CHEATING AT WSOP
MOOSE777
Stern paid other players to let his wife win. Is that cheating?
Moose
Liveone
players were affected by the outcome.It was controversial but definitely not
cheating. Max and Maria may have been guilty of a poor decision, but not
cheating. Max and Maria are two of the classiest folks that play poker.
Jonathan Kaplan
> No, as I recall, they cut a deal when the action got to heads up. No
i understand the desire on the part of tournament players to minimize
variance and make deals. and the wsop events are tournaments, so....
but to my mind, dealing IS cheating, and effects everyone who played in
the tournament. an ugly (but i can see from the sentiments expressed
here), necessary part of tournament poker.
did Maria Stern play in the TOC, eligible as a result of her tarnished
WSOP victory?
tournament of champions? yeah, right.
how about if i show up at the wsop next year, wait until right before
the tournament starts, then offer to buy out the entire field, paying
about 10% over each player's own personal expected value.
am I the "champion" then?
ugh....ugly.
dealmaking is one of my least favorite aspects of my most favorite
hobby. and speaking as an amateur, i think it should be eliminated at
the "Major" tournaments. if you can't take the variance, stay away from
tournaments. at least the "Majors".
please?
Jonathan
--
no matter where you go, there you are...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
AaMarkHays
(Liveone) writes:
>No, as I recall, they cut a deal when the action got to heads up. No other
>players were affected by the outcome.It was controversial but definitely not
>cheating. Max and Maria may have been guilty of a poor decision, but not
>cheating. Max and Maria are two of the classiest folks that play poker.
The deal I could live with. It was the 47 or so hands they played after the
winner had already been decided that offends me.
Mark
Happiness is a table full of optimists.
RazzO
Just after we heard of the tournament outcome, Adam Roberts wanted to go
public with his account of the "deal."
I wanted to publish the document, which I still have. The Card Player
also has a copy that Adam sent them. This was when Jack McClelland was
WSOP Tournament Coordinator. I decided not to print it on my site
because back then I worried about negative stuff being inflicted on
poker. Now, I still won't print what Adam asked me to, because it was so
long ago, and havent got "recent" permission, but if feel we should be a
little open about these things.
EMAIL Adam Roberts at: ad...@adamroberts.com and ask that he come here
and post a response to that matter.
The only people who were there?
1. Adam Roberts
2. Maria Stern
3. Max Stern
4. Jim Albrecht
5. Jack McClelland
Please remember that most people believe that when two players have
knocked out all other tournament participants, they should have the
"full reigns" as to what happens to the money, who gets the bracelet,
etc.
This may be OLD SCHOOL, for our future sponsors may not like this type
of "deal making!"
And M00SE, I wouldnt classify this as CHEATING AT WSOP. Cheating is
different in this spot, isnt it?
Everyone has been knocked out, how could the two remaining players
CHEAT? Just curious.
Thanks,
razzo
pat gilvary
> This may be OLD SCHOOL, for our future sponsors may not like this type
> of "deal making!"
Where do you think professional golf would be today, if Arnold Palmer
and Jack Nicklaus made a deal on the back nine at the "Masters". In the
early sixties, first prize at a big was about $50,000. Today, it can be
as high as $1,000,000. It starts with a trickle.
>
> And M00SE, I wouldnt classify this as CHEATING AT WSOP. Cheating is
> different in this spot, isnt it?
> Everyone has been knocked out, how could the two remaining players
> CHEAT? Just curious.
I wonder what a tournament sponsor would think, when he thinks that he
is sponsoring the "best competition"? I wonder what neophyte fans of
the new "Professional Poker Players Association" would think?
--
Pat Gilvary
"Cubem autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos
quadrataquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum
protestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere."
PdeF
Liveone
>how about if i show up at the wsop next year, wait until right before
>the tournament starts, then offer to buy out the entire field, paying
>about 10% over each player's own personal expected value.
>am I the "champion" then?
No but you would be a Schumck
Liveone
>winner had already been decided that offends me.
Agreed
GaryCarson
other woman bought a bracelet in a pawn shop does not do
anything to take a way Linda's distinction as the only
woman winner of an open WSOP event.
