doesn't look like chip dumping to you?
> I know Bill well and have traded action with him for years.
> I would be surprised if the side bet had any impact on his
> deal.
He receives a direct financial benefit for winning the table (by winning the
side bet with Smith), gives up 25% of his equity in the event with a 2:1
chip lead, and you have trouble believing that the side bet with Smith had
any impact on his deal with the short stack?
> I don't believe Bill cheated. I do think it's an ethical grey
> area. I absolutely believe the author of that blog article
> wrote it a significantly less-than-honest manner.
I don't really see the gray area here. What facts could the blog author
have offered that would have made the account more honest in your opinion?
wayne....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
> year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
>
> Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
>
> http://www.liveactionpoker.com
>
> Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
>
> Cheater Watch
>
> --
>
> posted fromhttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Chen's play is 100% OK. In a shootout every table is a final table,
and all the chips will inevitably end up with someone. There's no
possible way anyone not at that table was harmed, and all the people
remaining at the table agreed to the deal.
God forbid any of you paranoids ever encountered ACTUAL cheating.
You'd probably hyperventilate and die on the spot.
James L. Hankins
<wayne....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182229227....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
The other players were harmed because they had to face a stronger player in
Chen than they would have otherwise if his opponent had won. Not to mention
that this sort of thing greatly undermines the integrity of the game which
assumes that each player will give best efforts to advance.
Chen flat-out cheated Smith on the side bet and a player giving an opponent
something of value (like 25% of his action in the same event) so he can
advance in the tournament is pretty much called cheating.
Eric Rosenberg
> I don't believe Bill cheated. I do think it's
> an ethical grey area. I absolutely believe the
> author of that blog article wrote it a
> significantly less-than-honest manner.
Can you point out the less than honest parts of the blog post? Why ask
a tournament director for permission if there was no chip dumping
involved? Without the chip dumping, then this would be more of a "save"
than a "deal" and I wouldn't see the need to get permission from a
tournament director to do that.
--
DFSPON
wrote:
> <wayne.vin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Suppose you go into a Barnes and Noble and purchase some books for
$49.89. You give the cashier $50 and receive change of $11 instead of
11 cents. You walk out of the store with the $11. Did you cheat the
store? Do you care? Would you care if the cashier were fired for being
short $10.89?
Yes or No
DFSPON
James L. Hankins
"DFSPON" <DS...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1182230343.4...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Is this supposed to be an anology? If so, it's not comparable to the
situation being discussed.
> Suppose you go into a Barnes and Noble and purchase some books for
> $49.89. You give the cashier $50 and receive change of $11 instead of
> 11 cents. You walk out of the store with the $11. Did you cheat the
> store?
If you walk out knowing you got too much change, I don't think you can say
you actively cheated the store, but you are dishonest for not correcting the
mistake.
>Do you care?
If you are an honest person then yes, you do care.
>Would you care if the cashier were fired for being
> short $10.89?
Of course you care.
WTF does any of that have to do this Chen?
BlkDg
Defiantly cheating, except for three things:
1. He went to the final table with exactly the number of chips as
everyone else. It's not like he somehow got an unfair advantage.
2. The TD said it was ok.
3. The players bought in with their own money, right? So it's up to
them to decide how to spend it at the table.
James L. Hankins
"BlkDg" <blac...@onet.com.au> wrote in message
news:46776947$0$1182$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> DFSPON wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 6:29 pm, WSOP Cheater Watch <cheaterwatc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
>>> year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
>>>
>>> Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
>>>
>>> http://www.liveactionpoker.com
>>>
>>> Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
>>>
>>> Cheater Watch
>>>
>>> --
>>> Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
>>>
>>> posted fromhttp://www.LiveActionPoker.com
>>
>> Its cheating but I dont know how you would generally police this. Chen
>> is a Moron for publically admitting this. He should have been
>> disqualified. If a tournament director actually consented to this
>> arrangement, I think that Harrahs would be liable for a lawsuit if
>> someone wanted to pursue it.
>>
>> DFSPON
>>
>
> Defiantly cheating, except for three things:
>
> 1. He went to the final table with exactly the number of chips as
> everyone else. It's not like he somehow got an unfair advantage.
The unfair advantage was that he gave something of value to another player
so he could advance without actually playing and thus eliminated the chance
that the shortstack might actually knock him out of the tournament.
> 2. The TD said it was ok.
I find this difficult to believe.
> 3. The players bought in with their own money, right? So it's up to them
> to decide how to spend it at the table.
No. Buying in simply gives a player the opportunity to compete with the
other players within the rules of the game; not to give additional benefit
to another player (25% stake in another player) to chip dump.
This isn't all that difficult.
Chris in Texas
On Jun 19 2007 12:25 AM, James L. Hankins wrote:
> "DFSPON" wrote in message
> news:1182230343.4...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 19, 1:07 am, "James L. Hankins"
> > wrote:
> >> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:1182229227....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, WSOP Cheater Watch
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year
> >> >> after
> >> >> year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
> >>
> >> >> Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
> >>
> >> >>http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >>
> >> >> Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
> >>
> >> >> Cheater Watch
> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >>
> >> >> posted fromhttp://www.liveactionpoker.com/
agree that it was a bad example, I don't think Chen thought he was cheating or
even angle-shooting (one of his other emails mentioned him being upset at being
called unethical). I think he felt he came up with a creative (and knowing him,
a positve EV) way to lock in the side bet, and because he cleared it with the
TD, then obv he felt he was within all bounds of the rules and ethics, not
knowing or realizing how bad the TD's decision would be received by others if
not for chip dumping (total chips for winner didn't change), then for
soft-playing. Obv, he and Gavin must have had some disagreement about it to be
willing to take it the BARGE list for opinions.
My buddies and I tend to make prop bets all the time, and I can see myself if I
was in Gavin's shoes saying, "you didn't win your table, nice try" and one
particularly nitty buddy replying, "you never said we couldn't win it by bribing
someone, so pay up". To which my reply would be, "then you didn't win it. You
bought it. I can go buy someone's WSOP bracelet if available, that doesn't mean
I won it".
A Man Beaten by Jacks
spam]> wrote:
>> Suppose you go into a Barnes and Noble and purchase some books for
>> $49.89. You give the cashier $50 and receive change of $11 instead of
>> 11 cents. You walk out of the store with the $11. Did you cheat the
>> store?
>If you walk out knowing you got too much change, I don't think you can say
>you actively cheated the store, but you are dishonest for not correcting the
>mistake.
The legal term is unjust enrichment. It isn't your money and you are legally
obliged to repay it, regardless of the fact that you acquired the money through
no wrongdoing of your own.
Eric Rosenberg
> who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying
> to "sensationalize" something that doesn't
> need to be.
Hi Tanya...
1. Maybe the author is on the BARGE list.
2. I don't think that an email meant to be read by a mass amount of
annpnymous people could ever be considered as "leaked".
3. Are you now one of those people that thinks that all poker articles
should put poker in a good light and anything quasi-controversial is
considered "sensationalizm"?
--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
James L. Hankins
> My buddies and I tend to make prop bets all the time, and I can see myself
> if I
> was in Gavin's shoes saying, "you didn't win your table, nice try" and one
> particularly nitty buddy replying, "you never said we couldn't win it by
> bribing
> someone, so pay up". To which my reply would be, "then you didn't win it.
> You
> bought it. I can go buy someone's WSOP bracelet if available, that doesn't
> mean
> I won it".
Everybody makes prop bets all the time. Any honorable better understands
the unsaid assumption that in order for the bet to be valid all players must
give their best efforts to win.
wayne....@gmail.com
wrote:
> <wayne.vin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The other players have no reason to expect a weak player to emerge
from that table. Any argument based on such a false premise is of
course invalid. Just to put the last nail in that nonsense, there's
no reason to believe a priori that Bill is a stronger player than his
opponent. Furthermore, this does nothing to the "integrity" of the
game. Since I don't know anything about the Smith side bet, I'll
refrain from comment on that except to say that the nature of prop
betting is finding unexpected ways to make your propositions come
true. It's a battle of wits, and I have a suspicion Smith may have
been unarmed.
James L. Hankins
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
news:gmre739r49gebvtl3...@4ax.com...
LOL...yes, I know what the legal term for it is. The discussion here is
ethics, not civil liability.
