GCA "WPT Chip dumping, by Doyle & Ted"
Newgca
on TV the other night in the WPT.
When the pot was opened and Doyle went all in with his Q8 offsuit, to be
followed by Ted Forrest with a call, this is a ripe example.
You will get the math experts telling you this is against the odds of
probability and the rest of the rhetoric. This would be correct if all things
are even, but all things are not.
Ted and Doyle had made in into the final 4 and were more of a hindrance to each
other than an asset. Both had short stacks and this play would give one of them
a bigger stack in a shorter game where that person could best use his assets.
Being marked cards were not in, it is far better to have one scammer with a
bigger BR playing short handed in this tournament than two with a smaller BR.
Besides they wouldn't worry about interfering with the other. I also believe
they would have position over the big stack doing this.
Getting into this situation would have been the ideal thing for Ted and Doyle
and then they could have been a far greater force as one combined unit instead
of two.
Look at things in the proper perspective and you would see that is wouldn't be
easy to steal the blinds from which ever one had won that pot, besides the
extra chips that were supposed to be won.
No on expected to be called by JJ and thus all this was shown. First take the
fact Doyle went all in with Q8 offsuit, only to be followed by Ted Forrest
calling the all-in with AJ. What is the price of this?
These guys had already finished high enough and now could only hurt each others
style of play, since both are aggressors. Combing their stacks and shortening
the players at the table would give them a far better chance of opening their
play up and going to work attacking.
Now you math majors may or will disagree on this, but this is a cheating pack
and things are far different for one of these. I have stated since day 1 , Ted
Forrest was in Doyle Brunson's cheating pack.
Calculate if one of these guys doubled up against the chip leader and see it
wouldn't have made that much of a difference. Calculate if they combined their
stacks with the extra chips from the blinds and opening bet and see what the
out come would be if this recipient doubled up against the chip leader.
This was an obvious dump, though not to those without knowledge. These guys
were caught on TV and still you people don't realize this. What price do you
put on Doyle raising with Q8 o, only to be called by Ted Forrest with AJ? Quite
a coincidence? I don't think so. This was done on purpose and they were caught
by the JJ. If you remember back a few WPT tournaments and you will see where JJ
laid down in this position. The JJ was supposed to lay down and the move to get
the chips into one stack was supposed to work, along with the extra chips.
Go ahead and attack, but I received at least a dozen phone calls while this
came down on TV. To the professional cheat and scammer, this stunk. But to
those not knowing or lacking the knowledge, it is written off a bad play by
several.
Focus on Doyle doing this and add Ted Forrest calling him and put a price on
this.
Russ Georgiev
Jerry B
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Jerry B
Russ you are so full of shit. I see why so very few pay any attention to
you.
Newgca
>you.
>
Like you? Isn't it lucky you picked this as a post to read? What a coincidence?
Jerry B
On Jun 28 2003 6:45AM, Newgca wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
RTN4
>No on expected to be called by JJ and thus all this was shown. First take the
>fact Doyle went all in with Q8 offsuit, only to be followed by Ted Forrest
>calling the all-in with AJ. What is the price of this?
Here is the proof your allegation is wrong. What sort of
sophisticated "cheating pack" would make this kind of move when the
"live one" with all of the chips opens the pot for a raise!
If they wanted to "dump" as you say, then they would have simply
waited until one of them had last position or there was one man left
to act.
It's ridiculous to assume they would pull this move when the pot has
been opened for a raise.
Nice try, however, thief.
**MR.MANHATTAN**
my advance copy of russ's book.
_________________________________________________________________
Peter Lizak
They were trying to steal the chips of the raiser as well. Duh.
> Nice try, however, thief.
Nice try.
Pli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lizak
pli...@math.uwaterloo.ca
Scientific Computing Lab, University of Waterloo
MiamiPokerAce
the two teammates. Anyone looking for another explanation is sorely
incorrect.
MPA
new...@aol.com (Newgca) wrote in message news:<20030628144035...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Newgca
>
>
You're not one of them, are you?
Newgca
>sophisticated "cheating pack" would make this kind of move when the
>"live one" with all of the chips opens the pot for a raise!
A smart one, for they mght as well pick up the blinds. This kind of situation
doesn't arise very often. Please explain how you could have done it in a better
way?
>If they wanted to "dump" as you say, then they would have simply
>waited until one of them had last position or there was one man left
>to act.
The bet shouldn't have been called, by the JJ, but it was. If you remember a
few weeks ago, Gus Hansen laid down JJ in almost the same spot.
>It's ridiculous to assume they would pull this move when the pot has
>been opened for a raise.
>
>Nice try, however, thief.
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's ridiculous to think they could have waited for a better opportunity.
Besides, they were also bluffing. Anything else would have been far more
obvious, even to those knowing nothing about scamming. By the way, what is your
expertise on this matter? Are you a scammer? Do you have knowledge on how this
is done?
Are you a bartender, construction worker, real estate salesman or a shill?
Russ Georgiev
ThundaNuts
now i know why brunson looked so disgusted when he was walking away. not
that he got called, but that alan also called. i knew that play stunk, but i
didn't know they were tied into one another. thank the poker gods for GCA.
"Newgca" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030628144035...@mb-m20.aol.com...
Newgca
>the two teammates. Anyone looking for another explanation is sorely
>incorrect.
>
>MPA
Obvious to anyone knowing anything. And it really smelled to anyone with any
knowledge on the subject. Captured right on TV also.
It alls comes out in the wash. This will become a real stain in WPT poker,
before this is over.
Doyle attempts to steal, and Ted Forrest just happens to call with an AJ after
an opener and an all-in?
Can understand one or the other, it just isn't possible for both.
Russ Georgiev
Giancarlo DiPierro
> When the pot was opened and Doyle went all in with his Q8 offsuit, to be
> followed by Ted Forrest with a call, this is a ripe example.