Gary Carson
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Gary T Philips
ago. I remember this because of a hand I had dealt her where
she said she had two pair, Jacks and Fours when I had read
her hand for one pair of Jacks. She lost the hand but won the
tournament. However I think they were talking about WSOP
tournaments exclusive of the women's.
Gary (winning the women's is still a great honor) Philips
Paul E. Stine wrote:
> I believe her name is Sherri, but her last name escapes me. I believe
> Nolan Dalla knows her. (I knocked her out of the BARGE'97 No-Limit
> event and I believe she is an occasional RGP lurker.)
>
> Of course, I might be making all this up.
>
> Paul Stine
> College Station, TX
>
> On 08 Sep 1999 03:59:08 GMT, reade...@aol.com (Readenlaff) wrote:
>
> >
> >Correction: Barbara Enright won the pot limit hold'em event in 1996, the first
> >woman to win a major WSOP open event. Many years before that, some woman won a
> >small open event.
> >Max Shapiro
Mike Caro
>M00SE,
>Just after we heard of the tournament outcome, Adam Roberts wanted to go
>public with his account of the "deal."
>I wanted to publish the document, which I still have. The Card Player
>also has a copy that Adam sent them. This was when Jack McClelland was
>WSOP Tournament Coordinator. I decided not to print it on my site
>because back then I worried about negative stuff being inflicted on
>poker. Now, I still won't print what Adam asked me to, because it was so
>long ago, and havent got "recent" permission, but if feel we should be a
>little open about these things.
>EMAIL Adam Roberts at: ad...@adamroberts.com and ask that he come here
>and post a response to that matter.
>
>The only people who were there?
>1. Adam Roberts
>2. Maria Stern
>3. Max Stern
>4. Jim Albrecht
>5. Jack McClelland
>
>Please remember that most people believe that when two players have
>knocked out all other tournament participants, they should have the
>"full reigns" as to what happens to the money, who gets the bracelet,
>etc.
>This may be OLD SCHOOL, for our future sponsors may not like this type
>of "deal making!"
>
>And M00SE, I wouldnt classify this as CHEATING AT WSOP. Cheating is
>different in this spot, isnt it?
>Everyone has been knocked out, how could the two remaining players
>CHEAT? Just curious.
>
>Thanks,
>
>razzo
>
>
>
>MOOSE777 wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious to know what Razzo thinks of the situation at the WSOP where Max
>> Stern paid other players to let his wife win. Is that cheating?
>>
>> Moose
Coincidentally both Max and Maria Stern were over at my house this
morning on another matter. I agree that they are both likeable people.
However, I disagree with anyone who would trivialize the wrong of
buying a World Series bracelet. I said everything I had to say about
this in my Card Player column years ago. Buying the outcome of a
tournament damages everyone who participated in quest of a
championship and damages the respectability of poker.
I was damaged by the agreement because it hurt my heart. Linda Johnson
was damaged by the agreement because she could no longer claim to be
the only woman winner of a major WSOP event.
My parrot was also damaged, but for reasons too vague to describe. I'm
convinced that the Sterns understand the problem now, and I wish
everyone else did, too.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
RazzO
>I wonder what a tournament sponsor would think, when he thinks that he
>is sponsoring the "best competition"? I wonder what neophyte fans of
>the new "Professional Poker Players Association" would think?
I totally agree.
And that's how it will be. I know this because I know we will have the
best people in our business, the most fairest people..when it comes to
keeping us all in line to play in sanctioned poker tournaments.
-This encounter was a "deal gone bad." Pardon the expression.
I have heard from three directly involved participants.
One of the parties was under the impression that it was never to be
known that Adam was to let Maria "have the title" when some deal we know
of was made.
There was a leak..
In all this, I do give Maria credit for outlasting such an incredible
field, and a GaRGaNTuan Final Table.
Perhaps, oneday, when everyone can deal with it at once, they could both
play a head-up freezeout.
seriously,
razzo
ps--->
that addy for adam roberts is no loner functional. When I get his new
one I will get it posted.
pat gilvary wrote:
>
> RazzO wrote:
>
> > This may be OLD SCHOOL, for our future sponsors may not like this type
> > of "deal making!"
