GCA "COLLUSION, 100%, Final Table Cheated at Bellagio WPT"
RussGe...@aol.com
Pulled from a comment:
While we are on the subject of the WPT , whats your opinion on the so
called percentage swapping between Habib and Tuan Le , some forums are
suggesting it was as high as 50 % .
I've been reluctant to post about this since I don't know for sure what
the arrangement was, if in fact one existed. It is widely believed by
people who would tend to know that there was a large shared interest
between hasan and tuan; I heard it was hasan owning 50% of tuan, not a
swap, but the potential problem is the same either way. It's hard to
overlook hands like this one, when still 6-handed:
Hand 43: John Phan has the button in seat 5, Hasan Habib raises to
$400,000, and Tuan Le pushes all in for $965,000 more. Habib thinks for
a while, counts out the proper number of chips, thinks a little longer,
and then folds. 2-1 to call for the dominating chip leader on a hand he
opened with.
Or this one, 3-handed:
Hand 117: Tuan Le has the button in seat 4, and he immediately pushes
all in. Hasan Habib asks for a count, and it's $1.54 million more for
him to call. Habib says, "I should call you," and folds K-J of clubs
faceup. Tuan had fewer than five big blinds in his stack and pushed on
the button in a 3-handed game where he is way behind the other two in
chips and thus has virtually no chance of "sneaking up a spot." How do
you think KJs does against Tuan's hand range under those conditions?
I don't know whether anyone did anything unethical and I like both
hasan and tuan. But it's not realistic for people to ignore huge shared
interests at the poker table, and I have no idea what could be done
about it. You could try to ban it but people will do it anyway. You
could require swap disclosure but not everyone will, and even if they
do it doesn't help you that much to know about it. I fear that
tournament poker is already on its way into becoming a "team sport" and
eventually people might start feeling like they have to join a team
just to keep up. Dread. About this Entry
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The above was written by Paul Phillips, belwo is mine, a World Class
Professional on the subject of COLLUSION.
Since I didn't have the hands histories nor anything else, I could not
truly state collusion. Since I've viewed these two alone, this is more
than enough proof to show collusion did happen.
Those of you at the FINAL TABLE, you were screwed, by two 'not too
bright' colluders.
This is BLATANT COLLUION, to a trained professional.
Russ Georgiev
Superman
re-raised, and folded his crap hand.
Hand 117: Why double a guy up if you're holding 7-2 offsuit? He'd jump to
3.6 million +- and you fall to under 10 million. Wait for a better chance.
The funny thing is, you can't pull 2 hands out of 188 and claim collusion.
You need to (1) see their hole cards or (2) find suspicious activity in
*several* other places.
Since we can't see their hole cards...let's look for other (I say "other"
but really, the examples you sited are not the least bit suspicious to me)
hands.
Lets see...
Hand 10: Hasan Habib has the button in seat 2, and he raises to $260,000
after everyone folds around to him. Phil Ivey comes over the top from the
small blind for $750,000 more. Habib asks how many more chips Ivey has, and
it looks like about $1.4 million more. Habib folds, and Ivey picks up the
pot.
If hand 117 was chip dumping, I guess this is too. Except this time to Phil
Ivey. Habib was leader with 8 million chips. If 117 should have been called,
so should this no?
Hand 77: Paul Maxfield has the button in seat 1, Hasan Habib raises it to
$600,000, and Tuan Le calls. The flop comes 9h-8c-8h, Le bets $600,000,
Habib says, "Raise," and Le folds before he can even give an amount.
Hand 79: Tuan Le has the button in seat 4, Tuan Le raises it to $520,000,
and Paul Maxfield calls. Hasan Habib raises it $1.5 million more, and the
other players fold.
Guess they were dumping the other direction in hand 77 and 79? Or will you
argue they did this to make it look "right"?
Hand 89: Paul Maxfield has the button in seat 1, Hasan Habib limps from the
small blind, Tuan Le raises it to $700,000, and Habib makes it $2.6 million.
Tuan Le folds.
Hmmm. More reverse dumping. Very clever.
I could continue but frankly I got bored. Didn't feel like going through
another 100 hands to find absolutely nothing but proof that you don't give a
damn about making legitimate accusations.
I've seen terrible and seemingly "unprofessional" plays on the WPT. Perhaps
its the cameras, perhaps pros always play this way. Perhaps it's all rigged.