> Ted and Doyle had made in into the final 4 and were more of a hindrance to
each
> other than an asset. Both had short stacks and this play would give one of
them
> a bigger stack in a shorter game where that person could best use his
assets.
I don't think your analysis stands up to logic. If it were true that Doyle
intended to dump his chips to Ted on that play, then one of two other things
must also be true. Either Ted was signaling Doyle and hence Doyle knew Ted
had a hand he could call with, or else Doyle didn't know Ted's holding and
went all-in blind hoping Ted could call. There is no way that Ted could have
gotten away with calling with a hand that couldn't beat Q8 there since that
would have been obviously suspicious, so these are the only two
possibilities.
First, let's consider the second one, that Doyle didn't know what Ted had.
If that were the case, then the chances of Ted having a hand strong enough
to call Doyle would be pretty low, I would estimate at least 2 to 1 against.
Of course, everyone could fold and Doyle could just take the pot down, but
there is also a chance that someone else at the table would have a hand
strong enough to call the bet. Don't forget, Doyle was second to act after
Alan opened, so everyone at the rest of the table, including Alan, would
still have a chance to call. Combing the low chance that Ted would be able
to call with the possibility that someone else would call with a better
hand, this seems like a bad percentage play. He should either choose a
better hand or wait for better position. Also, why risk an all-in raise if
you want to dump? Better to get it heads-up first with smaller bets, then
put all the money in when you know it is safe.
However, if Doyle and Ted were in fact playing as a team then the first
possibility, that Doyle knew Ted had a big ace, would be more likely. After
all, why wouldn't they be signaling each other? Even if that were the case,
then they still should wait for a better situation as described above. AJ is
not that strong, and there is a still a chance that someone else has a
better hand than both of them and could call and knock both out. In fact,
that's exactly what happened.
But the real reason that Russ's explanation makes no sense is that if Doyle
and Ted were in fact playing as a team and signaling each other, then why
would they want to knock one of them out of the tournament anyway? Surely
two players working together is far more powerful than just one of them,
even if that one had twice the chips. If Doyle and Ted were colluding, then
intentionally knocking one of themselves out just doesn't make any sense.
Jack King
not as good at cheating as you are.
By the way Russ, since Doug Dalton is, according to your fantasies one
of the Chip, Doyle, Ted, cheating pack can you explain how they lost
this tournament?
Jack
----------------------------------------------
new...@aol.com (Newgca) wrote in message news:<20030628144035...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> Many of you wouldn't know collusion if it bit you in the ass. You saw collusion
> on TV the other night in the WPT.
>
<snip>>
> Russ Georgiev
arlo payne
WELCOME TO RGP.
Pull up a chair and have some fun:)
AlwaysAware
brings to mind a line an rgp'er used to say.. "let 'em cheat me till they go
broke" (or some such.. i.e. if they were cheating they weren't very bright)
I don't recall off hand the JJ hand that Gus Hansen laid down (provide details
if you like and we'll see how similar it is to this hand) but let's review THIS
hand..
There are 5.5 million chips in play. Goehring has 2,536,000 in chips, Brunson
has 528,000 and Forrest has 516,000. If Goehring loses the hand he still has
over 2 million in chips AND the chip lead.
If he wins the hand he has eliminated two dangerous players.
You say the bet shouldn't have been called.... I say Goliath might lay down a
bluff but he isn't laying down many hands including JJ when two short
(dangerous) stacks come knocking. Not a smart place to pull a chip dump.
Especially since the second guy in the pot makes it more lucrative for original
raiser to call. Perhaps you'd like to revise the conspiracy to include Alan?
BTW, how's Chris Moneymaker doing at Mohegan Sun... Oh wait, that's right, it
was batter batter swing miss....
Joan
RTN4
>Are you a bartender, construction worker, real estate salesman or a shill?
>
>Russ Georgiev
I'm an honest poker player. You're a thief who owes me money. When
are you going to start making good?
RTN4
(MiamiPokerAce) wrote:
>Absolutely agree with this analysis. It was an obvious dump between
>the two teammates. Anyone looking for another explanation is sorely
>incorrect.
There is only one obvious dump you would understand.
Newgca
>details
>if you like and we'll see how similar it is to this hand) but let's review
>THIS
>hand..
Hansen opened with JJ, raised or called with 10,10 and then Valkoni stacked off
with AA, believe. Hansen laid the hand down and the 10,10 called and was
eliminated.
>There are 5.5 million chips in play. Goehring has 2,536,000 in chips, Brunson
>has 528,000 and Forrest has 516,000. If Goehring loses the hand he still has
>over 2 million in chips AND the chip lead.
>If he wins the hand he has eliminated two dangerous players.
What you fail to understand is that the hand was misread. Doyle didn't think
Goehring was very strong, so made a play with Forrest. By stealing the blinds
and the bet Goehring made, it would have given either one of these guys clsoe
to 1.2 mil in chips and a better position to attack with. In one hand they
could become the favorite and chip leader. The other way it would take several.
Whoever of the two won, would allow more leeway to not be dominated by chip
position.
The read was Goehring was far weaker than this. I don't see anything wrong with
the call Goehring made. The problem was they made a play and were nailed. In
reality they figured the outcome would end up like this. Goehring folds and one
of them now has over 1,000,000. If they thought Goehring held a big pair, this
play would never have been made. It was just a stroke of bad luck.
What are the chances of Doyle raising in this spot after an opening, with a Q8
off. Then compound Ted calling all in with AJ.
To me and my kind, this does not compute. I received a dozen phone calls when
this happened the other day. I posted on this hand previously as being a dump,
but now people really got to view it.