Chris in Texas
On Jun 19 2007 12:36 AM, James L. Hankins wrote:
> "BlkDg" wrote in message
> news:46776947$0$1182$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> > DFSPON wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 6:29 pm, WSOP Cheater Watch
> >> wrote:
> >>> "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
> >>> year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
> >>>
> >>> Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >>>
> >>> Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
> >>>
> >>> Cheater Watch
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >>>
> >>> posted fromhttp://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >>
> >> Its cheating but I dont know how you would generally police this. Chen
> >> is a Moron for publically admitting this. He should have been
> >> disqualified. If a tournament director actually consented to this
> >> arrangement, I think that Harrahs would be liable for a lawsuit if
> >> someone wanted to pursue it.
> >>
> >> DFSPON
> >>
> >
> > Defiantly cheating, except for three things:
> >
> > 1. He went to the final table with exactly the number of chips as
> > everyone else. It's not like he somehow got an unfair advantage.
>
>
> The unfair advantage was that he gave something of value to another player
> so he could advance without actually playing and thus eliminated the chance
> that the shortstack might actually knock him out of the tournament.
>
>
>
> > 2. The TD said it was ok.
>
>
> I find this difficult to believe.
If Chen says it happened then I believe it. A bad decision by the TD as it
approves soft-playing, but I think it prevents Chen from being penalized as far
as the tourney is concerned.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
A Man Beaten by Jacks
Other than the fact he's won two WSOP bracelets, written The Mathematics
of Poker, and routinely beats big cash games, no reason whatsoever to
assume he's any better than his opponent.
*pshaw*
What an assclown.
James L. Hankins
<wayne....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182232505.1...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
The other players in the event have every reason to expect the winner of the
table to win the table through an honest process of playing poker that
doesn't involve paying another player to lose.
>Just to put the last nail in that nonsense, there's
> no reason to believe a priori that Bill is a stronger player than his
> opponent. Furthermore, this does nothing to the "integrity" of the
> game.
It's not the strength of the players that undermines the integrity of the
game, it's the part where Chen pays an opponent to lose so he can advance.
Do you seriously not see that as something that undermines the integrity of
the game?
>Since I don't know anything about the Smith side bet, I'll
> refrain from comment on that except to say that the nature of prop
> betting is finding unexpected ways to make your propositions come
> true. It's a battle of wits, and I have a suspicion Smith may have
> been unarmed.
Smith's mistake appears to be assuming that Chen is an honorable person who
would win the bet by actually playing poker against an opponent playing his
best to win.
If that's being witless in your book, then I can see how you are able to
rationalize this sort of dishonesty.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
spam]> wrote:
>> The legal term is unjust enrichment. It isn't your money and you are
>> legally
>> obliged to repay it, regardless of the fact that you acquired the money
>> through
>> no wrongdoing of your own.
>LOL...yes, I know what the legal term for it is. The discussion here is
>ethics, not civil liability.
In this case, I think they dovetail fairly nicely. Relative to Chen, I think he
just analyzed the mathematics and weighed the expected values and didn't
consider that he was being unjustly enriched on the side bet (should he
have collected it). If he had thought he was doing anything unethical, I
can't see him having posted to a mailing list with a broad distribution
basically boasting about it. However, whether or not he did anything
unethical (and I don't think he did intentionally), he is not entitled to
the money from the side bet.
I don't think he should be otherwise penalized or that there is any basis
to impugn his character, or that "cheating" occurred. The incident does
suggest a lacuna in the rules, however. In an ordinary SNG satellite,
there wouldn't be any "chip dumping" because the players would
simply make their deal and then terminate the contest. I don't see
why the issue couldn't be resolved either way: either you can or
you can't make a deal like this in the first round of a shootout.
If you can, the contest should just immediately terminate upon
reaching a deal. Thus, there would be no appearance of chip
dumping. If you can't, then you could not make such a deal,
and getting around it by chip dumping would also, of course,
be against the rules.
I could also see some angle shooting in how a bet was worded, too.
For instance, suppose the bet had been that he bet he would be at
the final table of the shootout. That, rather than "I will win my first
table," would have been fulfilled by this deal, however he managed
to get to the final table. Of course, that was not how the bet went.
I think the only thing that would constitute "winning" the first table
would be getting 100% of the expected value of that table, i.e.
winning without giving anyone a cut in return for not playing to win.
Getting 75% isn't a "win" in the sense meant by the bet, IMO.
wayne....@gmail.com
> If Chen says it happened then I believe it. A bad decision by the TD as it
> approves soft-playing,...
Oh no, not the dreaded "soft playing"!
wayne....@gmail.com
So you're saying you'd have no problem if the roles were reversed?
While I have a lot of respect for Bill's writing and results, the
tournament rules should be blind to those factors. Any argument based
on his strength or weakness as a player is contrary to that, and thus
must be wrong.
Chris in Texas
Agree. The nitty buddy I referred to can't be called an honorable bettor LOL.
Half the fun I have when betting with him is trying to sew up his loopholes by
thinking ahead of him. True story (tangent, sorry) here. He (call him
Cliff) and another buddy (Norm) made a bet on hole 18 of a golf round where
Cliff bet $10 or so that Norm couldn't score a 6 on the hole after Norm got into
some trouble. Norm gets it up in 5 and Cliff says, "I won, you can't beat 6"
and Norm says, "wait, all I have to do is sink this putt and I win because I
score a 6". Anyway, because they had both been drinking and couldn't really
recall what exactly was said (score or beat 6), Norm says b efore he putts, "in
that case, all bets are off" to which Cliff instantly agreed (I still think he
was angle shooting, but it was a friendly bet and Norm didn't mind because he
missed the 5 footer anyway).
In the clubhouse they were watching some scores on TV and some football game
they bet $20 on had just finished and Norm says, "okay, I won this bet you owe
me $20" to which Cliff claimed, "No way, you said all bets were off. That meant
the open bet on this game too." and to this day refuses to pay.
No one really likes to bet with Cliff anymore.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>> >The other players have no reason to expect a weak player to emerge
>> >from that table. Any argument based on such a false premise is of
>> >course invalid. Just to put the last nail in that nonsense, there's
>> >no reason to believe a priori that Bill is a stronger player than his
>> >opponent. Furthermore, this does nothing to the "integrity" of the
>> >game. Since I don't know anything about the Smith side bet, I'll
>> >refrain from comment on that except to say that the nature of prop
>> >betting is finding unexpected ways to make your propositions come
>> >true. It's a battle of wits, and I have a suspicion Smith may have
>> >been unarmed.
>> Other than the fact he's won two WSOP bracelets, written The Mathematics
>> of Poker, and routinely beats big cash games, no reason whatsoever to
>> assume he's any better than his opponent.
[Gratuitous sarcasm snipped]
>So you're saying you'd have no problem if the roles were reversed?
>While I have a lot of respect for Bill's writing and results, the
>tournament rules should be blind to those factors. Any argument based
>on his strength or weakness as a player is contrary to that, and thus
>must be wrong.
I'm not disagreeing with *that*. I just thought it was absurd to suggest
that he was not, in fact, very probably a superior player to his opponent.
I think that happens to be an irrelevant fact, but it is not seriously in
question, whether or not one believes it "a priori."
wayne....@gmail.com
>
> The other players in the event have every reason to expect the winner of the
> table to win the table through an honest process of playing poker that
> doesn't involve paying another player to lose.
Really? Answer this: if a complete donk was willing to pay 10x the
buyin to enter play at the 2nd level of the shootout, would those same
players be wise to deny him? Maybe they wouldn't care how he got
there after all...
> It's not the strength of the players that undermines the integrity of the
> game, it's the part where Chen pays an opponent to lose so he can advance.
> Do you seriously not see that as something that undermines the integrity of
> the game?
I don't see it as having any affect whatsoever on the game's
integrity, or much of anything else really. Poker's all about trying
to take each other's money. Those who'll play against Bill in level
two will do so on a 100% level field, and have just as much chance to
take his cash as he has to take theirs. The integrity of the game is
just fine without all this whining.
> Smith's mistake appears to be assuming that Chen is an honorable person who
> would win the bet by actually playing poker against an opponent playing his
> best to win.
>
> If that's being witless in your book, then I can see how you are able to
> rationalize this sort of dishonesty.
It's pretty apparent you're not very experienced at prop betting. The
whole game is to come up with novel stuff your opponent never thinks
of. It's not dishonest any more so than deceiving your opponent in
poker is.