>
> Where do you think professional golf would be today, if Arnold Palmer
> and Jack Nicklaus made a deal on the back nine at the "Masters". In the
> early sixties, first prize at a big was about $50,000. Today, it can be
> as high as $1,000,000. It starts with a trickle.
> >
> > And M00SE, I wouldnt classify this as CHEATING AT WSOP. Cheating is
> > different in this spot, isnt it?
> > Everyone has been knocked out, how could the two remaining players
> > CHEAT? Just curious.
>
Readenlaff
Correction: Barbara Enright won the pot limit hold'em event in 1996, the first
Eighteskid
You take the money I'll take the trophy" "you take this and I'll take that"
"lets play one hand of showdown for the trophy" and on and on. bottom line
who cares all you high and mighty players who probably never got in a heads
up situation want to dictate how others split their money. Unless there is a
points race involved what difference does it make. If you want truth start by
publishing what everone truly wins instead.
of the prize pool before splits.
Take a vote of all the tourn players and if the majority think deals are
really cheating I for one will quit making deals until then I feel I do nothing
wrong when I make a deal. Eightyskid
PokerShadow
eight...@aol.com (Eighteskid) wrote:
> In the last year I have seen more "you take the money I'll take the
TOC entry"
> You take the money I'll take the trophy" "you take this and I'll take
that"
> "lets play one hand of showdown for the trophy" and on and on.
bottom line
> who cares all you high and mighty players who probably never got
in a heads
> up situation want to dictate how others split their money. Unless
there is a
> points race involved what difference does it make. If you want
truth start by
> publishing what everone truly wins instead.
Works for me. PokerShadow
> of the prize pool before splits.
> Take a vote of all the tourn players and if the majority think
deals are
> really cheating I for one will quit making deals until then I feel I
do nothing
> wrong when I make a deal. Eightyskid
>
Paul E. Stine
Nolan Dalla knows her. (I knocked her out of the BARGE'97 No-Limit
event and I believe she is an occasional RGP lurker.)
Of course, I might be making all this up.
Paul Stine
College Station, TX
On 08 Sep 1999 03:59:08 GMT, reade...@aol.com (Readenlaff) wrote:
MOOSE777
the event to his wife and that his wife didn't know about it until after the
tournament. Is that not accurate?
Pokerbrat
>Correction: Barbara Enright won the pot limit hold'em event in 1996, the
>first
>woman to win a major WSOP open event. Many years before that, some woman won
>a
>small open event.
>Max Shapiro
The woman before Barbara Enright was Vera Richmond , and I believe the game was
draw loball or somekind of draw.
Shelley
Pokerbrat
>the event to his wife and that his wife didn't know about it until after the
>tournament. Is that not accurate?
first i ever heard about it.
HitTheFlop
> Take a vote of all the tourn players and if the majority think deals are
> really cheating I for one will quit making deals until then I feel I do
> nothing wrong when I make a deal.
I doubt you'll find many who consider open dealing at the
end of a tournament cheating. While it's possible
to construct collusive deals, most are reasonably fair
to all concerned. The big point against deals would be
in this future dreamland where sponsers are involved in
tournament poker. Won't happen.
Best Luck,
Ed (no, not that Ed!)
Friends may come and go
but enemies accumulate.
Jonathan Kaplan
agreed.
but am i that much less a "champion" than the person who waits till
later in the tournament to "buy" the victory?
both scenarios create tainted victories,
neither "winner" is a champion.
Jonathan
--
no matter where you go, there you are...
Jonathan Kaplan
eight...@aol.com (Eighteskid) wrote:
> In the last year I have seen more "you take the money I'll take the
TOC entry"
> You take the money I'll take the trophy" "you take this and I'll take
that"
> "lets play one hand of showdown for the trophy" and on and on.
bottom line
i care.
but what do i know? i am just a dilettante kind of player, still
willing to "donate" my entry fee in a few big tournaments a year just
for the opportunity to vie for a "championship". but banning dealmaking
in putative "championships" isnt just about encouraging corporate
sponsorship by fostering a "cleaner" atmosphere. it is also about
maintaining the psychic value of victory for all the "dead money" (like
me) that shows up at the WSOP events. diminish that materially and
publicly if you wish. then watch the growth of new entries slow,
perhaps even reverse once the current wave of interest in poker crests.