>You say the bet shouldn't have been called.... I say Goliath might lay down a
>bluff but he isn't laying down many hands including JJ when two short
>(dangerous) stacks come knocking.
What I mean't is they didn't think the bet would be called, as they didn't
think he was this strong. Personally I see nothing wrog with calling the bet.
Others may have a difference of opinion. Doyle seems to have one. The thing is
they didn't think he had as strong a hand as he did.
>Not a smart place to pull a chip dump.
>Especially since the second guy in the pot makes it more lucrative for
>original
>raiser to call. Perhaps you'd like to revise the conspiracy to include Alan?
>
Actually it is a very good place to pull your dump, as you put the guy on a far
weaker hand. If you think about it also, it makes you move up one notch on the
ladder, guaranteeing you more money. Did you take this into account? I would
have done exactly the same thing here if I was pulling a dump. You just can't
get a situation arise as easily as you would think where this play could be
made. Think about it. Ted must have at least a semi legitimate hand to call
with. Can you explain why Ted called? When you can explain how he can call
there with a rational plausible response, I will side with you. Until then, it
was a mistake on the part of these team mates who misread the strenght of
Goehrings hand and thus got nailed.
>BTW, how's Chris Moneymaker doing at Mohegan Sun... Oh wait, that's right,
>it
>was batter batter swing miss....
>
>Joan
>
>
A post will becoming soon by the person who reported this. He is a regular high
stakes player who posts on RGP and watched the BJ game. He was also told this
was Moneymaker by the management, when in actuallity he had just won another
big tournament.
And by the way, what has a sighting have to do with people I know have cheated
for years?
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
Read it again.
>If it were true that Doyle
>intended to dump his chips to Ted on that play, then one of two other things
>must also be true
Who said that Doyle intended to dump the chips to Ted? What was stated was it
was an intended dumping of the chips to one of them, since Ted didn't have any
cinch. Doyle could have won the pot also.
>Either Ted was signaling Doyle and hence Doyle knew Ted
>had a hand he could call with, or else Doyle didn't know Ted's holding and
>went all-in blind hoping Ted could call.
Obviously they had signals. I ahve stated for over two years these guys play
together in the same cheating pack. They made a bad read, got nailed and try to
brush it off.
>There is no way that Ted could have
>gotten away with calling with a hand that couldn't beat Q8 there since that
>would have been obviously suspicious, so these are the only two
>possibilities.
Obviously, so this is why you must know they had signaled each other.
>First, let's consider the second one, that Doyle didn't know what Ted had.
>If that were the case, then the chances of Ted having a hand strong enough
>to call Doyle would be pretty low, I would estimate at least 2 to 1 against.
Try 20-1, as it would have to be at leats a blackjack hand. A small pair
couldn't possibly call as the best price it could be would be even. Take into
account that it isn't easy to get a hand to call with if a person attempts to
bluff like Doyle did. This was obviously the first opportunity and they took
it. They may have played the rest of the night and not had an opportunity like
this.
>Of course, everyone could fold and Doyle could just take the pot down, but
>there is also a chance that someone else at the table would have a hand
>strong enough to call the bet
As I said, it was a t least a 20-1 shot and they took their chances.
>. He should either choose a
>better hand or wait for better position
Might have to wait until it is to late.
> Also, why risk an all-in raise if
>you want to dump?
Wrong, it makes better sense this way and less exposure.
>Better to get it heads-up first with smaller bets, then
>put all the money in when you know it is safe.
You just aren't a scammer or high stakes player.
>But the real reason that Russ's explanation makes no sense is that if Doyle
>and Ted were in fact playing as a team and signaling each other, then why
>would they want to knock one of them out of the tournament anyway?
Because they were being over run and it is far better to join your forces into
one and combat the foe. United they could do more damge in one hand and become
instant favorites to win.
>Surely
>two players working together is far more powerful than just one of them,
>even if that one had twice the chips.
WRONG. This would be the case if they had the same amount of chips in a cash
game, but not in a tournament. They were being nibbled to death and needed to
combine their armies or chips to form a last stand.
>If Doyle and Ted were colluding, then
>intentionally knocking one of themselves out just doesn't make any sense.
>
Of course it does, if you understand what collusion means.
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
>not as good at cheating as you are.
I would have been nailed the same way in this hand. I would have done the exact
same thing. I have done it before and been nailed, but the people are basically
the same, not aware of what really happened. Most are just happy to get the
pot. Problem is when they don't get the pot and the play works.
>By the way Russ, since Doug Dalton is, according to your fantasies one
>of the Chip, Doyle, Ted, cheating pack can you explain how they lost
>this tournament?
>
>Jack
It would really have been a great risk to have marked cards in this game as it
was to be televised. It would have been worse to have a card mechanic as a
dealer, so you would be able to freeze frame the deal and see where the cards
come from. PLEASE
Russ Georgiev
arlo payne
Did Russ rob you, did you loan him money? How much does he owe you?
We want details.
_________________________________________________________________
Vince lepore
> on TV the other night in the WPT.
You truly are a dumbo! What a dunce! doyle Brunson and Ted forest
are colluding but are not smart enough to collude when no one else is
in the pot. You truly are a lunatic. You wouldn't know collusion if
it were written on your balls. Of course since they are usually in
your mouth you wouldn't be ablie to see them anyway. Next time you
accuse someone of cheating please think before you rune your dumb
mouth.
Vince
Miguel
RTN4
>By stealing the blinds
>and the bet Goehring made, it would have given either one of these guys clsoe
>to 1.2 mil in chips
Goehring opened for 40K (maybe 60K) big deal. Not worth the risk,
especially since he opened in first position (or was the first one
in.)
Keep trying, thief.
RTN4
>In one hand they
>could become the favorite and chip leader.
Wrong again. Goehring would still have ~2 million.
Did you actually watch the show, thief?