Gary Carson
On Jun 19 2007 12:07 AM, James L. Hankins wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:1182229227....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 18, 3:29 pm, WSOP Cheater Watch
> > wrote:
> >> "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
> >> year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
> >>
> >> Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
> >>
> >> http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >>
> >> Bill Chen Cheats with Tourney Directors approval. Read and discuss.
> >>
> >> Cheater Watch
> >>
> >> --
> >> Latest Online Poker Legal News athttp://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >>
> >> posted fromhttp://www.liveactionpoker.com/
> >
> > Chen's play is 100% OK. In a shootout every table is a final table,
> > and all the chips will inevitably end up with someone. There's no
> > possible way anyone not at that table was harmed, and all the people
> > remaining at the table agreed to the deal.
> >
> > God forbid any of you paranoids ever encountered ACTUAL cheating.
> > You'd probably hyperventilate and die on the spot.
>
>
>
> The other players were harmed because they had to face a stronger player in
> Chen than they would have otherwise if his opponent had won. Not to mention
> that this sort of thing greatly undermines the integrity of the game which
> assumes that each player will give best efforts to advance.
>
> Chen flat-out cheated Smith on the side bet and a player giving an opponent
> something of value (like 25% of his action in the same event) so he can
> advance in the tournament is pretty much called cheating.
Knowing that a particular player is more likely to be willing to take a deal
once heads up than other players gives Chen storng incentive to soft play that
player.
In a probabilistic sense it's the same as making a softplay arrangement at the
beginning. Chen understands that perfectly well. The TD might be confused
about it, but Chen isn't.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
James L. Hankins
<wayne....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182234416.0...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> The other players in the event have every reason to expect the winner of
>> the
>> table to win the table through an honest process of playing poker that
>> doesn't involve paying another player to lose.
>
> Really?
Uh, yeah. Really.
>Answer this: if a complete donk was willing to pay 10x the
> buyin to enter play at the 2nd level of the shootout, would those same
> players be wise to deny him? Maybe they wouldn't care how he got
> there after all...
Would they be wise? No. But, they are no longer playing a poker
tournament. They're doing something else.
>> It's not the strength of the players that undermines the integrity of the
>> game, it's the part where Chen pays an opponent to lose so he can
>> advance.
>> Do you seriously not see that as something that undermines the integrity
>> of
>> the game?
>
> I don't see it as having any affect whatsoever on the game's
> integrity, or much of anything else really. Poker's all about trying
> to take each other's money.
No, it's about trying take each other's money within the rules and spirit of
the game. If any sort of side-deal, soft-play, collusion or other factor is
fair game in your book to accomplish this, then you're playing a different
game. And you're a cheater.
>Those who'll play against Bill in level
> two will do so on a 100% level field, and have just as much chance to
> take his cash as he has to take theirs. The integrity of the game is
> just fine without all this whining.
You're confusing the integrity of the game with direct consequences to the
other players. When a player advances without having to play against an
opponent who is playing his best to win it detracts from the integrity of
the game.
>> Smith's mistake appears to be assuming that Chen is an honorable person
>> who
>> would win the bet by actually playing poker against an opponent playing
>> his
>> best to win.
>>
>> If that's being witless in your book, then I can see how you are able to
>> rationalize this sort of dishonesty.
>
> It's pretty apparent you're not very experienced at prop betting.
True.
>The whole game is to come up with novel stuff your opponent never thinks
> of.
Bullshit. It might be that way with you, but among honest adults it's about
a disagreement on something and a bet. No tricks or angles. If I have to
worry about ridiculous interpretations or conditions in a bet with someone
then I just won't make the bet.
>It's not dishonest any more so than deceiving your opponent in
> poker is.
What do you mean by "it"? If you're referring to bets that have tricks
built-in so you can weasel out of it then yes, it's slimy hucksterism and
cheap bar tricks. That sort of crap is pretty much what Slim has done all
his life and after reading his book most honest people should feel like
taking a shower.
Tanya AKA MissT74
On Jun 18 2007 10:56 PM, Eric Rosenberg wrote:
> > Bill posted about it first and I wonder
> > who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying
> > to "sensationalize" something that doesn't
> > need to be.
>
> Hi Tanya...
>
> 1. Maybe the author is on the BARGE list.
The author can be no one BUT someone on the BARGE list.
>
> 2. I don't think that an email meant to be read by a mass amount of
> annpnymous people could ever be considered as "leaked".
Unless the author had "unscrupulous" intentions.
>
> 3. Are you now one of those people that thinks that all poker articles
> should put poker in a good light and anything quasi-controversial is
> considered "sensationalizm"?
Oh hell no, but come on, if he can post the first 2-3 posts by Bill, then he
should quote the other posts by other "BARGERS" as well.
By only quoting what he thing was "relevant" (ie: what Bill C. wrote) then the
"author" wrote to "sensitilized" (sp?)
T
>
>
> --
> Latest Online Poker Legal News at
> http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
>
> posted from http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Jun 19 2007 1:03 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
> Other than the fact he's won two WSOP bracelets, written The Mathematics
> of Poker, and routinely beats big cash games, no reason whatsoever to
> assume he's any better than his opponent.
>
He isn't the first to have tried to buy a WSOP win.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Patti Beadles
Eric Rosenberg <er...@mynameisericrosenberg.com> wrote:
>Can you point out the less than honest parts of the blog post? Why ask
>a tournament director for permission if there was no chip dumping
>involved? Without the chip dumping, then this would be more of a "save"
>than a "deal" and I wouldn't see the need to get permission from a
>tournament director to do that.
Why ask a tournament director for permission? How about
because they were unsure whether it was legal and wanted to
know what the rules were before doing it.
The part I was responding to is someone's comment:
"The fact that they didn't just stand up and
have Chen be the winner, that they actually
had to dump the chips..."
Your blog entry says:
"In exchange for a percentage of Chen's wins in
the tournament, Chen insinuates that his opponent
dumped his remaining chips."
Bill's actual email said:
"He agrees to take 25% of my equity for the rest
of the tourney for me winning the table."
Bill does not insinuate that his opponent dumped his remaining
chips. He suggests that they agreed that Bill would win
the table and advance, and Bill would give his opponent 25%
of his prize. He later says that they asked the tournament
director whether the deal was OK and the director approved it.
Typically when a deal like this is made, the opponents stop play,
shake hands, and then report one player as the winner of the
tournament. I have seen this happen in major tournaments, small
tournaments, satellites, and shootouts. In fact, I've personally
been involved in this sort of deal in each and every one of those.
As for reporting, how about this:
"Chen claims that the "deal" was approved by
a tournament director, but makes no mention of
what that tournament director's name is."
While that's a factually accurate statement, the sneer quotes
and the thinly-veiled allegation that Bill is lying about the
director's approval read like slimy journalism to me.
A shootout is a weird animal-- it plays like a satellite, but
rather than the first table being an independent event it's
a part of the tournament as a whole. I can see arguments for
dealmaking being allowed at the first table, and also arguments
for it being disallowed.
The fact that Bill and his opponent clarified the situation with
a director first clearly suggests to me that they were trying
to do the right thing from an ethical standpoint. Whether the
TD was right or wrong, I think that both players should get
credit for trying to do the right thing (clarifying the rules
before agreeing to the deal) rather than blame for not meeting
a standard that was not supported by the tournament's rules or
staff. I've also heard that similar deals occurred at several
of the tables.
At this point, it seems like it would make sense for tournament
directors to explicitly consider whether dealmaking should be
allowed in shootouts, and then clearly publish those rules.
I do not believe that it is a black-and-white issue.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
www.urbanscapephoto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
Gary Carson
On Jun 19 2007 2:00 AM, Tanya AKA MissT74 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 18 2007 10:56 PM, Eric Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > > Bill posted about it first and I wonder
> > > who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying
> > > to "sensationalize" something that doesn't
> > > need to be.
> >
> > Hi Tanya...
> >
> > 1. Maybe the author is on the BARGE list.
>
> The author can be no one BUT someone on the BARGE list.
>
> >
> > 2. I don't think that an email meant to be read by a mass amount of
> > annpnymous people could ever be considered as "leaked".
>
> Unless the author had "unscrupulous" intentions.
>
> >
> > 3. Are you now one of those people that thinks that all poker articles
> > should put poker in a good light and anything quasi-controversial is
> > considered "sensationalizm"?
>
> Oh hell no, but come on, if he can post the first 2-3 posts by Bill, then he
> should quote the other posts by other "BARGERS" as well.