But, no matter what, this tournament wasn't any different than any of the
other WPT events. Bad bluffs, bad calls, bad commentary by VVP.
<RussGe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114815383....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
will-you-call
migh have been on a pure steal and didn't want his crappy cards exposed.
I don't see how Hand 117 is collusion.
> <a href="http://www.pokermafia.com" target="_blank">www.pokermafia.com</a>
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
RussGe...@aol.com
Superman wrote:
> Hand 43.
I suppose
it's possible for you to post your real name and qualifications to anal
eyes collusion.
Kryptonite Georgiev
brewmaster
> Hand 43. I suppose it's impossible that Habib was bluffing from the SB, got
> re-raised, and folded his crap hand.
>
> Hand 117: Why double a guy up if you're holding 7-2 offsuit? He'd jump to
> 3.6 million +- and you fall to under 10 million. Wait for a better chance.
>
Uh, it said he folded KJ of clubs face up and said "i should call you",
and he should have.
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Superman
see how with just 2 hands a master like you can conclusively declare that
they colluded. There's absolutely no other way to interpret what happened
(at least not without putting on your tin foil hat).
So, since I don't know what I'm talking about, was hand 10 collusion also?
77, 79, 89 were payback before going on to your hand 117 when the payback
was reversed?
I suppose you'll try to say that each move made sense given their chip
stacks and desire to help eachother move up in the payout structure. The
moves ALSO make sense from a standpoint of just playing poker...with NO
collusion. To state that you're sure they colluded is ridiculous. I wish you
had enough money that they'd be willing to sue you...but of course you
don't.
I'll bet you I can look at any 188 hand histories and find 2 hands similar
to the two you pointed out. Does that mean every game is crooked or that
you're full of shit? I guess we'll let the readers decide.
<RussGe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114818993.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
RussGe...@aol.com
will-you-call wrote:
> Hand 43 is somewhat suspicious, since the raise is so little. But
then, Habib
> migh have been on a pure steal and didn't want his crappy cards
exposed.
>
> I don't see
Do you need a seeing eye dog?
Superman
are cheating. Perhaps he had a read and figures his K was beaten by an A
high? Or is it just better to assume that cheating is rampant and blatant?
Paul said it's unlikely he'll "sneak up" in the prize money. If so, why keep
him around? Don't you want his chips so you win instead of coming in 2nd? At
this point, if you ARE colluding, you figure you've gotten him as far as you
can and you now take his chips.
On the other hand, if you're not colluding, but your read tells you he has
you beat, you may fold rather than double him up. No?
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:o7uak2x...@recgroups.com...
brewmaster
> Yes, brilliant move when you're cheating. Show your cards so every knows you
> are cheating. Perhaps he had a read and figures his K was beaten by an A
> high? Or is it just better to assume that cheating is rampant and blatant?
>
> Paul said it's unlikely he'll "sneak up" in the prize money. If so, why keep
> him around? Don't you want his chips so you win instead of coming in 2nd? At
> this point, if you ARE colluding, you figure you've gotten him as far as you
> can and you now take his chips.
>
Well, obviously Turn Le still had enough chips to win (as, in fact, he did
win), so you haven't "taken him far enough and now should just take his
chips". I think Hassan would have been quite happy to double Tuan up here
IF in fact they had a piece of each other, because that helps them both
out by giving them both a decent chance to knock out the other player.
However, Hassan had KJ suited and felt that hand had a decent chance of
knocking Tuan out if he called, which he didn't want, so he didn't call.
Makes perfect sense to me in a collusion sort of way.
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
RussGe...@aol.com
Superman wrote:
> Well, that was mature. I guess you're right. I'm an idiot and clearly
can't
> see how with just 2 hands a master like you can conclusively declare
that
> they colluded. There's absolutely no other way to interpret what
happened
> (at least not without putting on your tin foil hat).
You're right on much, especially the 'idiot'. I ask you this question,
how many cold decks would you need to put into a game to get all the
money?
FACT: These two started the final table.
FACT: The best they could have done is 1-2, tough under any
circumstance. They finished 1-3.
FACT: The art of collusion is illusion.
FACT: I am a professional, you have NO CREDIBILITY.