>all you high and mighty players who probably never got in a heads
> up situation want to dictate how others split their money.
probably, in context, this might refer to someone like me. but i dont
feel high and mighty. actually, i feel low and even mean spirited when
i push this argument. but I am not the one "dictating" how you split
your money. i merely want you to uphold the terms of the split
"dictated" by the tournament organizers (that we all agreed to when we
entered), in hopes that a "true" champion may be "crowned". and i only
want this type of thinking in tournaments that claim to crown a
champion. is that so wrong?
but, like i said, i am just a dilettante.
you tourney pros do whatever you want.
personally, i will deal with it.
smile
Mike Caro
has won so many events it's hard to keep track) also captured a WSOP
tournament title. It was pot-limit Omaha, 1996, worth $180,000. There
was at least one other woman victor at the WSOP besides Barbara and
Linda Johnson.
I'll leave it to r.g.p. historians to supply the name and the event.
Sorry, I don't have that handy.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Blgv
got that from this thread
Jonathan Kaplan
classiest folks who play poker."
B529529
Vera Richmond......Ace to Five Loball
Barbara Enright......PL HoldEm
Maria Stern............7 Card Stud
Linda Johnson........Razz>
JohnnyD
Eighteskid wrote:
>Take a vote of all the tourn players and if the majority think deals are
>really cheating I for one will quit making deals until then I feel I do
nothing
>wrong when I make a deal.
I don't necessarily think it's cheating to make most of the deal I have
seen. They have been out in the open and only affected the players
involved. But what I don't like is the pressure, namecalling and abuse you
get if you are the one who does not want to make the deal. Two wins ago I
gave in to the pressure and made a bad deal. The last one I won, a deal was
suggested, I countered with something that was overwhelming in my favor (we
were heads us) and the other guy got pissed, gave me some abuse, and said
no. I'm not interested in making a deal just because it is "fair" to
everybody. I come to play and unless I can get a better than "fair" deal,
I'll take my chances.
JohnnyD
Badger
--snip--
> it is also about
> maintaining the psychic value of victory for all the "dead money" (like
> me) that shows up at the WSOP events. diminish that materially and
> publicly if you wish. then watch the growth of new entries slow,
> perhaps even reverse once the current wave of interest in poker crests.
The ability to make deals has been one factor in the enormous growth in
tournament poker the past decade. If the 40/20/10 structure was rigidly
upheld, fewer people would get good money out of tournaments, leading to
less people wanting to play. I believe in flattening th prize structure a
lot (25/20/15/10) but till this happens -- like it somewhat did at the
TOC -- dealmaking will bring more people in, and be better for poker, than
any "no deal" policy.
> i merely want you to uphold the terms of the split
> "dictated" by the tournament organizers (that we all agreed to when we
> entered), in hopes that a "true" champion may be "crowned". and i only
> want this type of thinking in tournaments that claim to crown a
> champion. is that so wrong?
Where did you ever see that, or think of this as reality? You should know
that in every tournament, except the TOC, deals are allowed. "Champions"
are crowned via dealmaking. That's the way it is, and basically everyone
who enters a tournament knows this can happen. It's within the rules, and
*you* should know that before you enter, because you are "agreeing" by
entering.
--
Badger
"Most of my posts are badly written, un-edited, in dire
need of re-write, and sometimes contain half-baked ideas."
-- Gary Carson
Jonathan Kaplan
"Badger" <steveb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Kaplan <NutN...@aol.com> wrote...
> --snip--
> > it is also about
> > maintaining the psychic value of victory for all the "dead money"
(like
> > me) that shows up at the WSOP events. diminish that materially and
> > publicly if you wish. then watch the growth of new entries slow,
> > perhaps even reverse once the current wave of interest in poker
crests.
