Collusion at Final Table of Millionaire Maker!
Yaginuma vs Carroll. Carroll enters final table with 10 to 1 chip lead, Yaginuma gets $1 million dollar bonus from Club
Seriously why tf do any of you care? It was heads up, no other player was affected. Is it because you wanted to see a riveting heads up match on PokerGo and were deprived?
Are you at least open to the idea a deal could have been struck 3 handed or prior in the FT? I get what you're saying if it's for certain the deal was struck once heads up, but surely it at least brings into question if any other players were denied equity.
Im confused..
Were u not aware poker is filled with dregs of society?
Absolute degens in everyway... perhaps I see a new thread in your future. "Help so and so will not pay me back, ghosting me, what do?"
Play in thursday night turney at your local casino. Villian jams A6 off with 30 bb, you sitting there wondering why, then you see he has one good tooth.
Someone with a PhD in ICM answer this:
Yag 35m, Reichard 165m, Carroll 100m. Hand one- Directly after break. Josh rips A6. Carroll insta-snaps with 88. It was here where I started thinking this seems strange.
Is this ICM approved?
If they weren't friends it may be interesting to think about what Carroll could have asked for to dump. His stack value at the start of HU is only $25k < 1st place, so he would need the difference between that and 2nd to begin any negotiation.
Carrol doesn't have a WSOP bracelet (Yaginuma had 2) does that factor in at all?
I guess they could do an $EV calculations for playing it out and start from there?
Someone with a PhD in ICM answer this:
Yag 35m, Reichard 165m, Carroll 100m. Hand one- Directly after break. Josh rips A6. Carroll insta-snaps with 88. It was here where I started thinking this seems strange.
Is this ICM approved
Ha, well according to Bob Mather they’d already be perp-walked in handcuffs to the nearest prison in the desert if they didn’t conform to “ICM approved” play lol.
Reichard did an ICM punt w/ 33 3-handed. Something like BTN (reichard) 50bb, SB (Carroll) ~70BB, BB (Yag), 15BB. Open 2.2, SB 10, Reichard ships 50 BB when it gets back to him (loses to JJ). Especially a punt because payouts from 3rd to 2nd was as big or maybe a little bigger than 2nd to 1st, so going for 1st means less than your typical tournament. Obviously this punt is within the realm of live reg play so not a sign of any collusion.
The funniest HU hand was Carroll making a sizable river bet with K9 high, using the odd number to indicate a bluff, and Yag calling and losing with K7 high.
Someone with a PhD in ICM answer this:
Yag 35m, Reichard 165m, Carroll 100m. Hand one- Directly after break. Josh rips A6. Carroll insta-snaps with 88. It was here where I started thinking this seems strange.
Is this ICM approved
Here's the HRC solution: SB can Jam ~75%, so even tho BB had a big Bubble Factor (2.24/19% vs SB) he has to call something.
Why do so many people in this thread Equate chopping with chip dumping?
WSOP
They are playing with fire, bud
Doesn’t seem like it was worth it. Especially Carroll. He either has to look like a loser like Worm at the trust fund game or a cheater.
You mean the very same WSOP that has jacked rake (while hiding it under “dealer fees” to skew overall rake) all while providing worse service than ever? Or maybe you mean Club WPT. The very same Club WPT that is owned heavily, maybe even overwhelmingly by Russ Hamilton.
I think it was silly to pull this stunt and it most likely will get the 1m bonus rejected. But boot licking either of these companies is wild
Would someone be willing to lay out why they think the WSOP has a claim to be aggrieved here? From reading this thread so far I haven't really seen a complete argument. Something like "no one wants to be fodder when 3-4 guys are left" doesn't match what we know so far. This was a HU deal, from what I can gather, so 3-4 players left is completely irrelevant as a comparison imo.
What exactly did the WSOP lose, or how were they damaged?
I guess people could argue that the WSOP's reputation is damaged from this? I would be stunned if anyone truly would go from thinking of playing in a WSOP event or qualifier, sees this, and then stays home due directly to them chopping/dumping here. I'd love to see even just one real example of someone doing this. Obv just happened so almost impossible to prove at least for now.
I personally don't think anything positive or negative would come from a chop/chip dump HU that both players agree to. Open to others thoughts though.
I can see how Wpt would feel like there is an issue, having to pay out something you otherwise would not have to, but the WSOP has to pay out first and 2nd after they get HU anyway.
I do think, almost 100% of the time, they chip dumped. If I were these guys I would just deny forever publicly. How, without a text or something, could anyone prove for sure they did?
There was open cheating by Nevada law (using a device to gain an advantage) at the last WSOP main event and nothing happened. Nobody cares if poker players cheat each other, only if casinos are cheated.
In this case the "victim" isn't a player or a Nevada casino but some shady online entity. And, evidently, the 45 people on earth who think of poker as a sport like football or something.
Casinos or sites make exploitable promotions all the time. People exploit them all the time. It's fine and good to do so. If you could be confident that the deal would be honored, it would be foolish not to make one.
"Who will think of the poor, ruthless corporations that are built on exploiting addicts and destroying families?" They'll be fine. They choose what games to spread. They make all the rules. They have vast resources. They have every advantage. Then they invite you to come in and try to win their money, though this is impossible for most people. If you actually figure out a way to beat them without violating any laws, good for you. They will eat the loss, replace it with a some of kids' college funds, and sharpen up their game for the next round.