>
> By only quoting what he thing was "relevant" (ie: what Bill C. wrote) then the
> "author" wrote to "sensitilized" (sp?)
>
Writers who don't quote what they think is relevant aren't very good writers.
You're an idiot.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Patti Beadles
James L. Hankins <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote:
>The other players were harmed because they had to face a stronger player in
>Chen than they would have otherwise if his opponent had won.
That's an interesting assertion-- on what do you base this
asssumption? I have no evidence that Bill was the stronger
player.
James L. Hankins
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1182236938$101...@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Jun 19 2007 1:03 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
>>
>> Other than the fact he's won two WSOP bracelets, written The Mathematics
>> of Poker, and routinely beats big cash games, no reason whatsoever to
>> assume he's any better than his opponent.
>>
>
> He isn't the first to have tried to buy a WSOP win.
I thought of the Sterns in this context, too. Also, didn't Larry Flynt try
something similar in a stud event?
James L. Hankins
"Patti Beadles" <pat...@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:f5802o$nmv$2...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <nwJdi.626$uq2...@newsfe06.phx>,
> James L. Hankins <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote:
>
>>The other players were harmed because they had to face a stronger player
>>in
>>Chen than they would have otherwise if his opponent had won.
>
> That's an interesting assertion-- on what do you base this
> asssumption? I have no evidence that Bill was the stronger
> player.
I base it on the fact that his opponent thought it was a good idea to dump
the win to Chen and take 25% of him for the tournament. I don't think an
opponent who had confidence in his ability to beat Chen would have done
that.
Chris in Texas
On Jun 19 2007 2:19 AM, Patti Beadles wrote:
> In article ,
> James L. Hankins wrote:
>
> >The other players were harmed because they had to face a stronger player in
> >Chen than they would have otherwise if his opponent had won.
>
> That's an interesting assertion-- on what do you base this
> asssumption? I have no evidence that Bill was the stronger
> player.
>
Patti - if you had a last longer bet w/ Chen in this tourney, and you busted
headsup at your table would you feel wronged by Chen's actions knowing that in
the unlikely event the other player overcame Chen's chip lead and busted
Chen you and him would in effect "tie" your last longer bet?
Also, while Chen didn't get any more chips than he would have had they played it
out normally without any such deal don't you think by not trying his hardest to
beat Chen the other player was soft-playing him?
You're obv way more experienced than I am so I'm curious as to the above
questions.
Chris
Peg Smith
>> 1. He went to the final table with exactly the number of chips as
>> everyone else. It's not like he somehow got an unfair advantage.
>
>
>The unfair advantage was that he gave something of value to another player
>so he could advance without actually playing and thus eliminated the chance
>that the shortstack might actually knock him out of the tournament.
I'm with Jim and Gary on this one. The deal wasn't kosher, and if the
idiot TD didn't know that, you can bet that Bill did. Bill understands
probability and equity situations better than probably anybody in this
group (except Gary and Patti) and he had to understand the
implications of making that deal. Hell, I'm a math wimp, and my first
thought was that if Bill knew enough about this player at the
beginning of the tourney (and, also, if he knew the tourney director),
he would know he'd have a shot at making the deal later and would have
an incentive to soft-play him. You don't have to have a math degree to
realize that Bill gains an edge in keeping his potential heads-up
opponent alive.
Bill's pretty damn smart, he's probably a genius. He's smart enough to
be able to think ahead from the beginning of play at his table to the
situation he found himself in, and he's also smart enough to
understand exactly what he was doing. The TD apparently has the IQ of
a cucumber.
This wasn't poker, folks. I'll bet Max Stern would back up Bill,
though.
Peg
Patti Beadles
James L. Hankins <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote:
>I don't get it. The other player gets 25% of his equity in exchange for
>what? Why would the other player do that?
He thinks it's a good deal? He's tired and he wants to go
to bed? I've seen players take deals both good and bad for
any number of reasons.
I honestly have no reason to believe that Bill's deal was at
all tied to his side-bet with Gavin. I suspect he would have
made the same deal if he'd made a two-cent to one-cent side
bet, or no side bet at all. People do this all the time in
tournaments.
In fact, it seems more likely to me that Bill thought he was
making a good deal, then only later stopped to consider what
effect the deal would have on his side bet.
Patti Beadles
Chris in Texas <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>Patti - if you had a last longer bet w/ Chen in this tourney, and you busted
>headsup at your table would you feel wronged by Chen's actions knowing that in
>the unlikely event the other player overcame Chen's chip lead and busted
>Chen you and him would in effect "tie" your last longer bet?
No. I particularly wouldn't feel cheated if Bill later
came to me and said, "OK, what does this do to our side bet?"
and attempted to find an honest settlement for it.
>Also, while Chen didn't get any more chips than he would have
>had they played it out normally without any such deal don't you
>think by not trying his hardest to beat Chen the other player was
>soft-playing him?
No. I think he was making a deal in good faith.
Dealmaking is a part of tournament poker-- I've made hundreds
of deals in my life. Bill and his opponent were unsure as to
whether a deal was allowed at this stage of the tournament, so
they asked the director for a clarification. People who are
trying to cheat don't generally ask for permission, but rather
try to cover up their actions.
If we're heads-up at the final table and we agree to a deal,
is one of us soft-playing the other? I don't think so.
da pickle
> Typically when a deal like this is made, the opponents stop play,
> shake hands, and then report one player as the winner of the
> tournament. I have seen this happen in major tournaments, small
> tournaments, satellites, and shootouts. In fact, I've personally
> been involved in this sort of deal in each and every one of those.
If I remember correctly, this was not the only deal made at this tournament.
All the deals were approved by the TD.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
This is the best argument I have seen that there is a problem here. By
the way, Peg Smith made the same comment way up the thread <pointing>
and I have not seen any attempt at a rebuttal. Otherwise, this seems
the same as any sattelite dealmaking.
I have been involved in a lot of those and never soft-played someone
because I thought he or she would make a deal. I do wonder, because I
always liked making deals and people knew it, of anyone ever soft-
played ME. I had percentages of three different people in a $2000
event three Novembers ago, slept all day and made seven thousand
dollars profit on my satellite entries. Maybe one or two of those guys
did soft-play me but I don't remember anything that seemed like that.
Will in New Haven
--
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son, and remember the great DiMaggio."
Ernest Hemingway in _The Old Man and the Sea_
> In a probabilistic sense it's the same as making a softplay arrangement at the
> beginning. Chen understands that perfectly well. The TD might be confused
> about it, but Chen isn't.
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Your Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chris in Texas
On Jun 19 2007 3:56 AM, Patti Beadles wrote:
> In article <1182239192$101...@recpoker.com>,
> Chris in Texas <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> >Patti - if you had a last longer bet w/ Chen in this tourney, and you busted
> >headsup at your table would you feel wronged by Chen's actions knowing that
> >in
> >the unlikely event the other player overcame Chen's chip lead and busted
> >Chen you and him would in effect "tie" your last longer bet?
>
> No. I particularly wouldn't feel cheated if Bill later
> came to me and said, "OK, what does this do to our side bet?"
> and attempted to find an honest settlement for it.
Fair enough, given you've stated that you felt Chen didn't make this deal
specifically to win the side bet. I'm thinking otherwise, because if not, then
why go to the BARGE list for opinions anyway? It appears from reading the
emails quoted that Bill wanted to collect, Gavin called foul. An honest
settlement, IMO, would be no bet. But in reality, that's up to Gavin and Chen.
As Wayne pointed out, prop bets are often about finding that "edge" your
opponent didn't consider, almost a game of one-upmanship which Amarillo Slim
excelled at. Another poster, James Hankins I believe, feels there's a higher
level of integrity called for in prop bets between friends, and that such bets
should have an assumption of honesty, differentiating them from the classic "bar
bets" or Slim prop bets. I have no idea what Gavin Smith and Bill Chen thought
of this, although I would lean toward buying the right to advance beyond the
first table doesn't count as a first table "win". Like someone else said, if
their bet was worded such that "make it to the next round" vs "winning" the
first table, then there's some wiggle room.
>
> >Also, while Chen didn't get any more chips than he would have
> >had they played it out normally without any such deal don't you
> >think by not trying his hardest to beat Chen the other player was
> >soft-playing him?
>
> No. I think he was making a deal in good faith.
>
> Dealmaking is a part of tournament poker-- I've made hundreds
> of deals in my life. Bill and his opponent were unsure as to
> whether a deal was allowed at this stage of the tournament, so
> they asked the director for a clarification. People who are
> trying to cheat don't generally ask for permission, but rather
> try to cover up their actions.