>
> The ability to make deals has been one factor in the enormous growth
in
> tournament poker the past decade. If the 40/20/10 structure was
rigidly
> upheld, fewer people would get good money out of tournaments, leading
to
> less people wanting to play. I believe in flattening th prize
structure a
> lot (25/20/15/10) but till this happens -- like it somewhat did at the
> TOC -- dealmaking will bring more people in, and be better for poker,
than
> any "no deal" policy.
okay, i can see (now) how this is the case. i agree that flattening the
prize structure is a good thing for growth, and that dealmaking
effectively does that. do you think that if the prize structure were
flatter as a matter of tournament "dictate", there would be appreciably
less dealmaking?
>
> > i merely want you to uphold the terms of the split
> > "dictated" by the tournament organizers (that we all agreed to when
we
> > entered), in hopes that a "true" champion may be "crowned". and i
only
> > want this type of thinking in tournaments that claim to crown a
> > champion. is that so wrong?
>
> Where did you ever see that, or think of this as reality? You should
know
> that in every tournament, except the TOC, deals are allowed.
"Champions"
> are crowned via dealmaking. That's the way it is, and basically
everyone
> who enters a tournament knows this can happen. It's within the
rules, and
> *you* should know that before you enter, because you are "agreeing" by
> entering.
Badger, i never thought this was reality. just a personal dream of mine
to make the "quest" for a championship more pure in my own mind. but
not reality at all and i know that. but just because it is the "rules"
of the road doesnt mean that the rules cant be changed and some benefit
realized from that.
was there a real uproar as a result of the TOC being "deal-free"?
i want to extend that "rule change" to the WSOP. not reality, maybe not
even feasible in the real world, but still a result i would prefer.
that was all i was saying. the previous poster got me a bit annoyed
with the use of the verb "dictate", (used correctly, i might add), and
i glibly tried to use the same word in response, to the detriment of my
argument it appears.
it is not easy to conceive or understand (as an amateur) that
dealmaking crowns champions. i can see that is the reality but i want
to change that for the WSOP. too idealistic and/or naive of me, i am
sure.
smile
John Harkness
Jonathan Kaplan wrote:
> okay, i can see (now) how this is the case. i agree that flattening the
> prize structure is a good thing for growth, and that dealmaking
> effectively does that. do you think that if the prize structure were
> flatter as a matter of tournament "dictate", there would be appreciably
> less dealmaking?
>
Probably -- When Russ and I hit heads up at the BARGE tournament, we made a
deal on the money, essentially flattening some of the difference between
first and second place, which was 2-1 in the tournament structure, making it
more 4-3. If the money had been closer to begin with, we probably wouldn't
have.
John Harkness
Krmin
tournaments.
First, while I am an old time poker player, I am a newbie when it comes to
tournaments. Where I live, I don't really have the opportunity to learn about
and play in them. Most of what I know comes from Card Player Magazine and what
I have read on this newsgroup.
Second, this is addressed mainly to those who think tournament poker needs
corporate sponsorship and needs to achieve "legitimacy" in the eyes of the
public.
As a newbie, I hear this talk of "the top finishers made a deal at the final
table" and "X owns 10% of another tournament player but..." and my immediate
gut reaction is to think, "What a bunch of crooks!"
I think that is the same reaction anybody outside the tournament scene is going
to have.
Barbara Yoon
> ...old time poker player...newbie when it comes to tournaments.
> I hear this talk of "the top finishers made a deal at the final table"
> and "X owns 10% of another tournament player but..." and my
> immediate gut reaction is to think, "What a bunch of crooks!"
As you've likely seen, I myself am very interested in the 'mathematics'
of tournament prize money deal-making. As for the 'ethics' of it, the fact
that the prize money is put up by the PLAYERS themselves, and not by
Budweiser (e.g.), makes a big difference, in my own opinion. In an ideal
world, with sponsors' prize money, as in other 'sports,' we would have no
such 'deals' -- but until that time comes, if ever, I think the next-best thing
is to have all deals made out in the open, known and agreed to by all...
Badger
news:7r8e4m$ch3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> okay, i can see (now) how this is the case. i agree that flattening the
> prize structure is a good thing for growth, and that dealmaking
> effectively does that. do you think that if the prize structure were
> flatter as a matter of tournament "dictate", there would be appreciably
> less dealmaking?