FACT: Paul Phillips, nor any honest person will go to bat for these
players, under their real names, just as NO PRO would denounce me as
what I have stated I am or was. Looks like Roy Cooke might have them
them some problems if they had denounced me, but none of them did it
anyway, as they knew it wouldn't be in teir best interests.
FACT: I am a REAL EXPERT, you are an anonymous name. You could even be
Razzo, as far as anyone knows.
FACT: If the WPT was sued for this, it would be a 'slam dunk', settled
in court with non disclosure agreements signed.
Russ Georgiev
Superman
posts are harmless since he just rambles on about this and that in broad
generalities.
This thread (and about 5 other thread's he's started today about the same
subject), however, specifically impugns the reputation of 2 players BY NAME.
Not mere generalizations. Not accusations about something that happened 12
years ago.
I just can't let Russ be the only voice on this. Think for yourself people.
Look at all 188 hands then decide if the 2 hands you saw seem completely
dishonest or if, perhaps, they may be justifiable.
For those of you who can't google:
http://www.cardplayer.com/tournament-log/?event_id=2032
<RussGe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114818993.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Superman
well right? I mean NO ONE would EVER fold here unless they were cheating
right? So, you win, they cheated. I'm a dumb ass for not seeing it earlier.
The other 186 hands mean nothing.
Habib is a total boob for busting out 3rd. I bet he'll never collude with Le
again.
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:nkvak2x...@recgroups.com...
brewmaster
> Well then it MUST be collusion since folding certainly isn't reasonable as
> well right? I mean NO ONE would EVER fold here unless they were cheating
> right? So, you win, they cheated. I'm a dumb ass for not seeing it earlier.
> The other 186 hands mean nothing.
>
I didn't say that it PROVED anything (I know very little about these
things but I tend to believe what Russ says on the subject). I only said
that in the hand where you pointed out it couldn't be collusion and why,
there was another way of looking at it.
> Habib is a total boob for busting out 3rd.
This I fully agree with. He was the prohibitive chip leader with 3
players left. He should absolutely have won. I don't think it was
collusion that lost it for him, but perhaps it was. If he had played
every hand fully this may not have happened.
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
igotskillz.com
have a concept that i apply in all walks of life.
I ask myself what i would do if i were that person.
If i were either of two people that were tied financially, would the
thought of assisting my "partner" enter my mind ?
Who would not ? . If i am in a game where a buddy is i admit i am
to a degree kinder to him or her. Now if i stand to make 500,000
dollars or so if Russ wins in a game i would be pretty foolish to try
and beat him.
Of course i'd run him out of a hand when i felt i needed to do so. BUT
if i am going to profit by his success i would favor him.
No matter how you look at it they worked together. Teams should just be
legal. These 2 were a team even if they never "cheated".
Did they also "cheat" ? How can you ever know ?
I'm curious if anyone of you can HONESTLY say that if you were one of
these 2 guys that you would COMPLETELY ignore the fact that you benefit
from your "partners" success.
Nick Wool
Russ, make up your mind. They finished 1st and 3rd, and if they were cheating,
they must be good. So what's all this 'not too bright' nonsense?
Anyway, why all this cheating nonsense again? I thought the WPT would be
televised, so we will know what their hole cards were in due course. Surely we
can make up our mind then?
Russ, I know its hard to accept, but just because you are not good enough to win
without cheating, doesn't mean that all winners are cheats. Learn to accept
that you are just a has been who wasnt even that good in your prime.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
RussGe...@aol.com
Superman wrote:
> Yes, brilliant move when you're cheating. Show your cards so every
knows you
> are cheating.
What difference does it make, since the cards are alreeady seen? NEXT
IDIOT PLEASE!
RussGe...@aol.com
Superman wrote:
> Well then it MUST be collusion since folding certainly isn't
reasonable as
> well right? I mean NO ONE would EVER fold here unless they were
cheating
> right? So, you win, they cheated. I'm a dumb ass for not seeing it
earlier.
> The other 186 hands mean nothing.
>
> Habib is a total boob for busting out 3rd. I bet he'll never collude
with Le
> again.
If he busted out third, why did he get over 1.8 Million? The fact
remains, he and Tuan were partners, who split 1st and 3rd. Only a
stooge would state Hasan got third, since he split first plave money
and third place money.