RTN4
>Actually it is a very good place to pull your dump, as you put the guy on a far
>weaker hand. If you think about it also, it makes you move up one notch on the
>ladder, guaranteeing you more money.
Like they care about moving up one spot.
Did you eat your Cheerios this morning, thief?
RTN4
>And by the way, what has a sighting have to do with people I know have cheated
>for years?
>
>Russ Georgiev
Just an incredible statement. In a word...credibility.
I'm working on tracking you down, thief. So far I have you nailed to
the greater Seattle area. We're zeroing in.
RTN4
wrote:
>Please expand and explain.
>Did Russ rob you, did you loan him money? How much does he owe you?
> We want details.
I've lost approximately $15,000 over the years to cheats and thiefs.
(My conservative estimate. It could be a lot more.)
Russ stole millions. I want my 15K back. He brags about all the
money he has. Where did it come from? People like me.
He should be in prison for his crimes, yet he has idols here on RGP.
Who would idolize a thief?
RTN4
> This was obviously the first opportunity and they took
>it. They may have played the rest of the night and not had an opportunity like
>this.
Wrong again, thief. Opportunities abound. Listen idiot. You don't
pull a move like this when the guy in first positions OPENS FOR A
RAISE!
How much money did you cheat today, thief?
Jgm
"Vince lepore" <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> You wouldn't know collusion if it were written on your balls.
>
> Vince
So what are you saying? That Russ, (who you keep calling a dirty cheat),
doesn't actually know how to cheat after all?
arlo payne
On Jun 29 2003 3:01AM, RTN4 wrote:
> I've lost approximately $15,000 over the years to cheats and thiefs.
> (My conservative estimate. It could be a lot more.)
How do you know you where cheated? And did you go after the people that
cheated you? Was Russ one of those people?
>
> Russ stole millions. I want my 15K back. He brags about all the
> money he has. Where did it come from? People like me.
So do I understand this correctly "Russ stole 15k from you? Did you
report it to the police?
Russ Georgiev
Right now. Post your real name and address so we can verify you played
in my games. Until then I will keep your money in a safe place, until
you care to claim it.
Russ Georgiev
Now you are an expert on collusion also. Damn Vince, and Caro calls
himself a genius.
Robert Ladd
be chip leader if he went all in against Goehring and won when called.
It's not that difficult a statement to understand, but for some reason in an
attempt to find a Russ mistake or misstatement you bury yourself deeper and
deeper.
Robert Ladd
"RTN4" <RT...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:of4ufv0ee1r6v893a...@4ax.com...
Peter Lizak
> On 29 Jun 2003 09:14:59 GMT, "arlo payne" <anon...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Please expand and explain.
> >Did Russ rob you, did you loan him money? How much does he owe you?
> > We want details.
>
> I've lost approximately $15,000 over the years to cheats and thiefs.
> (My conservative estimate. It could be a lot more.)
>
> Russ stole millions. I want my 15K back. He brags about all the
> money he has. Where did it come from? People like me.
Sounds like someone is a sucker.... lol
> He should be in prison for his crimes, yet he has idols here on RGP.
>
> Who would idolize a thief?
Hmmmmm, I'm thinking of Robin Hood for some reason. He was idolized.
P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lizak
pli...@math.uwaterloo.ca
Scientific Computing Lab, University of Waterloo
RTN4
wrote:
>Right now. Post your real name and address so we can verify you played
>in my games. Until then I will keep your money in a safe place, until
>you care to claim it.
I've already claimed it. Post your real address so it will be easier
for me to track you down. (Not your phony PO box.)
Deep Throat
>
> I would have been nailed the same way in this hand. I would have done the
exact
> same thing.
Now honest or dishonest, why assume that just because you are a complete
idiot, that Doyle and Ted are as big of an idiot as you are?
You are becoming more and more of a joke each day.
Do yourself, and us, a favor, just jump on your horse and ride away.
Deepak Throatpra
dave keiser
body be found because I want to water his grave.
RTN4 <RT...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<uv9ufvsepqad4bn
Vince lepore
I'm no expert, but you are an idiot.
Vince
Lee Munzer
"RTN4" ...
I think we have to ask ourselves the question of whether it is a prudent
move for two scammers who are left in a five way T to play as one player
with twice the chips. In this case, had Alan folded Ted would have been
left with T$1.2, Doyle would have finished fifth, and Alan would have had
T2.5+, so you are right on the smaller question. The answer to the more
important question and the crux of the discussion is "no, scammers are
better off with equal stacks". Mike Caro tells us why below:
"About the tournament strategy: In a typical proportional payoff
tournament, it would be the colluders' advantage to equalize their
stacks. That provides maximum long-range profit, because they get to
divide more payoff slots.
Dumping chips to one player gives that player a better chance of
winning first place, but diminishes the combined return, because it
means the player who is eliminated will not move up the pay scale.
At the same time, it doesn't increase the "teams" chances of winning
the tournament at all -- assuming everyone were trying to win first
place. The odds of winning first place is mainly a function of how
much money the team controls versus how much money is yet to be
conquered. (There are lesser other considerations, such as the effect
of surviving and winning hands all-in that you might otherwise fold --
again an advantage to smaller stacks -- but the general concept
prevails.)
Whether all those chips are in one player's stack or two doesn't much
change the chances of that "team" taking first place. With three or
more players remaining, the "team" has a better profit expectation,
though, if the same number of chips are shared by both players, not
just one.
That's fact, not opinion.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro"
I might have written Mike's second paragraph a little differently to make
sure the reader understands that by increasing the remaining player's
expectation to win first place; the loss of the second player results in an
overall loss of the chances for the team to maximize profit, which includes
the combined expectation of capturing first.
Assuming hypothetically they were scamming (I do not), there are minor
concept twists here (that certainly are not important to Doyle and Ted).
