• PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!

WSOP Collusion (1 Viewer)

Kain8

Kain8

Flush
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
2,245
Reaction score
4,696
Rewards
166
Location
Regina, Canada
DirtyTIVA said:
What did WPTGold expect doing a promo like that
Click to expand...
Right. WSOP should be mad at WPTGold. Tournament players are used to being able to divide up that money any way they want. I realize the WSOP doesn't allow deals, But when the total prize pool of $2.2 million can be increased to $3.2 simply by making a deal, is there any doubt what will happen? And by the way, when they make first place $1.2 million and second place $1 million, they kinda take the steam out of final two.
 
upNdown said:
Right. WSOP should be mad at WPTGold. Tournament players are used to being able to divide up that money any way they want. I realize the WSOP doesn't allow deals, But when the total prize pool of $2.2 million can be increased to $3.2 simply by making a deal, is there any doubt what will happen? And by the way, when they make first place $1.2 million and second place $1 million, they kinda take the steam out of final two.
Click to expand...

I’d take the bracelet and minimal cash winnings if that’s what it took. I’m sure in all the years of wsop wpt etc this kind of deal has never happened before :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:

Just harder to pull off with televised hole cards and an internet of opinions.
 
I don't get how they would prove it, unless they were discussing it on camera.
Pay Me GIF
 
suchj0sh said:
Calling it the biggest scandal is ridiculous (I haven’t watched Doug’s vid, I’m sure it’s just clickbait). It was HU, no one was affected by this, they’ll never prove anything. Pay them and move along.
Click to expand...
Basically what Doug said!

harrysallout said:
No different than a chop in my eyes. Just took longer to get there.

You offer me half mil you can have the bracelet.
Click to expand...

No, you offer me the half mil and YOU can have the bracelet!
 
suchj0sh said:
Calling it the biggest scandal is ridiculous (I haven’t watched Doug’s vid, I’m sure it’s just clickbait). It was HU, no one was affected by this, they’ll never prove anything. Pay them and move along.
Click to expand...
Yep, I just ignore all the clickbaity titles, everyone does it, just like tabloids of old.

Doug went through the collusion rules, but it wasn’t a field or 3+ players negatively affected (i.e. the 3rd player at a disadvantage). It was the last 2. He basically said who cares, they shouldn’t be banned etc, just pay them the money.

WSOP are probably out of sorts since WPT got one over them. However when Tamayo had a whole solver team at the main last year they done nothing - and that was clearly a disadvantage against every other player at the final table and against rules etc.

Agree with @upNdown they’ll pay out.
 
harrysallout said:
No different than a chop in my eyes. Just took longer to get there.

You offer me half mil you can have the bracelet.
Click to expand...

Call me cynical and untrusting (because I am), but this is crazy to me.

Would you really forgo a potential 200k and a bracelet because a guy promised you he’d give you 500k in a back room deal that you have no contract or proof you have any legal standing to get? I bet if they didn’t get caught his plan was to take the 2.2 million and ghost the other guy.

At least with chops the tournament directors are involved in distributing the money.
 
dpeks13 said:
WPT is probably loving the publicity of all this.
Click to expand...
^This

I mean, what online poker enterprise doesn't want the publicity of a scandal, where they refuse to investigate? That's the whole reason to play online, right? So you can get caught up in a scandal where the site operator says "welp, we don't know, so we will do nothing to fix it".

That's publicity that only a million dollars can buy. :rolleyes:
 
I'm hoping WPT is loving this because it would really suck if they no longer offer great promotions because of a bunch of jealous poker players not involved made this into a huge deal. It did not affect them so who cares. I look at it as a chop with a cherry on top.
98% of these guys go broke, $500k is $500k.
 
I guess the real question is, when was the deal struck? At 3 or 4 players, you can nit it up like nobody's business because you have a deal with the chip leader.

It would be near impossible to prove with a deeper field or to prove illegal nittiness, but there would be actual victims.
 
While I love TV poker, livestream, etc., the game has origins in backrooms and clouds of smoke. On one hand, it's unfortunate that a major event's heads up battle could be collusive. On the other, I think this is a spot where it's absolutely right to play in a way that ends with the bonus-paid player winning. There's an innate mystery that blends into downright shadiness in poker sometimes, but that also provides part of its appeal.
1750979183188.jpeg
 
You have to trust someone pretty strongly to make that deal and give up your 9-1 chip advantage and most likely 1st place and bracelet, in the hopes they'll follow through and pay your backroom deal.

It's a tough spot because the WPT either refuses to pay and people hate them, or they pay and people complain about others finding a way to cheat the system.

Likewise, for the WSOP they have to consider the optics of how it looks to have players chip dumping heads-up. It tarnishes their brand, their ability to enforce rules, the image of a fair and straight-up game, the legacy of a bracelet, etc.

Both the WSOP and WPT have an edge should they decide to withhold payments/titles because it then forces the player to sue them. Litigation ain't cheap, and both of those companies are going to be better positioned financially to fight a legal battle than the players would.

Maybe there's attorneys that would take those cases on a contingency basis, but now you're dealing with 25-33% of anything you get in court going to the attorneys, not to mention that massive time-sink a legal battle would take.