Agree 100% that Chen was acting in good faith in regards to the tourney
situation (even if he was getting cute on his prop bet).
>
> If we're heads-up at the final table and we agree to a deal,
> is one of us soft-playing the other? I don't think so.
But that's at a final table - no one but you and I have equity in the prize
pool. This situation, there's still others in the tourney who have the right to
expect that no player will soft-play any other player, regardless of the
format.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
> Fair enough, given you've stated that you felt Chen didn't make this deal
> specifically to win the side bet. I'm thinking otherwise, because if not,
> then
> why go to the BARGE list for opinions anyway?
I think they went to the BARGE list for what to do. The best, IMO, answer
given on the list was that Gavin should offer to pay and Bill should refuse
... because the "unexpected" occurred. Close friends do this all the time.
The BARGE list turned out not to be very much help. The folks that know
them seemed to run all over the place with their thoughts. This is, of
course, between Bill and Gavin. I think some folks have used the word
"cheat" a little loosely here.
I have met Bill Chen and I will meet Gavin Smith at BARGE in a few weeks.
My wife knocked Bill out of one of the BARGE tournaments last summer and has
the t-shirt to prove it. I hope to be the one that knocks him out this
summer. He is a great poker player and has two bracelets that prove it; but
there is enough luck in poker to let some of us lesser-lights win once in a
while.
Proposition bets always have a certain "feel" about them, don't they?
James L. Hankins
> If we're heads-up at the final table and we agree to a deal,
> is one of us soft-playing the other? I don't think so.
Of course not. But there were other players in the shootout tournament with
Chen and his opponent. Any deal, to be valid, would have to include all of
them. That's why I don't really mind final table deal-making, because all
players are there and have a say.
But in this case, Chen got a benefit by another player allowing him to
advance without risk but the rest of the players received nothing for that
(and in fact had to face a stronger opponent which they wouldn't have if the
other player got lucky against Chen and beat him).
James L. Hankins
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FKCdnaMDBKy...@giganews.com...
Yes, but deals have to include all players, not just the two left at one
shootout table.
If I was in a shootout and had to actually play all my opponents and beat
them at my table, and then looked around at other players cutting deals to
advance, I'd be pissed.
James L. Hankins
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:1182263208.1...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> This is the best argument I have seen that there is a problem here. By
> the way, Peg Smith made the same comment way up the thread <pointing>
> and I have not seen any attempt at a rebuttal. Otherwise, this seems
> the same as any sattelite dealmaking.
Not the same at all to me. In a satellite, ALL remaining players must agree
to the deal or it doesn't happen.
In a shootout, the dealmaking at one table is done without the knowlege or
approval of the other players in the tournament. If I was a player at
another table in the shootout and I knew players were making deals without
my approval about who advances I would begin to lose confidence that the
tournament was legitimate and conclude that colluders were cutting deals to
advance so they could be at the same table and cheat.
Patti Beadles
James L. Hankins <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote:
>Yes, but deals have to include all players, not just the two left at one
>shootout table.
You and others keep asserting that, but empirical evidence (in
the form of several deals having been made at starting tables,
with the approval of the tournament directors) suggests that
this is not true for the shootout event at the WSOP.
There's an argument to be made that the rule is bad, but given
what we know (Bill and his opponent made a deal and that deal
was approved by the TDs, and other tables also openly made
deals) I don't see a way to argue that Bill cheated.
Patti Beadles
Chris in Texas <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>Fair enough, given you've stated that you felt Chen didn't
>make this deal specifically to win the side bet. I'm thinking
>otherwise, because if not, then why go to the BARGE list for
>opinions anyway?
Bill won his table by making a deal, rather than by winning
all of the chips. That left their side bet in an ambiguous
state, and so they decided to ask their friends for opinions.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Unlike anyone else in this discussion (AFAIK), I'm the only
person who has ever actively made side deals with Bill Chen.
I've known him for years, I've played with him a lot, and
because of that I've discussed things like this with him. I
have every reason to believe that he was doing his best to
act within the rules and the spirit of the game.
Joe Long
> anyone that thinks this is OK - has no idea about ethics
>
> it is not in the best interest of the game
>
> in the money deals are a far cry from this -- this is simple "chip
> dumping" and if you think chip dumping is ok then YOU ALSO have a problem
As I read it, there was no chip dumping -- the other player agreed to
forfeit to Bill in exchange for a percentage of his winnings, and play
at that table stopped -- with the approval of the TD. If the other
player was going to dump his chips, why would they ask the TD? For that
matter he could just leave and get blinded off (no one is required to
continue playing in a tournament).
This is not a case where stack sizes are affected. Each winner of the
first round advances to the next round, where all players again start
with the same number of chips. So, a deal at one table does not affect
the stack positions of any other player. As long as the tournament
allows such deals, I don't see a problem with it.
The real question here was how the deal affected the side bet with
Gavin, and I agree that making the deal should nullify that bet.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
Joe Long
...
> In a shoot-out format, what you did affected EVERYONE in the tournament, not
> just the two of you at your table.
Other than the assumption that Bill is a better player than the one he
made the deal with -- which is probably true but not necessarily true,
and may not be the case in other such deals -- exactly HOW is everyone
else affected?
This is a shootout. No matter how the winner is determined at Bill's
table, everyone advancing to the next round is going to start with the
same number of chips. No one's stack position is affected in the slightest.
The players at one of the first-round tables could decide to all push
all-in in the dark the first hand, or draw straws and everyone but the
short straw gets up a leaves, and it would not affect the rest of the field.
Joe Long
...
> The other players were harmed because they had to face a stronger player in
> Chen than they would have otherwise if his opponent had won.
You're making an assumption here, which may or may not be true. Are you
saying it would be OK if the "weaker" player was the one to move on?
> Not to mention
> that this sort of thing greatly undermines the integrity of the game which
> assumes that each player will give best efforts to advance.
It is assumed that each player will act in his own best interest within
the rules. That's why deals are allowed in the first place. If the
other player at the table believes that 25% of Bill's action is worth
more than his chance of coming back from his chip deficit to win the
table, AND make the money later, then his "best effort" is to take the
deal. Don't forget that the object in poker is to win money, not to win
pots or tables.
> Chen flat-out cheated Smith on the side bet and a player giving an opponent
> something of value (like 25% of his action in the same event) so he can
> advance in the tournament is pretty much called cheating.
Another assumption, that Bill didn't tell Gavin about the deal (or tried
to conceal it). I very much doubt that was the case.
Joe Long
> Suppose you go into a Barnes and Noble and purchase some books for
> $49.89. You give the cashier $50 and receive change of $11 instead of
> 11 cents. You walk out of the store with the $11. Did you cheat the
> store? Do you care? Would you care if the cashier were fired for being
> short $10.89?
> Yes or No
I wouldn't walk out with the $11, I'd call it to the cashier's
attention. But your analogy is false, therefore irrelevant.
Who was cheated in the tournament? I'll answer that question: nobody.
No harm, no foul.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in messagenews:1182263208.1...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This is the best argument I have seen that there is a problem here. By
> > the way, Peg Smith made the same comment way up the thread <pointing>
> > and I have not seen any attempt at a rebuttal. Otherwise, this seems
> > the same as any sattelite dealmaking.
>
> Not the same at all to me. In a satellite, ALL remaining players must agree
> to the deal or it doesn't happen.
I think that the first table of a shootout is exactly the same as a
sattelite for the tournament. All the players left, all two of them,
left at the table were in agreement. As I said, the objection pointed
out by Peg and then by Gary makes some sense but it would make some
sense in a sattelite also.
>
> In a shootout, the dealmaking at one table is done without the knowlege or
> approval of the other players in the tournament. If I was a player at
> another table in the shootout and I knew players were making deals without
> my approval about who advances I would begin to lose confidence that the
> tournament was legitimate and conclude that colluders were cutting deals to
> advance so they could be at the same table and cheat.
I think that they should make a rule against it because it causes
doubt like this and because of the objection raised by Peg and Gary. I
wonder about satellite and final table deals now also.
Will in New Haven
--
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son, and remember the great DiMaggio"
James L. Hankins
"Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:hMednVt0-6cfjeXb...@giganews.com...