Yes. IMO, dealmaking would more or less wither away with a 25/20/15/10
structure. When the stacks are at all comparritive, people generally *like*
to make a deal then "play for something". How this usually works out, with
three people is they lock up 20% each, then play for 3% for second and 7%
for first (20+20+20+3+7=40+20+10). They don't want to play for a huge
amount, but for something, plus the title.
25/20/15/10 is in line with what the players usually choose to do when they
have a chance. If it gets head up, and one player gets 20 and the other 25,
there isn't much incentive to chop up that extra 5% 2.5/2.5. People will
want to play more. It'll be more fun.
> was there a real uproar as a result of the TOC being "deal-free"?
People liked the flattened payout structure, which led to the no deals issue
being mute.
erikseide...@iname.com
cheating are going too far. Remember as in all tournaments
these 2 players paid their own entry fees. If there were
sponsers, or the money came from another source it would be
a different story. I wouldn't buy a title or sell it, but
if someone puts himself in a position to win one & decides
that he would rather have the money thats his own choice to
make. I don't think anyone was harmed, & the ensuing
controversy actually added some color to the event.-Erik
hippiechuckI
think "dealmaking" is an important skill in poker tournaments. However
I believe that the actual moneys paid out according to the deal should
be the figures reported in CARD PLAYER and not the fictitous amounts
presently reported.
Chuck
In article <37d6...@news1.prserv.net>,
--
Dance with me Martha
pla...@my-deja.com
There is a big difference between buying or selling a title.If you
sell it,that means you don t care about it,treat it as part of the
proceeds,treat it like cash.
On the other hand, if you buy it,you want to parade as a champion,lie to
everybody about it,and if we suppose that lying is a form of
cheating,than we have an interesting situation where two people make a
deal,but only one of them cheats.
RazzO
trading/selling it, I'll think more highly of someone who competes, and
bargins for it.
razzo
Ed Hill
It was Linda that commended Maria for having the courage to confess what
happened, after she got caught, of course.
Ed Hill
Patri Forwalter-Friedman
: i understand the desire on the part of tournament players to minimize
: variance and make deals. and the wsop events are tournaments, so....
: but to my mind, dealing IS cheating, and effects everyone who played in
: the tournament. an ugly (but i can see from the sentiments expressed
This is an interesting topic.
Clearly actions which don't affect the other players in a tournament are
OK (two players agreeing to wear red, for example). Clearly actions which
directly affect other players in the tournament (collusion) are not OK.
What about actions which have a hard-to-measure and indirect impact? Lets
consider some different kinds of actions.
1) Talking about strategy. Suppose several tournament players who are
good enough to know some things but still have holes in their games get
together and spend the week before the WSOP talking strategy. At the end,
all of their games have improved, and they go into the WSOP and do better
than they would have otherwise. This is to the detriment of other
players, but I don't think anyone thinks it is wrong. Information about
strategy is not wrong to pass on.
2) After WSOP seats are assigned, a player writes down all his opponents
and asks around about their reputation. I think this is fine, having done
it myself. Information about a persons play, state of mind, and
reputation is not wrong to pass on.
3) A little bit trickier version of the above. Suppose player A and
player B are friends. Player A is at a WSOP table that will be broken very
late. Player A is very observant, and good at picking up emotional
cues and tells. After 6 hours of play, player B is moved to his table.
During the next 15 minute break, Player A gives player B the full report
on all their table members, what their mental state is, how they play, and
so forth. Is this ok? It gives player B an advantage - is it an unfair
one?
4) Dealmaking. Does dealmaking affect other players EV? Well, first of
all, does dealmaking affect how people play tournaments? I think we can
agree that it does. Is that unfair to other players? To me, what matters
is that dealmaking is (mostly) open and public, and everyone making the
deal acts in their own self-interest. Thus it just becomes another part
of the change from live to tournament poker, and another thing to adjust
for in your strategy. It is unfortunate because it is yet another thing
pushing tournament poker farther from "real" poker, making it more impure,
but it is not immoral. Remember that anyone remaining in a tournament can
nix a deal.
: dealmaking is one of my least favorite aspects of my most favorite
: hobby. and speaking as an amateur, i think it should be eliminated at
: the "Major" tournaments. if you can't take the variance, stay away from
: tournaments. at least the "Majors".