I can't say I wouldn't be tempted in that spot to take advantage of that situation, 500K is 500K. But, I can see the issues of integrity, etc. and how it "looks" outside these brands.

It seems like a no-win situation whichever path the companies choose to take, as there are people on both sides of the opinion fence on this one.
 
It's my understanding that they didn't break any rules as such. The collusion rule is along the lines of "2 or more players against..." and as they were headsup no other player was adversly effected.

It's a strange situation brought about by the additional $1M in the mix there but one that the organisers should begrudgingly accept.

It reminds me of the football (soccer) game from a while ago that came up somewhere in my timeline in the last couple of weeks ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_4–2_Grenada

On January 27, 1994, the national football teams of Barbados and Grenada played against each other as part of the qualification round for the 1994 Caribbean Cup. Barbados won 4–2 in extra time. In the last minutes of regular time, both teams attempted to score own goals. The result has been described as "one of the strangest matches ever".

In the 1994 Caribbean Cup, the tournament organisers implemented a variant of the golden goal rule: the first goal scored in extra-time not only won the match, but was also worth two goals. Barbados needed to win the match by a margin of at least two goals to qualify for the final over Grenada. Barbados led the game 2–0 until Grenada scored in the 83rd minute, bringing the score to 2–1. Barbados then deliberately scored an own goal, tying the game at 2–2, to force extra-time so that they could take advantage of the golden goal rule to achieve their needed two-goal margin. This resulted in an unusual situation: For the last three minutes of regular time, Grenada tried to score in both goals. Either outcome (3–2 on points, or 2–3 via goal difference) would have advanced them to the finals, while Barbados had to defend both goals. Ultimately, Barbados was able to prevent Grenada from scoring, forcing extra-time. Barbados then scored the golden goal to win the match.

The outcome of the match was criticised by Grenadian coach James Clarkson, who felt that his team had been unfairly prevented from advancing to the finals. However, given the fact that the unusual tournament rules had not been broken, FIFA cleared Barbados of any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
 
Nymor said:
It's my understanding that they didn't break any rules as such. The collusion rule is along the lines of "2 or more players against..." and as they were headsup no other player was adversly effected.

It's a strange situation brought about by the additional $1M in the mix there but one that the organisers should begrudgingly accept.

It reminds me of the football (soccer) game from a while ago that came up somewhere in my timeline in the last couple of weeks ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_4–2_Grenada
Click to expand...


My recollection of the wording was that 2 Participants doing something illegal that affects another Participant.

Technically speaking, both of them chip-dumping affects the chip-leader by having him lose the title, bracelet and 1st place prize money difference. I.E. one of the Participants in the illegal scheme is also affected by the scheme.

A lot of people try to take words at face-value, but in a court of law, interpretation can be huge. I've heard that a corporation can be considered a "person". And a law could be written that says anyone wearing a pink shirt will go to jail. But then 1,000 pages buried in that law they can say "for the purpose of this law, pink means green and shirt means pants".
 
(IANATD - I am not a tournament director :) )

I get headsup against you - is there any rule that says I can't openly, in front of cameras for all to see and hear, offer you $500k to let me win?
 
Nymor said:
It's my understanding that they didn't break any rules as such. The collusion rule is along the lines of "2 or more players against..." and as they were headsup no other player was adversly effected.

It's a strange situation brought about by the additional $1M in the mix there but one that the organisers should begrudgingly accept.

It reminds me of the football (soccer) game from a while ago that came up somewhere in my timeline in the last couple of weeks ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_4–2_Grenada
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if you call it collusion or not, even if they never considered it until final two. If they were final two anywhere else in the world, where chopping in tournaments is allowed, it would be a different story. But assuming they had an agreement, they broke the WSOP rules. But I'm with Polk on this - nobody was hurt by this, so who cares.
 
Nymor said:
(IANATD - I am not a tournament director :) )

I get headsup against you - is there any rule that says I can't openly, in front of cameras for all to see and hear, offer you $500k to let me win?
Click to expand...
Think that’d be considered a chop/deal? So don’t think so - seen in one of the articles today you’re not allowed at WSOP. Google:

IMG_5369.png
 
Nymor said:
It's my understanding that they didn't break any rules as such. The collusion rule is along the lines of "2 or more players against..." and as they were headsup no other player was adversly effected.

It's a strange situation brought about by the additional $1M in the mix there but one that the organisers should begrudgingly accept.

It reminds me of the football (soccer) game from a while ago that came up somewhere in my timeline in the last couple of weeks ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_4–2_Grenada
Click to expand...

That is the funniest part about the whole situation. They didn't collude against other players, they colluded against the WSOP and clubWPT. Expect some new language in the 2026 WSOP rules.

1750986155763.png


Nymor said:
(IANATD - I am not a tournament director :) )

I get headsup against you - is there any rule that says I can't openly, in front of cameras for all to see and hear, offer you $500k to let me win?
Click to expand...

Yes, this would be a declaration that you plan to game the system publicly for outside profit. The rules states "but is not limited to" meaning the WSOP can declare anything an obvious breaking of their fair game rules and there isn't a court in the state that wouldn't side with them.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Zmasterben
WSOP Chip Usage - Binion's Horseshoe
Replies
20
Views
12K
FearlessFred
FearlessFred
Back
Top Bottom