> DELETETHIS wrote:
>> anyone that thinks this is OK - has no idea about ethics
>>
>> it is not in the best interest of the game
>>
>> in the money deals are a far cry from this -- this is simple "chip
>> dumping" and if you think chip dumping is ok then YOU ALSO have a problem
>
> As I read it, there was no chip dumping -- the other player agreed to
> forfeit to Bill in exchange for a percentage of his winnings, and play at
> that table stopped -- with the approval of the TD. If the other player
> was going to dump his chips, why would they ask the TD? For that matter
> he could just leave and get blinded off (no one is required to continue
> playing in a tournament).
>
> This is not a case where stack sizes are affected. Each winner of the
> first round advances to the next round, where all players again start with
> the same number of chips. So, a deal at one table does not affect the
> stack positions of any other player. As long as the tournament allows
> such deals, I don't see a problem with it.
I've got a big problem with it. The format assumes that each player plays
their best to win and advance. Excluding other players from side-deals that
determine who advances at a table is just shady. A tournament that allows
that is just begging colluders to deal their way to the same table (with the
apparent blessing of the TD).
> The real question here was how the deal affected the side bet with Gavin,
> and I agree that making the deal should nullify that bet.
Yep.
Joe Long
...
>> 1. He went to the final table with exactly the number of chips as
>> everyone else. It's not like he somehow got an unfair advantage.
> The unfair advantage was that he gave something of value to another player
> so he could advance without actually playing and thus eliminated the chance
> that the shortstack might actually knock him out of the tournament.
And this is different from any other tournament deal how? It ended the
action for him in that round, and everyone starts the next round with
the same number of chips. Are deals at satellite final tables
"cheating" too?
>> 2. The TD said it was ok.
>
>
> I find this difficult to believe.
>
>
>> 3. The players bought in with their own money, right? So it's up to them
>> to decide how to spend it at the table.
>
>
> No. Buying in simply gives a player the opportunity to compete with the
> other players within the rules of the game; not to give additional benefit
> to another player (25% stake in another player) to chip dump.
Were chips actually dumped? Normally when a deal is made play stops
(unless they play on for a bracelet or some small amount) -- why was
this any different? They propose the deal, the TD approves, they leave
the table and the dealer picks up the chips.
> This isn't all that difficult.
I don't think so, either, although I reached the opposite conclusion
that you have.
Tanya AKA MissT74
On Jun 19 2007 12:17 AM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 19 2007 2:00 AM, Tanya AKA MissT74 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 18 2007 10:56 PM, Eric Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > > > Bill posted about it first and I wonder
> > > > who "leaked" it to LAP, and why they're trying
> > > > to "sensationalize" something that doesn't
> > > > need to be.
> > >
> > > Hi Tanya...
> > >
> > > 1. Maybe the author is on the BARGE list.
> >
> > The author can be no one BUT someone on the BARGE list.
> >
> > >
> > > 2. I don't think that an email meant to be read by a mass amount of
> > > annpnymous people could ever be considered as "leaked".
> >
> > Unless the author had "unscrupulous" intentions.
> >
> > >
> > > 3. Are you now one of those people that thinks that all poker articles
> > > should put poker in a good light and anything quasi-controversial is
> > > considered "sensationalizm"?
> >
> > Oh hell no, but come on, if he can post the first 2-3 posts by Bill, then he
> > should quote the other posts by other "BARGERS" as well.
> >
> > By only quoting what he thing was "relevant" (ie: what Bill C. wrote) then
> > the
> > "author" wrote to "sensitilized" (sp?)
> >
>
> Writers who don't quote what they think is relevant aren't very good writers.
Writers that ONLY quote what they think is relevant aren't very good writers.
>
> You're an idiot.
Well, DUH, I'm talking to you.
T
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Jun 19 2007 12:48 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Jun 19, 12:40 pm, "James L. Hankins"
> wrote:
> > "Will in New Haven" wrote in
> > messagenews:1182263208.1...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com.
> > ..
> >
> > > This is the best argument I have seen that there is a problem here. By
> > > the way, Peg Smith made the same comment way up the thread
> > > and I have not seen any attempt at a rebuttal. Otherwise, this seems
> > > the same as any sattelite dealmaking.
> >
> > Not the same at all to me. In a satellite, ALL remaining players must agree
> > to the deal or it doesn't happen.
>
> I think that the first table of a shootout is exactly the same as a
> sattelite for the tournament. All the players left, all two of them,
> left at the table were in agreement. As I said, the objection pointed
> out by Peg and then by Gary makes some sense but it would make some
> sense in a sattelite also.
>
> >
> > In a shootout, the dealmaking at one table is done without the knowlege or
> > approval of the other players in the tournament. If I was a player at
> > another table in the shootout and I knew players were making deals without
> > my approval about who advances I would begin to lose confidence that the
> > tournament was legitimate and conclude that colluders were cutting deals to
> > advance so they could be at the same table and cheat.
>
> I think that they should make a rule against it because it causes
> doubt like this and because of the objection raised by Peg and Gary. I
> wonder about satellite and final table deals now also.
>
I thought they did have a rule against deals and chip dumping. I guess the
idiot TD thinks that the rule against deals only applies to final tables.
I don't know how Harrah's manages to find as many idiots as it does.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Lynx
tournaments. However, I would like to comment on the reference to
Rounders.
Rounders was just a movie, and not a particularly accurate one at that.
I've seen people at RGP treat it with reverence that it does not deserve.
> "why do you think you see the same faces at the final tables year after
> year?" -- paraphrased from Mike Mc D in "Rounders".
The question of cheating aside, this is a false premise. You don't see
the same faces at the final tables year after year.
> Here is a real life example of how it may actually happen.
As the premise is false, there's no need to explain how it might happen.
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Eric Rosenberg
> Unlike anyone else in this discussion (AFAIK),
> I'm the only person who has ever actively made
> side deals with Bill Chen. I've known him for
> years, I've played with him a lot, and because
> of that I've discussed things like this with
> him. I have every reason to believe that he
> was doing his best to act within the rules and
> the spirit of the game.
You know him and therefor you think that he was trying to be as ethical
as possible.
What about the several hundred other people in that WSOP tournament?
Certainly not all of them know him like you do and had they known what
had transpired, most would likely have had a problem with it.
This is a debate. It is a debate on whether or not something that was
done in a WSOP event was ethical or not. The fact that you know Bill
Chen better than the rest of us should not weigh in. Bill gave his
account of what transpired and this thread is debating the ethics of it.
Whether you know him better than others or not does not change what
happenned.
--
Latest Online Poker Legal News at
http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
posted from http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Gary Carson
So writers should fill their work with stuff that's not relevant?
I can't wait to read your book. Idiot.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
James L. Hankins
> You're making an assumption here, which may or may not be true. Are you
> saying it would be OK if the "weaker" player was the one to move on?
I'm saying it doesn't make a difference as long as they either play it out
or all the other players agree to it.
>> Not to mention that this sort of thing greatly undermines the integrity
>> of the game which assumes that each player will give best efforts to
>> advance.
>
> It is assumed that each player will act in his own best interest within
> the rules. That's why deals are allowed in the first place.
Deals are allowed if all players agree. In this case, there were other
players in the tournament other than Chen and his oppoenent who had no say
in the matter.
>If the other player at the table believes that 25% of Bill's action is
>worth more than his chance of coming back from his chip deficit to win the
>table, AND make the money later, then his "best effort" is to take the
>deal. Don't forget that the object in poker is to win money, not to win
>pots or tables.
The fact that the two players acted in their own self-interests does not
legitimize what occurred.
Suppose you are in this tournament and won your table. You are sitting
there at your empty table watching the other action. You see Johnny Chan
heads-up with an unknown player who has gotten lucky and who has Chan
outchipped 4:1. They start talking and the player tells Chan that he thinks
Chan has a better chance at winning and agrees to let Chan win the table in
exchange for 25%.
That sort of thing affects you in the tournament and you have no say over
it. Such a deal is good for Chan and the other player (in their interests
as you say), but I can't conceive how such deal-making is a legitimate part
of the game at that point. Not to mention how it would just open up shop
for the colluders and general scumbags.
>> Chen flat-out cheated Smith on the side bet and a player giving an
>> opponent something of value (like 25% of his action in the same event) so
>> he can advance in the tournament is pretty much called cheating.
>
> Another assumption, that Bill didn't tell Gavin about the deal (or tried
> to conceal it). I very much doubt that was the case.
Probably. I don't think anything was said about that one way or the other.