For example let's say the scammers were much poorer. Then eliminating Doyle
(or Ted) by choice in fifth place during this hand deprives them of a chance
to win and come in second, finish third and fourth, and many other non-fifth
combos. So, for reasons Mike states (supported by B. Yoon) they were in the
best shape they could be with equal stacks and both alive to "squeeze"
someone out of T500,000 instead of taking on this hand the way they did
against a player who could send them to the rail. So, while it is only my
opinion, their action in this hand screams to me, "No Scam".
I am prepared to reiterate and further explain if Russ can't grasp these
principles (logic, mathematics, and T knowledge supersedes general scamming
knowledge in this case, apparently).
However, I have plans tonight, so it will have to be between 7 a.m. and 10
a.m. tomorrow.
Lee
Lee Munzer
"Vince lepore"
> > Now you are an expert on collusion also. Damn Vince, and Caro calls
> > himself a genius.
>
> I'm no expert, but you are an idiot.
>
> Vince
Russ, I suppose you won't agree, but imo he needn't be an expert on
collusion to analyze what we all saw (if you watched the hand). Granted, he
must know some T theory and factor in risk/reward and team v. individual
expectation, but allowing that quantification is difficult, he can come up
with a strong opinion... as I have.
When the thread began I wasn't surprised because calling with A-J in NL HE
(even five-handed) is something I am against in concept after two raises
(yes, the first one was a minimum raise) and I was aware the play of Doyle
and Ted would be scrutinized... red flag up! So, I have to say I began on
Russ' side (scary) and decided to think about what had happened. I hadn't
recorded the action (just viewed it), so I had to wait until it was
rebroadcast to get the chip counts and positions straight in my mind. I
also realized I would defer to Russ on scamming fundamentals.
After thinking about what had happened, if one can allow Ted read Doyle for
weak, I became convinced the participants were not scamming based more on
logic, a mathematical T theory expectation comparison (in concept), and
risk/reward rather than from a general scamming viewpoint.
Lee
Newgca
>>could become the favorite and chip leader.
>
>Wrong again. Goehring would still have ~2 million.
>
>Did you actually watch the show, thief?
They combine their chips and double up. You do the math., genius
Newgca
>
>
A person who has openly admitted to being cheated for years and not knowing is
supposed to be a reliable source of information on cheating or scamming?
This logic eludes me. The cheating pack I was mainly involved with were
responsible for cheating him for years. So having Mike Caro discuss cheating
equivelant to me giving computer lessons.
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
>the greater Seattle area. We're zeroing in.
Damn, you're good. Not I'm really scared. Are you going door by door?
Trust me on this one, I will shoot first and take my chances later.
Newgca
>
No Wheaties, breakfast of CHAMPION'S.
How do you guys give me these lines?
Newgca
I am wondering how you know? Why didn't you do something about it when you
caught them cheating you? Oh, what's that you say, you didn't catch them or you
just suspected it? To many of them for you?
Newgca
>for me to track you down. (Not your phony PO box.)
Try sending a letter to it and see how phony it is. Just sit outside and wait
for me to come and get it.
Newgca
>
This is correct up to a certain point. But in this situation isn't a cash game
and chips are at a premium. The only thing that matters is a win, as 2nd
doesn't mean anything. The money wasn't the issue here, winning was.
wamplerr
down a bluff but he isn't laying down many hands including JJ when two
short
(dangerous) stacks come knocking. Not a smart place to pull a chip dump.
Especially since the second guy in the pot makes it more lucrative for
original raiser to call. Perhaps you'd like to revise the conspiracy to
include Alan? "
I said before I thought Alan's play wasn't bad. It wasn't an automatic
call, and he didn't put a whole lot of thought into it before calling,
but I think it was the right play. Anyone else?
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
Newgca
>collusion to analyze what we all saw (if you watched the hand).
And if a second was dealt from the deck, you wouldn't need to be an expert to
know either? You could just see it?
Russ Georgiev
Mike Caro
Russ --
There is nothing magical about being able to run a partnership at
poker. In fact, I could do it much better than you and I explained why
in a Gambling Times article long before we ever met.
You see, the keys to sophisticated scamming are the very same ones
that allow skilled researchers to analyze poker. You just shift the
objective from single-winner to communal profit.
I can tell you fact certain that without those kinds of computer
assisted analysis, such as I have at my disposal, your best-guess
strategies like the ones you told me about (or even my own best
guesses, for that matter) will be much less powerful.
So, you see, that's why I say I'm an expert. I wrote about that long,
long before I interviewed you, so don't take it personally. You, on
the other hand, are NOT an expert in this field. You are merely an
expert in reporting what you've done and how you did it. You have
experience, but not expertise.
Again, there's nothing magical about running a poker partnership. You
proved that you were willing to do it and I wasn't. So, in that
context, you made money doing it and I lost money by being unwilling
to do it.
To you, that means you won. To me, it doesn't.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Janelle Corsun
have made the final five players in a million dollar tournament, surely a
dealer or two that works for Doug Dalton--a cheating team like this . . . .
. .
There is no way they are not going to get 1st and 2nd place.
Unless perhaps . . . . they're not cheating.
Could anyone explain this to me? Because if they are cheaters they really
suck.
Jan
----------------------------------------------------------
Re: GCA "WPT Chip dumping, by Doyle & Ted"
"Newgca" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030628144035...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> Many of you wouldn't know collusion if it bit you in the ass. You saw
collusion
<snip>
> Russ Georgiev
RTN4
>Trust me on this one, I will shoot first and take my chances later.
Whatever it takes to get our money back.
RTN4
<pli...@pythagoras.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Sounds like someone is a sucker.... lol
>
>> He should be in prison for his crimes, yet he has idols here on RGP.
>>
>> Who would idolize a thief?
