Bill Chen accused of collusion?

[Yaboosh]

This is clearly different than buying another's chips in a normal freezeout tournament. Every player is going to the next table with an equal amount of chips. The only equity that is being affected is that if a good player advances instead of a worse player, but if it were a normal freezeout, the questionable exchange of chips does not increase the chips of the person who is benefiting compared to the field.

[Kevmath]

Regarding the Chen-Smith prop bet, Gavin mentioned on the Pokerwire show that he was trying to figure out what he should actually pay Chen, and had decided to go to RGP to settle the dispute. Gavin eventually paid Chen $1400.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]

Bill Chen Advances to Round 2

Bill Chen also won a 2K prop bet against Gavin Smith. Smith bet that Chen would not advance to the next round.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[hammond]

The structure of this event (and it is not the only one) makes deals very common. First of all Chen's oppont. made a great deal and one I would suggest myself if ever in this event and heads up down 2-1 in chips to a multiple bracelet wnner. Heck it is a good deal regardless if down 2-1 in chips heads up to a player as good or better than you. You get your money back for the event plus about $150 and if the other player wins the whole event you get about $65k profit. So you are looking at a profit of somewhere between $150 to $65k for a tournament you were way behind in !!! The 2 big points about this whole thing to me. Number 1 I would be ticked off if I were Gavin Smith about the prop bet (but this whole deal shows making prop bets in this event isn't smart). Number 2 no one has picked up on why I think Chen called the floor person over. I think Chen didn't know this player and wanted to make sure if he made this deal it would be etched in stone instead of Chen saying ok dude lets both go all in or almost all in and you just muck your hand without showing it and I win. For fear the guy might not tank on purepose. I think Chen called the floor in to protect himself in the deal but ended up exposing the true nature of how this event is run. Like I said before when it gets heads up and you get way behind especially to a player as good or better than you the 25% deal is a great idea.

[ericicecream]

I think deals are fine as long as everyone remaining in the tournament agree to it. This obviously wasn't done in this situation.

I think the real issue here is why the floor agreed to allow this.

[MJBuddy]

There is nothing *unethical* about about Chen's move.

If Chen held 3/4 of the chips at the table, or his ability to outplay his opponent made him 3 times more likely to win, he was simply barring luck in order to garuntee his position for the exact odds in which his equity was worth at that moment.

If you notice: This doesn't affect the equity of any of the players at all, because assuming the best player would win each round (and in a tournament bracketed structure, it's in fact, the BASIS of such structures, even though gambling scratches that up a bit), then the person of these two who was most likely to appear at the next table was in fact the one who appeared.

[doublejoker]

here is gary wises report Breaking the unspoken rules

There are few people in this game with dispositions as sweet as Bill Chen's. The uber-braniac, considered by many the smartest man in an intellectual game, got mixed up in a mini-scandal that has a lot of the pros text-messaging faster than you can say, "Bill Chen is obviously not a cheater, but he did something in a tournament the other day, with the tournament director's permission, that some felt may have compromised the tournament." Faster than that, even.


Bluff Magazine

Chen's decision baffled many of the game's top players.

Chen was one of two players left at the table at an early level in Event 21, the no-limit hold 'em shootout. Holding a 2-1 chip lead, Chen was feeling confident against an unknown opponent, but confidence only takes you so far. In order to protect himself, he negotiated a deal with the opponent in which he'd give the man 25 percent of all his winnings in the event in exchange for Chen moving on to the next round. Before the deal was consummated, he called a tournament director over to verify what he was doing.

The deal was given the go-ahead and Chen was announced the winner. Problem is, it's against tournament rules to make deals, and the pros have been sounding off about it. I talked to Chen early Tuesday and he was remarkably forthcoming about the whole thing.

"A lot of people were doing it," he said, not as an excuse, but to point out the reality of the event. "I wouldn't do it again, but it's strange that the tournament director gave me the go-ahead. I think the big deal is being made because I was open about it."

Deals like this will happen in poker regardless of the rules. The stakes are just too high for people not to seek some protection on their time invested. That's not to say everyone does it. The fact that Chen was assured the spot in the next round likely hurt the earning potential of everyone left in the tournament. After all, would you rather play Chen, a two-time bracelet winner in 2006, or a random opponent? Some players feel an obligation to maintain the status quo on that sort of thing.

Chen's not the kind of guy to create this dissent. A brilliant mathematician and published poker author, he carries with him a lightness of heart and a true openness that makes him seem essentially incapable of Machiavellian deals. Still, for one of the truly nice guys in the game, this has been a learning experience.

Heck, I guess everything that happened Monday was an experience, though.

Gary Wise howls at his own moon once in a while. You can see him talking the talk right now at www.worldseriesofpoker.com

[hammond]

doublejoker this is Kevin from the old AC days with Jim. pm me. and btw would you have paid to get first in the wsop event you came in second a few years back?

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
If you notice: This doesn't affect the equity of any of the players at all, because assuming the best player would win each round (and in a tournament bracketed structure, it's in fact, the BASIS of such structures, even though gambling scratches that up a bit), then the person of these two who was most likely to appear at the next table was in fact the one who appeared.

[/ QUOTE ]


that assumption is ridiculous.

[MJBuddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you notice: This doesn't affect the equity of any of the players at all, because assuming the best player would win each round (and in a tournament bracketed structure, it's in fact, the BASIS of such structures, even though gambling scratches that up a bit), then the person of these two who was most likely to appear at the next table was in fact the one who appeared.

[/ QUOTE ]


that assumption is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the assumption that gamblers will not take edges if they are allowed to.