If Chen didn't make the bet with Smith knowing he was going to target a
deal-prone player during the course of play with the idea of dealing his way
to win the table then I suppose a charge of cheating is out of line. But it
sure looks like that's what occurred.
James L. Hankins
> Who was cheated in the tournament? I'll answer that question: nobody. No
> harm, no foul.
The other players who actually had to play out their tables and risk
elimination the way the game is supposed to be played.
See my example with Johnny Chan above.
James L. Hankins
> James L. Hankins wrote:
>
> ...
>>> 1. He went to the final table with exactly the number of chips as
>>> everyone else. It's not like he somehow got an unfair advantage.
>
>> The unfair advantage was that he gave something of value to another
>> player so he could advance without actually playing and thus eliminated
>> the chance that the shortstack might actually knock him out of the
>> tournament.
>
> And this is different from any other tournament deal how?
BECAUSE THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE TOURNAMENT DID NOT AGREE TO IT.
>It ended the action for him in that round, and everyone starts the next
>round with the same number of chips. Are deals at satellite final tables
>"cheating" too?
No, because all the players left agree to it or have the power to squelch
it.
>
>>> 2. The TD said it was ok.
>>
>>
>> I find this difficult to believe.
>>
>>
>>> 3. The players bought in with their own money, right? So it's up to
>>> them to decide how to spend it at the table.
>>
>>
>> No. Buying in simply gives a player the opportunity to compete with the
>> other players within the rules of the game; not to give additional
>> benefit to another player (25% stake in another player) to chip dump.
>
> Were chips actually dumped? Normally when a deal is made play stops
> (unless they play on for a bracelet or some small amount) -- why was this
> any different? They propose the deal, the TD approves, they leave the
> table and the dealer picks up the chips.
>
>> This isn't all that difficult.
>
> I don't think so, either, although I reached the opposite conclusion that
> you have.
How is that possible? :))
Susan
Eric Rosenberg
will indulge.
Let's have a bet situation.
Joe bets me $1000 that I cannot beat his friend Mike in arm wrestling.
Mike and I lock hands and I tell him that I will give him $250 to lose.
Mike then throws the contest. Should Joe be obligated to pay me the
$1000?
James L. Hankins
"Eric Rosenberg" <er...@mynameisericrosenberg.com> wrote in message
news:11822779...@sp12lax.superfeed.net...
> Although I don't think that the bet with Gavin is the main issue here, I
> will indulge.
>
> Let's have a bet situation.
>
> Joe bets me $1000 that I cannot beat his friend Mike in arm wrestling.
> Mike and I lock hands and I tell him that I will give him $250 to lose.
> Mike then throws the contest. Should Joe be obligated to pay me the
> $1000?
No.
da pickle
>>Yes, but deals have to include all players, not just the two left at one
>>shootout table.
>
> You and others keep asserting that, but empirical evidence (in
> the form of several deals having been made at starting tables,
> with the approval of the tournament directors) suggests that
> this is not true for the shootout event at the WSOP.
>
> There's an argument to be made that the rule is bad, but given
> what we know (Bill and his opponent made a deal and that deal
> was approved by the TDs, and other tables also openly made
> deals) I don't see a way to argue that Bill cheated.
It is my understanding that deals were allowed by other tables in this
shootout tournament and those deals were approved by the TD. If those were
the rules, those were the rules.
(BTW, I do not think that Bill made it to the final table, I think he was
knocked out during the next round but was in the money for making it there.
I could be wrong.)
None of this is conclusive, of course, when applied to the side bet, which
is a totally separate issue.
If deals are allowed in the shoot out tournament and you can make a deal,
why would you not make a deal that was good for you?
James L. Hankins
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k8ednfxALL_Vv-Xb...@giganews.com...
> "Patti Beadles"
>
>>>Yes, but deals have to include all players, not just the two left at one
>>>shootout table.
>>
>> You and others keep asserting that, but empirical evidence (in
>> the form of several deals having been made at starting tables,
>> with the approval of the tournament directors) suggests that
>> this is not true for the shootout event at the WSOP.
>>
>> There's an argument to be made that the rule is bad, but given
>> what we know (Bill and his opponent made a deal and that deal
>> was approved by the TDs, and other tables also openly made
>> deals) I don't see a way to argue that Bill cheated.
>
> It is my understanding that deals were allowed by other tables in this
> shootout tournament and those deals were approved by the TD. If those
> were the rules, those were the rules.
From where did you get this understanding? If those were the rules, then it
looks like the participants were in a deal-making contest, not a poker
tournament.
> (BTW, I do not think that Bill made it to the final table, I think he was
> knocked out during the next round but was in the money for making it
> there. I could be wrong.)
>
> None of this is conclusive, of course, when applied to the side bet, which
> is a totally separate issue.
>
> If deals are allowed in the shoot out tournament and you can make a deal,
> why would you not make a deal that was good for you?
I suppose you would. But it would be quite shitty for the players who
entered thinking that it was an actual poker tournament.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "da pickle" <jcpick...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
I know there is some difference, largely because people seem to insist
that there is, but do you mind when people play in tournaments against
you when they got there by making a deal in a satellite?
Will in New Haven
--
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
da pickle
>> And this is different from any other tournament deal how?
>
> BECAUSE THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE TOURNAMENT DID NOT AGREE TO IT.
All the players at the table had to agree to it. Players at other tables
can make their own deals. Those were the rules, apparently. One must
consider the rules.
>>It ended the action for him in that round, and everyone starts the next
>>round with the same number of chips. Are deals at satellite final tables
>>"cheating" too?
>
> No, because all the players left agree to it or have the power to squelch
> it.
All the players left did agree to it. The players move to another "round"
of the tournament.
How is this different than a satellite to another part of a tournament? No
one other than the players at the satellite table have any say in any deal.
If they want to cut a deal, the "winner" does not play out the table. When
he gets to the next stage of the tournament, he plays there ... no one else
had any say as to how he got there. There are some multi-level satellite
tournaments too. How is this shootout different from them?
James L. Hankins
> I know there is some difference, largely because people seem to insist
> that there is, but do you mind when people play in tournaments against
> you when they got there by making a deal in a satellite?
No. Why would I?
da pickle
Tanya AKA MissT74
What I was referring to was the additional comments and discussion that took
place on the BARGE list that was purposefully left out of the OP's blog. That IS
relevant, darling.
>
> I can't wait to read your book. Idiot.
I didn't think you would read it, it's going to cost more than $2.95, sweety.
T
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
James L. Hankins
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> "James L. Hankins"
>
>>> And this is different from any other tournament deal how?
>>
>> BECAUSE THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE TOURNAMENT DID NOT AGREE TO IT.
>
> All the players at the table had to agree to it. Players at other tables
> can make their own deals. Those were the rules, apparently. One must
> consider the rules.
I doubt there was a written rule that said dealmaking is allowed during the
preliminary rounds. It sounds to me like the TD just approved what was
happening, not construing a written rule.
I bet if you read the rules of the shootout format there would be language
about each player having to win the table to advance. This is in tension
with allowing deals at preliminary tables.
>>>It ended the action for him in that round, and everyone starts the next
>>>round with the same number of chips. Are deals at satellite final tables
>>>"cheating" too?
>>
>> No, because all the players left agree to it or have the power to squelch
>> it.
>
> All the players left did agree to it. The players move to another "round"
> of the tournament.
>
> How is this different than a satellite to another part of a tournament?
> No one other than the players at the satellite table have any say in any
> deal. If they want to cut a deal, the "winner" does not play out the
> table. When he gets to the next stage of the tournament, he plays there
> ... no one else had any say as to how he got there. There are some
> multi-level satellite tournaments too. How is this shootout different
> from them?
It's different because the players pay money having certain expectations
about the rules of the competition. If ten players want to play a satellite
that does not involve me then I don't care who wins because I haven't paid
any money to have any say over who wins or how.
When I pay my money to enter a shoot-out tournament, then who advances and
how becomes my business. I pay my money to enter expecting to advance if I
win my table and for every other player to take the same risk of elimination
by having to face nine opponents who are putting forth there best efforts to
win. If players at other tables are able to manipulate who advances by a
process other than poker competition, then I have an interest in that.
Tell me this: how is what happened here different than chip dumping in a
regular tournament? If you are at a table in a normal tournament and a
player in seat 1 says to another player in seat 2, "Hey, I think you're a
better player than me, I'll raise almost all my chips except one dollar and
then fold at the river so you can have my chips but I want 25% of you." How
has that affected directly players at *other* tables in the tournament?
da pickle
>> I know there is some difference, largely because people seem to insist
>> that there is, but do you mind when people play in tournaments against
>> you when they got there by making a deal in a satellite?