If he'd have won 1st place, he'd have to split the money in half
anyway. It was a 50-50 deal.
Russ Georgiev
RussGe...@aol.com
Ok, but let me state one thing before I retire. You don't have to be
all that smart to be cheats. Thus, I present Hasan and Tuan, both bust
outs for years. In fact, I played Hasan heads up for about 10 straight
days around 1995.
After three days of play, Hasan had sucked my brains out to a tune of
about $60,000, playing $150-$300 7S8. After the 10 days were over,
Hasan was broke and retired for a while, having lost both video stores
he owned prior to this. I beat him honestly, BELIEVE it or NOT.
Frankly, I don't really care, since I have the money:).
Russ Georgiev
RussGe...@aol.com
Superman wrote:
> This is why I usually skip Russ' stupid, paranoid posts.
You do? Could have fooled me, as well as the rest of the people. I'll
bet you respond to my posts far more than any other.
But, usually his
> posts are harmless since he just rambles on about this and that in
broad
> generalities.
And as a 'Superman' you should know, NO? In fact, you're so sooper, you
are afraid to post with your real name.
Aaron Beasley
<RussGe...@aol.com> wrote:
>FACT: If the WPT was sued for this, it would be a 'slam dunk', settled
>in court with non disclosure agreements signed.
>
>Russ Georgiev
You are such an incredibly stupid fuck. Sue who? For what? What
proof?
Russ Georgiev is never, ever wrong boys and girls. What does this
tell you. Pure sociopath.
Incredibly stupid fuck doesn't even describe him. Lying,
exaggerating, rumor spewing, make up crap, piece of shit fucking
asshole.
Anything that suits his purpose he jumps on like it's fact. Pick out
two very obscure hands and, wow, biff, whap--they cheated!
Go fuck your dog cocksucker and leave us alone once and for all.
Oh by the way, Roy Cooke hates your fucking guts and he's sorry as
hell he ever made that post. But of course you turned it inside out
to twist it to your advantage.
You lying, fucking cocksucker. Please eat shit and die.
RussGe...@aol.com
Aaron Beasley wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2005 17:29:15 -0700, "RussGe...@aol.com"
> <RussGe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >FACT: If the WPT was sued for this, it would be a 'slam dunk',
settled
> >in court with non disclosure agreements signed.
> >
> >Russ Georgiev
>
> You are such an incredibly stupid fuck.
Yet you, such a smart individual, reply? WHY?
Sue who? For what? What
> proof?
All that's needed is a plaintiff. Since you must be a lawyer, I guess
you can answer? Let me try, if you're not able, the Bellagio, WPT for
starters?
>
> Russ Georgiev is never, ever wrong boys and girls. What does this
> tell you. Pure sociopath.
You went from lawyer to doctor, instantly. You truly are a gifted soul.
>
> Incredibly stupid fuck doesn't even describe him. Lying,
> exaggerating, rumor spewing, make up crap, piece of shit fucking
> asshole.
Really? You wouldn't be making any of this up, would you?
>
> Anything that suits his purpose he jumps on like it's fact. Pick out
> two very obscure hands and, wow, biff, whap--they cheated!
Tell you what, as I stated previously, no professional poker player
ever denounced me, by putting his name on the line. I'd like to see a
professional player put his name on the line and state NO COLLUSION was
done here.
>
> Go fuck your dog cocksucker and leave us alone once and for all.
Us? Have you split personalities?
>
> Oh by the way, Roy Cooke hates your fucking guts and he's sorry as
> hell he ever made that post.
Why did he take four years to make it? Since he posted it, he can
always RECANT. Since you have such extensive medical experience,
perhaps Roy Cooke is delusional and didn't know me?
Anyone who posts against the 'BIGBOYS' is sorry, afterwards, when they
realize the powers they face. By the way, did Roy Cooke just remember
he knew me for close to 40 years? Why did it take him four years to
state it?
But of course you turned it inside out
> to twist it to your advantage.
My advantage? Am I making any money doing any of this? How about all
the others? How about you? So, as you state, I twisted the truth to MY
ADVANTAGE, with absolutely no financial gain. Being the brilliant
spokes person you are, please explain my "ADVANTAGE", as the only ones
making money from my posting are 'who'?
Now I know who isn't making money because of my posting, but I also
know, I'm not making money by doing it.