>
>Hmmmmm, I'm thinking of Robin Hood for some reason. He was idolized.
Proof that Russ has his admirers. There are people out there who
actually believe what you have done is OK.
RTN4
>I am wondering how you know? Why didn't you do something about it when you
>caught them cheating you? Oh, what's that you say, you didn't catch them or you
>just suspected it? To many of them for you?
I know you're proud of your cheating accomplishments. Psychopaths
don't think they are doing anything wrong. They even start to believe
their own lies. Your life has degenerated to this: answering every
post on RGP. Sad.
I'll be kill filing you soon. You don't deserve the attention. But
this doesn't mean I'm through with you, not by a long ways.
I'll find you.
RTN4
>I said before I thought Alan's play wasn't bad. It wasn't an automatic
>call, and he didn't put a whole lot of thought into it before calling,
>but I think it was the right play. Anyone else?
This is so simple it's frightening. Doyle screwed up. He made a
horrible bluff.
First position chip leader opens for a raise. Doyle, in second
position goes all in with dog meat. He lost his patience and made a
bad move hoping Alan didn't have much, not to mention the FOUR guys
behind him. Sheesh.
Ted, who earlier in the tournament opened with 8-2 off, finds an A-J
and reads Doyle for dog meat and figures this is a good chance to
double up assuming that Alan doesn't have a real hand.
He decides to gamble.
Alan has a real hand. Goodbye boys.
Two of the greatest cheaters the world has ever known blew this big
time. You know, if they were going to dump to each other why wouldn't
they do it before it got to the final six so there wouldn't be any
television audience to catch on.
Unbelievable that this is even being discussed, but it has to be so
the thief won't come out on top.
Russ Georgiev
> On 30 Jun 2003 03:30:17 GMT, new...@aol.com (Newgca) wrote:
>
> >Trust me on this one, I will shoot first and take my chances later.
>
> Whatever it takes to get our money back.
Our? Have you been cloned?
Joe
"No on expected to be called by JJ and thus all this was shown."
How did they know he had JJ?
Newgca
>
You'll have to get off your ass first. Have you enough money for bus ticket?
Russ Georgiev
> You said:
>
> "No on expected to be called by JJ and thus all this was shown."
>
> How did they know he had JJ?
They didn't know he had JJ, or they wouldn't have made the play. The
reason they didn't expect to be called by JJ is because they made a
bad read on Goehrings hand. Even with JJ, there is still a decent
chance for laydown, being another player will probably be eliminated,
thus pushing them up in the money.
Vince lepore
A dumb answer from a dumb f***
Vince
Lee Munzer
"Newgca" ...
> >Mike Caro tells us why below:
> >
> >
>
> A person who has openly admitted to being cheated for years and not
knowing is
> supposed to be a reliable source of information on cheating or scamming?
Mike answered that concern below, but let's refocus. For you to be correct
that Doyle and Ted were playing together based on the play of that hand, we
must assume they eschewed optimum mathematics. Either that or we must take
the opposite side of Barbara Yoon and Mike Caro on mathematical reasoning.
And we would not be that foolish, right? While I suppose they (like you)
could have been harboring misunderstandings on the optimum way to play (see
B. Yoon's post... excerpted slightly and reprinted below) I honestly can't
believe that would be the case if everything you have said about Doyle is
true. Thus I am left with the strong opinion there was no collusion
displayed in this hand and you misunderstand the mathematics.
"Well, there are some situations in which the "math" just cannot
be denied...and this is one of those situations... Against Alan Goehring's
big stack, with their own roughly equal smaller stacks here, there is just
no way that any such 'dumping' of chips to each other could be of any
palpable benefit to Doyle and Ted as a supposed "team"... My advice
to you, Russ, is for you to stick to what you know best, and what you
can back up in some way or another -- because any such obfuscating
'smoke-screens'/'red-herrings'/'strawmen' and such (as above) that are
demonstrably just flat-out wrong in the "math" only serve to discredit
your other perhaps more valid and important points...OK?!" -- Barbara Yoon
> This logic eludes me. The cheating pack I was mainly involved with were
> responsible for cheating him for years. So having Mike Caro discuss
cheating
> equivelant to me giving computer lessons.
This is where you and I have parted ways previously. You base conclusions
on your experience and give enormous credence to that experience. I
understand experience has value, but so does ability to think well, reason
well, and use all information and tools available... math in this instance.
Experience that was not conducted at optimum performance level can only be
used as a stepping stone for improvement... not as a benchmark. Obviously,
this discussion will end with us believing differently as we cannot quantify
whether Mike would be able to think his way past your experience in
designing a scamming model.
Lee
Jgm
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:R8ZLa.110380$hd6.110069@fed1read05...
>
> "Newgca" ...
> > >Mike Caro tells us why below:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > A person who has openly admitted to being cheated for years and not
> knowing is
> > supposed to be a reliable source of information on cheating or scamming?
>
> Mike answered that concern below, but let's refocus. For you to be
correct
> that Doyle and Ted were playing together based on the play of that hand,
we
> must assume they eschewed optimum mathematics. Either that or we must
take
> the opposite side of Barbara Yoon and Mike Caro on mathematical reasoning.
But didn't Russ say the money wasn't important, and that 1st place was all
that mattered to them? Didn't Barbara Yoon and Mike Caro say that their math
was based on maximising profit rather than going for 1st place? In which
case, what would the mathematically correct play be if 1st place was all
that mattered?
Lee Munzer
"Vince lepore" <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbdd5c2d.03063...@posting.google.com...
Yes, he changed the subject... after reading B. Yoon's post, he has few outs
in this thread.
He was looking for me to comment on "seeing" a second instead of "hearing" a
second, I suppose.