>
> No. Why would I?
Because they did not "win" their seat by playing out the satellite ... they
made a deal.
I am having a hard time understanding why you think there is such a vast
difference. There is a slight difference, of course, but it seems to be a
difference without much substance.
Tanya AKA MissT74
Eric,
If other tables reached the same deal as Bill's table did would that change your
opinion that Bill "cheated"?
I don't know him personally, but I do know him from BARGE and I find it very
difficult to believe that he did anything maliciously, unethically, etc. He
called the TD over, the TD made the decision. From what I've heard, other tables
did the same deal.
The discussion at hand was whether Gavin had to honor the sidebet that was made
and that's why it (the discussion) was brought to the BARGE list, not to discuss
whether what he did was cheating or not, because it should be understood that
it's not cheating as the TD allowed it.
T
>
> --
> Latest Online Poker Legal News at
> http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
>
> posted from http://www.liveactionpoker.com/
wayne....@gmail.com
Precisely correct - a shootout is nothing more than a hierarchy of
single table winner take all satellites where some of the prize may be
paid in cash. Assuming it didn't screw up the format (ie. there was
an empty chair), I wouldn't have a problem if someone bought in at the
3rd level for 100 buyins cash (or whatever the product of the table
sizes is). It's no different than someone buying in cash to an event
vs. playing a satellite vs. playing a satellite to a satellite.
Lynx
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
James L. Hankins
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
I addressed this another thread. The difference is substantive.
When a player pays money to enter a poker tournament he expects the winners
and losers to be decided by poker play. The exception to this is when all
players agree to modify the rules (such as when a deal is made).
In a satellite, if I am not a player in it, how can I expect to have any say
over who wins? If I am a player in it then I can squelch any deal or agree
to any deal that alters the normal rules of play.
The preliminary rounds of a shoot-out are not satellites; they are rounds in
an event in which I paid to participate. If other players are using methods
other than poker to determine advancement then I think any player who paid
his entry fee should be apprized of it and have power to approve or reject
it.
The TD here was just nuts.
Joe Long
> Patti Beadles wrote:
>> Unlike anyone else in this discussion (AFAIK),
>> I'm the only person who has ever actively made
>> side deals with Bill Chen. I've known him for
>> years, I've played with him a lot, and because
>> of that I've discussed things like this with
>> him. I have every reason to believe that he
>> was doing his best to act within the rules and
>> the spirit of the game.
>
> You know him and therefor you think that he was trying to be as ethical
> as possible.
Quite reasonable, if she knows him to be an honorable person, which is
what she is saying.
> What about the several hundred other people in that WSOP tournament?
> Certainly not all of them know him like you do and had they known what
> had transpired, most would likely have had a problem with it.
Had I been playing in that tournament, I would have had no problem with
it whatsoever.
> This is a debate. It is a debate on whether or not something that was
> done in a WSOP event was ethical or not. The fact that you know Bill
> Chen better than the rest of us should not weigh in. Bill gave his
> account of what transpired and this thread is debating the ethics of it.
> Whether you know him better than others or not does not change what
> happenned.
Of course it should weigh in. It goes to motive and ethics. Whether
you believe some particular action is ethical or not, whether the person
who did it believes it was ethical, believes it was unethical and did it
anyway, or just didn't care; makes a huge difference.
I personally believe that the deal was ethical, but clearly some people
feel otherwise. That is enough for me to avoid making such a deal
myself, now that I've seen that. Bill didn't have the advantage of this
discussion prior to making his deal -- if he had any inkling that it
would be considered unethical by some he would not have published it on
a poker maillist.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
A Man Beaten by Jacks
spam]> wrote:
>Yes, but deals have to include all players, not just the two left at one
>shootout table.
Based on what? If you make a deal at a satellite into another event,
does everyone in the other event have to approve a deal at a satellite?
James L. Hankins
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
news:1ceg735dvo256m456...@4ax.com...
No, because they didn't pay to participate in the satellite.
Raider Fan
Joe Long
> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:t8CdncMlUdzliOXb...@giganews.com...
>
>> You're making an assumption here, which may or may not be true. Are you
>> saying it would be OK if the "weaker" player was the one to move on?
> I'm saying it doesn't make a difference as long as they either play it out
> or all the other players agree to it.
There were only two players left, and one of them would advance, with
everyone in the next round starting over with the same number of chips.
Just like a satellite. There was no need to seek agreement from
any other players, nor was it practical to do so. All of the players
involved did agree.
>>> Not to mention that this sort of thing greatly undermines the integrity
>>> of the game which assumes that each player will give best efforts to
>>> advance.
>> It is assumed that each player will act in his own best interest within
>> the rules. That's why deals are allowed in the first place.
>
> Deals are allowed if all players agree. In this case, there were other
> players in the tournament other than Chen and his oppoenent who had no say
> in the matter.
Do the players in a tournament have a say in deals made in satellites? No.
>> If the other player at the table believes that 25% of Bill's action is
>> worth more than his chance of coming back from his chip deficit to win the
>> table, AND make the money later, then his "best effort" is to take the
>> deal. Don't forget that the object in poker is to win money, not to win
>> pots or tables.
>
>
> The fact that the two players acted in their own self-interests does not
> legitimize what occurred.
>
> Suppose you are in this tournament and won your table. You are sitting
> there at your empty table watching the other action. You see Johnny Chan
> heads-up with an unknown player who has gotten lucky and who has Chan
> outchipped 4:1. They start talking and the player tells Chan that he thinks
> Chan has a better chance at winning and agrees to let Chan win the table in
> exchange for 25%.
That's between him and Chan. In a shootout you have no control over who
advances from tables other than your own. Why should you?
> That sort of thing affects you in the tournament and you have no say over
> it. Such a deal is good for Chan and the other player (in their interests
> as you say), but I can't conceive how such deal-making is a legitimate part
> of the game at that point. Not to mention how it would just open up shop
> for the colluders and general scumbags.
Hmmmm, how would it do that?
>>> Chen flat-out cheated Smith on the side bet and a player giving an
>>> opponent something of value (like 25% of his action in the same event) so
>>> he can advance in the tournament is pretty much called cheating.
>> Another assumption, that Bill didn't tell Gavin about the deal (or tried
>> to conceal it). I very much doubt that was the case.
>
>
> Probably. I don't think anything was said about that one way or the other.
> If Chen didn't make the bet with Smith knowing he was going to target a
> deal-prone player during the course of play with the idea of dealing his way
> to win the table then I suppose a charge of cheating is out of line. But it
> sure looks like that's what occurred.
It doesn't look that way to me at all. You are making assumptions,
assumptions which make Bill out to be a cheater, with no evidence. Why
are you doing that?
A Man Beaten by Jacks
spam]> wrote:
>"Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:t8CdncMlUdzliOXb...@giganews.com...
>>If the other player at the table believes that 25% of Bill's action is
>>worth more than his chance of coming back from his chip deficit to win the
>>table, AND make the money later, then his "best effort" is to take the
>>deal. Don't forget that the object in poker is to win money, not to win
>>pots or tables.
>The fact that the two players acted in their own self-interests does not
>legitimize what occurred.
>Suppose you are in this tournament and won your table. You are sitting
>there at your empty table watching the other action. You see Johnny Chan
>heads-up with an unknown player who has gotten lucky and who has Chan
>outchipped 4:1. They start talking and the player tells Chan that he thinks
>Chan has a better chance at winning and agrees to let Chan win the table in
>exchange for 25%.
This is a good argument for why it should be against the rules, but not a
good argument for it actually having BEEN against the rules at the time
Chen did it.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in messagenews:1ceg735dvo256m456...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:34:06 -0500, "James L. Hankins"
> > spam]> wrote:
>
> >>Yes, but deals have to include all players, not just the two left at one
> >>shootout table.
>
> > Based on what? If you make a deal at a satellite into another event,
> > does everyone in the other event have to approve a deal at a satellite?
>
> No, because they didn't pay to participate in the satellite.
Well, I think that the difference is mighty slim. On the other hand, I
understand that there really is a difference, even if I think it isn't
very big, and I could see a simple rule forbidding these deals in a
shootout. It wouldn't bother me and it would make some people, such as
youreself, feel better about the integrity of the event.