I wonder if half the people in this thread spend their free time looking for mispriced sports odds and calling the bookies to alert them.
Well for one, the results of this Heads Up portion of the Tournament in NO WAY reflect what would have happened in a "chop". When one guy holds a 9-1 chip advantage Heads Up, what would the results of the chop be? Has there ever, in the history of Poker Tournaments, been a situation where the Player in a 1-9 chip disadvantage was awarded the Tournament Winner as the result of a chop? So right there, the Winner of the Tournament was effectively changed, simply because one guy is paying another to dump chips.
So if the actual Winner of Tournament is effectively changed, simply because one guy is paying another guy money on the side, does that not hurt the integrity of the Tournament itself. This damages the WSOP brand and their ability to run tournaments in the future, so that is tangible harm that can be assessed that goes well beyond prize money for 1st and 2nd place. I dont think the WSOP wants it out there that the results of their tournaments can be changed simply by one guy paying another on the side. The WSOP could very well show harm to their Brand from this and choose not to pay it out.
Bottom line, chip dumping because someone paid you to allow them to win is cheating. And its not the case that nobody was harmed. The integrity of tournaments run by WSOP is harmed.
They didn't really cheat WSOP though. WSOP was going to pay out first and second place money to someone regardless. As long as collusion didn't occur while there were still 3+ players there shouldn't be an issue from WSOP's perspective. It's no different than if the final two had made a handshake agreement to chop the final two spots.WPT is the company with a potential beef, as
Good point and I think they should be paid. However, the casino and wsop are always looking for scummy ways to take your money like if a machine has a malfunction or selling you $12 hotdogs. Not exactly the same scenario but either way I wouldn’t try to game the house.
Rob Khun is a joke. Works for ACR and pretends to care about the integrity of the game? Lol.
You mean the very same WSOP that has jacked rake (while hiding it under “dealer fees” to skew overall rake) all while providing worse service than ever? Or maybe you mean Club WPT. The very same Club WPT that is owned heavily, maybe even overwhelmingly by Russ Hamilton. I think it was silly to pull this stunt and it most likely will get the 1m bonus rejected. But boot licking e
Huh? Who’s boot licking? Sure wasn’t me in my post. You are shaking your fist at a ghost, bro.
But while on topic I will say that WSOP is incredibly well run from a logistics standpoint. Huge fields breaking records going off with no big hitches. No opinion no knowledge nor care on Club WPT.
Would this be any different if the money in question were bracelet bets with other players? If so, why?
Additionally, I’ve been thinking of StarCraft player Life. He threw games due to betting on them. Since they never changed the actual payout outcome for other players (e.g, he won 3-2 instead of 3-0), do you think that was okay? He’s been banned from everything and is hated in the community. One of the main arguments is that it’s bad for the audience because they don’t know which games the players mean and which they throw. Isn’t it the same here, when it’s streamed and it may be on CBS sports? Would it be okay, and conceptually any different, Jake Paul threw his match against Mike Tyson?
on ESPN.com, on the "top headlines" bar is "WSOP probes possible Millionaire Maker collusion" which is pretty wild.
Would this be any different if the money in question were bracelet bets with other players If so, whyAdditionally, I've been thinking of StarCraft player Life. He threw games due to betting on them. Since they never changed the actual payout outcome for other players (e.g, he won 3-2 instead of 3-0), do you think that was okay He's been banned from everything and is hated in th
A lot of people would view trying to screw over a person as different than a company with deep pockets like WPT.
Additionally there is zero chance anyone would pay out for a bracelet bet here. It's blatant collusion. WPT might pay out for PR reasons. Sure if it was a bracelet bet people might go to someone like Galfond to arbitrate and he'd say it breaks the spirit of the bet.
So far it seems like everyone is saying
1)it's collusion they shouldn't pay
2) it's collusion who cares screw the big company
Change that to a bracelet bet and everyone just calls this guy a scumbag. The person on the other end of the bet isn't worried about bad PR.
The rules regarding collusion and chip dumping require that a 3rd party, i.e. the field or other remaining players, be impacted.
From the wording I saw, it states two participants working together in an illegal manner that affects another Participant.
Technically, since both are Participants themselves, and their actions are actually affecting the Participant that is the chipleader (i.e. causing him to get 2nd and lose the bracelet and bigger prize money) they could still argue their rules were violated, even though there was no 3rd party outside those 2 impacted.
It's all how the wording is interpreted in court. And it's easy enough for either of these massive organizations to not pay and say "sue us" and put those players in a rough spot.
I understand that, but at least personally I believe that theft is a theft, even if from a wealthier and more powerful entity. (not necessarily saying that this is a theft, but that the argument wsop is rich, is not relevant)
However, on top of that, it's not even a case of a hungry orphan stealing food from Walmart; in this case, Jesse is quite certainly financially well off, and making even more money, at the expense of game integrity, at the expense of amateur players being dismayed watching this on the stream, and at the expense of negative publicity, now in espn. It is crazy to me that he, or for example Scott Seiver who is a millionaire from gambling, try to claim moral high ground and justify this.
I understand that, but at least personally I believe that theft is a theft, even if from a wealthier and more powerful entity. (not necessarily saying that this is a theft, but that the argument wsop is rich, is not relevant)However, on top of that, it's not even a case of a hungry orphan stealing food from Walmart; in this case, Jesse is quite certainly financially well off, a
Correct.
And we both know Scott, who makes lots of side bets, would never pay out if he made a bracelet bet with this guy.