>
> You lying, fucking cocksucker. Please eat shit
and die.
And have you lose your job of posting against me? What would you do?
Russ Georgiev
RussGe...@aol.com
No?
NO-NO_NO_NO_NO_NO_NO WAY, unless you're colluding. By folding, you have
NO CHANCE of knocking your partner out. By calling, even if he had AA,
you would have a chance. DUMP the CHIPS please, I'm short stacked.
Chip R Georgiev
RazzO
> > Oh by the way, Roy Cooke hates your fucking guts and he's sorry as
> > hell he ever made that post.
>
Heh. Because Russ used the post like trying to fit a king sized sheet over
a queen sized bed.
> > You lying, fucking cocksucker. Please eat shit
> and die.
>
> And have you lose your job of posting against me? What would you do?
>
> Russ Georgiev
Russ, you really are an ass clown to a major degree.
You are right, though, most people are against you.
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
http://www.pokerworldstars.com
http://www.pokermoviestars.com
email:tico...@yahoo.com
_____________________
"In poker the thickness of a card, the luck of the draw can make you rich
and famous, or, send you to the rail whimpering and broke. If a diamond
had come you'd be the world champion - but it didn't and so you aren't!" -
Byron "Cowboy" Wolford
--------
Nick Wool
> >
> > Russ, make up your mind. They finished 1st and 3rd, and if they
> were cheating,
> > they must be good. So what's all this 'not too bright' nonsense?
> >
> > Anyway, why all this cheating nonsense again? I thought the WPT
> would be
> > televised, so we will know what their hole cards were in due
> course. Surely we
> > can make up our mind then?
> >
> > Russ, I know its hard to accept, but just because you are not good
> enough to win
> > without cheating, doesn't mean that all winners are cheats. Learn
> to accept
> > that you are just a has been who wasnt even that good in your prime.
>
>
> Ok, but let me state one thing before I retire. You don't have to be
> all that smart to be cheats. Thus, I present Hasan and Tuan, both bust
> outs for years. In fact, I played Hasan heads up for about 10 straight
> days around 1995.
>
> After three days of play, Hasan had sucked my brains out to a tune of
> about $60,000, playing $150-$300 7S8. After the 10 days were over,
> Hasan was broke and retired for a while, having lost both video stores
> he owned prior to this. I beat him honestly, BELIEVE it or NOT.
> Frankly, I don't really care, since I have the money:).
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> >
Russ Russ, now you really disappoint me. No, you don't have to be smart to
cheat. Cheats can be idiots, I think you are the best example of that. But to
cheat AND win, and in a major televised tournament, you must be good, no? So
for you to say that these people cheated, but they weren't too bright, does not
really make sense.
Either they didn't cheat, in which case they can be idiot who got lucky. Highly
unlikely, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. Or else they cheated, which
must meant that they cannot be all that dumb, as they succeeded in their plan to
cheat and win the First AND Third place money of a major televised tournament.
Russ, you cannot have you cake and eat it. Either they are cheats or they are
idiots, they cannot be both based on the results.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Superman
> anyway. It was a 50-50 deal.
Really. Now you are stating it as fact. Earlier it was just your analysis of
the situation that led you to conclude collusion. So, now, I assume you have
proof that there was a 50-50 deal?
Put up or shut up.
RussGe...@aol.com
The results? Can't be both? Who's the idiiot?
Nick Wool
> > Russ Russ, now you really disappoint me. No, you don't have to be
> smart to
> > cheat. Cheats can be idiots, I think you are the best example of
> that. But to
> > cheat AND win, and in a major televised tournament, you must be good,
> no? So
> > for you to say that these people cheated, but they weren't too
> bright, does not
> > really make sense.
> >
> > Either they didn't cheat, in which case they can be idiot who got
> lucky. Highly
> > unlikely, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. Or else they
> cheated, which
> > must meant that they cannot be all that dumb, as they succeeded in
> their plan to
> > cheat and win the First AND Third place money of a major televised
> tournament.
> >
>
>
>
> > Russ, you cannot have you cake and eat it. Either they are cheats
> or they are
> > idiots, they cannot be both based on the results.
>
>
> The results? Can't be both? Who's the idiiot?
>
Your first two question do not make sense. Based on that, the answer toyour
third question is that you are.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com