Vince, I just wrote another response to Russ where he challenged Caro's
"knowledge" of scamming on the basis that Mike was scammed for years and
Mike has no experience scamming (both seem to be correct assessments). I
find that to be the crux of many of our disagreements (mine with Russ). I
downgrade his experience as "the only overwhelming factor" while he upgrades
experience and downgrades "ability to reason" imo. There's no way to
quantify these factors when analyzing different poker questions. Given a
choice, I'd rather have ability to reason than scamming experience:-).
Lee
RTN4
wrote:
> being another player will probably be eliminated,
>thus pushing them up in the money.
I thought you said they weren't interested in the money?
ThundaNuts
pot and there was already 250K in there after the flop. Brunson was first to
act and he goes all in. Then Forrest and Alan both fold. Why not Forrest
call the all in? I mean Forrest had shit for a hand but when Alan folds, one
of Forrest or Brunson double up.
"RTN4" <RT...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:id4ufv45cmso4hm4k...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Jun 2003 07:32:57 GMT, new...@aol.com (Newgca) wrote:
>
> >By stealing the blinds
> >and the bet Goehring made, it would have given either one of these guys
clsoe
> >to 1.2 mil in chips
>
> Goehring opened for 40K (maybe 60K) big deal. Not worth the risk,
> especially since he opened in first position (or was the first one
> in.)
>
> Keep trying, thief.
>
TWal289
>From: new...@aol.com (Newgca)
>Try 20-1, as it would have to be at leats a blackjack hand. A small pair
>couldn't possibly call as the best price it could be would be even. Take into
>account that it isn't easy to get a hand to call with if a person attempts to
>bluff like Doyle did.
I have played in quite a few online tournements as well as half a dozen or
better live ones and I can think of at least 4-5 times Ive run a bluff from
the button or the sb with no one else in only to run right into buck+ball,AA or
KK not to mention AK or AQ.
I didnt see this event but its the final table down to 4 handed and 2 very
aggressive players it doesnt sound too fishy too me.After all didnt DB win the
back to back wsops with 10-2??I dont think he needs AA to play a big pot.
TWal289
>From: new...@aol.com (Newgca
>It would really have been a great risk to have marked cards in this game as
>it
>was to be televised. It would have been worse to have a card mechanic as a
>dealer, so you would be able to freeze frame the deal and see where the cards
>come from. PLEASE
Do you think maybe you could review all the old wsop tapes and identify the
marked cards and the mechanic dealers for us,should be easy.You have stated
before that all the "good ole boys"won a wsop 10k,where is Chip's?He's played
enough of them.
Russ Georgiev
Chip a good ole boy? He hadn't even arrived in Vegas when the WSOP was
an idea. I was there before he was. He arrived in the early 70's. How
was he considered a good old boy?
Russ Georgiev
TWal289
>Chip a good ole boy? He hadn't even arrived in Vegas when the WSOP was
>an idea. I was there before he was. He arrived in the early 70's. How
>was he considered a good old boy?
>
>Russ Georgiev
Oh,Chip isnt "built in"?The mid 70's isnt far back enough?
TWal289
> Do you think maybe you could review all the old wsop tapes and identify the
>> marked cards and the mechanic dealers for us,should be easy
How about this?
Louie
stacks each, everyone knows that. Even if that's NOT true, a skilled
team would wait until there were only two of them left before dumping
the chips.
In spite of the consiracy to keep him alive, Elvis is dead. But at
least he was once alive.
- Louie
new...@aol.com (Newgca) wrote in message news:<20030628144035...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> Many of you wouldn't know collusion if it bit you in the ass. You saw collusion
> on TV the other night in the WPT.
>
> When the pot was opened and Doyle went all in with his Q8 offsuit, to be
> followed by Ted Forrest with a call, this is a ripe example.
>
> You will get the math experts telling you this is against the odds of
> probability and the rest of the rhetoric. This would be correct if all things
> are even, but all things are not.
>
> Ted and Doyle had made in into the final 4 and were more of a hindrance to each
> other than an asset. Both had short stacks and this play would give one of them
> a bigger stack in a shorter game where that person could best use his assets.
>
> Being marked cards were not in, it is far better to have one scammer with a
> bigger BR playing short handed in this tournament than two with a smaller BR.
> Besides they wouldn't worry about interfering with the other. I also believe
> they would have position over the big stack doing this.
>
> Getting into this situation would have been the ideal thing for Ted and Doyle
> and then they could have been a far greater force as one combined unit instead
> of two.
>
> Look at things in the proper perspective and you would see that is wouldn't be
> easy to steal the blinds from which ever one had won that pot, besides the
> extra chips that were supposed to be won.
>
> No on expected to be called by JJ and thus all this was shown. First take the
> fact Doyle went all in with Q8 offsuit, only to be followed by Ted Forrest
> calling the all-in with AJ. What is the price of this?
>
> These guys had already finished high enough and now could only hurt each others
> style of play, since both are aggressors. Combing their stacks and shortening
> the players at the table would give them a far better chance of opening their
> play up and going to work attacking.
>
> Now you math majors may or will disagree on this, but this is a cheating pack
> and things are far different for one of these. I have stated since day 1 , Ted
> Forrest was in Doyle Brunson's cheating pack.
>
> Calculate if one of these guys doubled up against the chip leader and see it
> wouldn't have made that much of a difference. Calculate if they combined their
> stacks with the extra chips from the blinds and opening bet and see what the
> out come would be if this recipient doubled up against the chip leader.
>
> This was an obvious dump, though not to those without knowledge. These guys
> were caught on TV and still you people don't realize this. What price do you
> put on Doyle raising with Q8 o, only to be called by Ted Forrest with AJ? Quite
> a coincidence? I don't think so. This was done on purpose and they were caught
> by the JJ. If you remember back a few WPT tournaments and you will see where JJ
> laid down in this position. The JJ was supposed to lay down and the move to get
> the chips into one stack was supposed to work, along with the extra chips.