One solution seems clear. Reduce the variance by flattening the payout
structure. A more linear payout structure has little incentive for
dealmaking.
This might have some negative impact, though. One of the great things
about poker is that anyone can win. And as ring game players know,
nothing is prettier than the sight of a tournament winner, puffed with
pride and crammed with cash, sitting down at a bigger limit than usual,
willing to give a try to playing wit' da big boyz. Plus tournament
winners often dramatically increase the number and buy-in of future
tournaments they play, both because they can, and they think they are
good.
Still, I would love to see the payout structure flattened a bit.
patri
Patri Forwalter-Friedman
: I have made lots of deals in tournaments, and will continue to do so. I
: think "dealmaking" is an important skill in poker tournaments. However
: I believe that the actual moneys paid out according to the deal should
: be the figures reported in CARD PLAYER and not the fictitous amounts
: presently reported.
Yeah, what's up with that, anyway? I just don't get it. Dealmaking is
generally done with the sanction of the tournament director, and Mike
Paulle usually has the scoop on what actual money amounts are, so people
are willing to reveal them to the press. So why is Card Player being
deceitful? I just don't see what incentive there is to lie. Are they
trying to fool people who read the magazine and have never played in a
tournament and don't know about deals? Are people who cheat on their
taxes afraid to have the numbers put in print?
What am I missing?
Patri
Paul Lord
bleachers to watch the final table that year. Adam never went to sixth
street. If he had an ace up he would check, Maria would raise and he would
fold. When they started heads up play, Adam had 3 stacks of 5000 chips and
Maria had 3 stacks of 1000 chips. Do you know how bad it looked for him to
have to pass all of his chips to her. Prior to heads up play Adam was the
most aggressive player at the table. It was fun to watch. After heads up
play ( and a 10 minute break to seal the deal) Adam never played, just
passed the chips. Who did it hurt? How about us spectators who took time
off from work to watch the final table.
Just a thought from a guy who was there.
RazzO <ra...@pokerworld.com> wrote in message
news:37D5B2E2...@pokerworld.com...
> pat gilvary wrote:
> >I wonder what a tournament sponsor would think, when he thinks that he
> >is sponsoring the "best competition"? I wonder what neophyte fans of
> >the new "Professional Poker Players Association" would think?
>
>
> I totally agree.
> And that's how it will be. I know this because I know we will have the
> best people in our business, the most fairest people..when it comes to
> keeping us all in line to play in sanctioned poker tournaments.
> -This encounter was a "deal gone bad." Pardon the expression.
> I have heard from three directly involved participants.
> One of the parties was under the impression that it was never to be
> known that Adam was to let Maria "have the title" when some deal we know
> of was made.
> There was a leak..
>
> In all this, I do give Maria credit for outlasting such an incredible
> field, and a GaRGaNTuan Final Table.
> Perhaps, oneday, when everyone can deal with it at once, they could both
> play a head-up freezeout.
>
> seriously,
>
> razzo
> ps--->
> that addy for adam roberts is no loner functional. When I get his new
> one I will get it posted.
>
>
> pat gilvary wrote:
> >
> > RazzO wrote:
> >
> > > This may be OLD SCHOOL, for our future sponsors may not like this type
> > > of "deal making!"
> >
> > Where do you think professional golf would be today, if Arnold Palmer
> > and Jack Nicklaus made a deal on the back nine at the "Masters". In the
> > early sixties, first prize at a big was about $50,000. Today, it can be
> > as high as $1,000,000. It starts with a trickle.
> > >
> > > And M00SE, I wouldnt classify this as CHEATING AT WSOP. Cheating is
> > > different in this spot, isnt it?
> > > Everyone has been knocked out, how could the two remaining players
> > > CHEAT? Just curious.
> >
> > I wonder what a tournament sponsor would think, when he thinks that he
> > is sponsoring the "best competition"? I wonder what neophyte fans of
> > the new "Professional Poker Players Association" would think?
> >
> > --
> > Pat Gilvary
> >
> > "Cubem autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos
> > quadrataquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum
> > protestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere."
> > PdeF