Interesting situation from the 320$ WSOP qualifier bubble.

Yuv · #1 03-13-2006, 12:08 AM

8 people left, 7 gets a seat. Then his happens :

PokerStars Game #4269633239: Tournament #21105057, Hold'em No Limit - Level XIV (2000/4000) - 2006/03/12 - 22:51:49 (ET)
Table '21105057 16' Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: wattabackyrd (82787 in chips)
Seat 2: coachtim (135044 in chips )
Seat 3: boostin_is (52550 in chips)
Seat 4: Fuel55 (36552 in chips)
Seat 6: W Snipes (27698 in chips)
Seat 7: noxqsez (113361 in chips)
Seat 8: pege (31878 in chips)
Seat 9: jeff1924 (36130 in chips)

Fuel55: folds
W Snipes: folds
noxqsez: raises 8000 to 12000
pege: folds
jeff1924: folds
wattabackyrd: folds
coachtim said, "i got aces man"
coachtim: raises 28000 to 40000

-

Obvously, the bubble boy (boostin_is) should complain about that. But what should Stars do here?

TxDozerMan · #2 03-13-2006, 01:25 PM

I was watching this also. I think this was obvious collusion. I doubt coachtim *intended* any ill will, but if he did in fact have AA and noxqsez had KK, the short stacks were screwed big time here. I know that is far-fetched, but considering how the hand played, I feel like this is exactly what they had.

I have been the short stack in 2 different sats where the two chip leaders got into a pissing contest and one busted the other.

I think stars should do a serious investigation into this. I also think a similar thing happend on party a coulple of years ago where the seat was given to bubble boy.

Side question: If you are coachtim and noxqsez pushed over your raise do you fold your AA there? I do with a VERY clear conscience, he was a near lock for the seat at that point.

Edited for clarity and grammar.

NHFunkii · #3 03-13-2006, 01:42 PM

what a terrible raise, and a terrible reraise too
some people really suck at satellites

grafyx · #4 03-13-2006, 01:53 PM

I think they should just have chat disabled. I know they do this in the 11r satellites for the 215. I think this should just be standard for all satellites too avoid these types of situations.

locutus2002 · #5 03-13-2006, 01:56 PM

This is clearly against the rules. Pokerstars should determine an appropriate penalty and award it to the bubble.

In this case, CoachTim's actions were clearly designed to change the other stacks action and affected the other players. I'd take ~20% of CoachTim's seat (give him 8K $w)
This kind of behaviour wouldn't be tolerated in a cardroom. The penalty may seem stiff, but the stakes are large, and I'm sure a review of CoachTim's account would show that he is an experienced player who knows better.

wpr101 · #6 03-13-2006, 05:40 PM

Personally, I thought it was a lot of bs that the guy who was 2nd in chips was planning on reporting him for that when there are 8 people left and 7 pay.

Yeah maybe it is against the rules. I don't think it was collusion by any means and should not be punished. Chat should have been turned off for the final table anyways.

Requin · #7 03-13-2006, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah maybe it is against the rules. I don't think it was collusion by any means and should not be punished.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats ridiculous. He broke the rules in a blatant, serious way and should be punished. How can you argue that this should be overlooked becuase it is a different type of cheating? I think that he should be removed from the tourney, and the other 7 players awarded seats.

slickpoppa · #8 03-13-2006, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah maybe it is against the rules. I don't think it was collusion by any means and should not be punished.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats ridiculous. He broke the rules in a blatant, serious way and should be punished. How can you argue that this should be overlooked becuase it is a different type of cheating? I think that he should be removed from the tourney, and the other 7 players awarded seats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really breaking the rules though? When heads up, people talk about their hands all the time in order to induce a call or fold. For all the initial raiser knows, the reraiser could be full of sh1t. Maybe the reraiser had JJ and wanted to psych out the raiser. I understand that there is the possibility of collusion here, but I don't think its necessarily as black and white as you are making it out to be. I'm not aware of any special rule that says during bubble situations you cannot use pyschological ploys to get an opponent to fold. Maybe there should be a strict no talking rule after a certain point.

Requin · #9 03-13-2006, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is this really breaking the rules though? When heads up, people talk about their hands all the time in order to induce a call or fold. For all the initial raiser knows, the reraiser could be full of sh1t. Maybe the reraiser had JJ and wanted to psych out the raiser. I understand that there is the possibility of collusion here, but I don't think its necessarily as black and white as you are making it out to be. I'm not aware of any special rule that says during bubble situations you cannot use pyschological ploys to get an opponent to fold. Maybe there should be a strict no talking rule after a certain point.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a cash game, its prefectly legal when the hand is HU for the two players to say whatever they want. However, in a tournament, everything that happens (especially on the bubble, but this is valid at any point of the tourney) in a hand has a direct affect on the othe players. So the rule is that you cannot talk and influence the outcome of any hand, because it affects everyone else. Thats why you are often allowed to flip your cards faceup to get a read in a cash game, but not in a tournament.

TxDozerMan · #10 03-13-2006, 06:41 PM

At the time the comment was made, it was not heads up, there was the initial raiser, the "offender" in the SB, and the BB still was left to act. What if the BB now looks down at KK,QQ,AK (which would be an obvious call without the "I have aces" comment) now he can fold. This is not fair to the other short stacks at the table.