>
> Go ahead and attack, but I received at least a dozen phone calls while this
> came down on TV. To the professional cheat and scammer, this stunk. But to
> those not knowing or lacking the knowledge, it is written off a bad play by
> several.
>
> Focus on Doyle doing this and add Ted Forrest calling him and put a price on
> this.
>
> Russ Georgiev
CSI Minneapolis
some credibility to what you say. A rational person could deduce that Doyle
was attempting to dump off chips to Ted. Interesting for the conspiricy
people to banter around for a bit now.
PA
"Louie" <LLan...@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:f80e5c56.0307...@posting.google.com...
RTN4
<poke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>A rational person could deduce that Doyle
>was attempting to dump off chips to Ted. Interesting for the conspiricy
>people to banter around for a bit now.
I've already stated why this is a ridiculous assertion. For fun, I
watched that hand again last night. I stand by my assertions.
CSI Minneapolis
PA
"RTN4" <RT...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:o12fgv0fb63ug83jg...@4ax.com...
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
>
>"RTN4" <RT...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:o12fgv0fb63ug83jg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:59:09 GMT, "CSI Minneapolis"
>> <poke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >A rational person could deduce that Doyle
>> >was attempting to dump off chips to Ted. Interesting for the conspiricy
>> >people to banter around for a bit now.
>>
>>
>> I've already stated why this is a ridiculous assertion. For fun, I
>> watched that hand again last night. I stand by my assertions.
>
>
>
>Incorrect assertation most likely. Rediculous I do no think so.
>
>PA
i agree, i dont think it is "ridiculous", but your assertion of "most likely" is
pretty clearly wrong, unless you think that Ted F. and Doyle B. are idiots,
unskilled and non-mathematical.
is that what you are saying?
Andy Bloch's analysis of the situation (reprinted below, from a different
thread) is right on target.
did it not seem correct to you?
if you didnt understand it fully (or maybe you didnt read it at all), then you
should study it some (more).
Jonathan
From: Andrew Bloch (abl...@alum.mit.edu)
Subject: Re: Interesting hand final table $25,000 Bellagio WPT event...
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 2003-04-22 20:41:47 PST
new...@aol.com (Newgca) wrote in message
news:<20030422121032...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> > What am I missing
> >here? Any comments welcome..
>
> I have told people for the last two years Ted Forrest is affiliated with Doyle
> Brunson in his cheating pack.
>
> If I had two of my pack in this situation and wanted to win this tournament, I
> would need a single stronger unit instead of two small single units.
>
> Here is a real possibility to those who have no idea of what or how collusion
> works.
Although you may know how collusion works in ring games, you seem to
have no idea how collusion works in a tournament. If they were
colluding and any good at it, one larger stack instead of two stacks
won't increase their combined chances of winning the tournament -- but
it will decrease the average amount of money won.
In a tournament (where survival is valuable), you will never see two
colluders go all-in against each other if the cards must be turned
face up (unless the shorter stack has a strong enough hand to make the
risk of going bust worthwhile for the partnership).
If Ted and Doyle were attempting to collude in that hand, they were so
bad at it that we should encourage them to continue. (Ask Phil Ivey
how he felt about the play.) Ted simply made a terrible play for a
tournament, and a questionable play if it were a ring game. Doyle
made a pretty basic re-steal attempt -- maybe he misread a tell, or
maybe Alan had been raising so many hands that this move has positive
EV on average with Q8. Ted might have picked up a tell that Doyle was
weak, or knew that Doyle was likely to make a re-steal with a weak
hand -- but either way, AJ is not strong enough to call in this spot
in a tournament.
With 5 players left, here's what the prize pool looked like, after
subtracting 5th place :
1 $891k
2 $386k
3 $133k
4 $40k
5 $0
The total money still at risk was $1450k, and there were T5550k in
chips. If all players had equal stacks, chips would be worth 26% of
their face value. Ted's last chip is worth $40k when the next player
busts, then it's value goes up. It's net present value is
$40k*P4+$93k*P3 + $253k*P2, where P4/P3/P2 is the probability that Ted
can make it to 4/3/2 handed if he folds the current hand.
I don't know the chip counts at the time, but I'd put these lower
bounds on the probabilities: P4>3/4, P3>1/2, P2>1/4. This would be
the case if Alan had a huge lead and all the other players were equal
(neglecting position). So I'd say Ted's last chip is worth at least
$140k, and his total stack is worth about $200k.
If Ted calls, Alan folds, and Ted beats Doyle, Ted's equity becomes
maybe $300k. Ted is laying about 2:1 on his hand in tournament
equity, even though the pot is laying him better than even money.
Unless Ted sees Doyle's cards and knows he has Doyle dominated with
something like Ax or J6, Ted shouldn't call even if there were no
other players still in the hand. He has to be dead certain that Alan
is going to fold and that Phil won't wake up with a hand in the
blind. (If Ted was an amateur who was afraid that he'd get outplayed,
gambling here might be a good idea.)
Phil Ivey must have loved being on the receiving end of this gift,
making up for what happened at Foxwoods. Watch the WPT next week to
find out.
Andy Bloch
no matter where you go, there you are....
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
>
no matter where you go, there you are....
RTN4
Kaplan<NutNoPair@aol<spam>.com> wrote:
>Andy Bloch's analysis of the situation (reprinted below, from a different
>thread) is right on target.
>did it not seem correct to you?
>if you didnt understand it fully (or maybe you didnt read it at all), then you
>should study it some (more).
Of course it's correct. If you re-read the original thread I say to
the effect that if Doyle and Ted were cheating then they are the worst
cheaters in the world. No cheating here, just bad play.
Russ Georgiev
No matter where you don't go, there you are....