Bill Chen accused of collusion?

[hammond]

Agreed the best player at the table doesn't win every hand or every table. If I'm at a table and a player put a multiple bracelet winner all-in. I'm hoping the multiple bracelet winner loses for I have a better chance beating the other player. That is the biggest stink about the floor approving Chen walk-over. He didn't have to earn it and even up 2-1 in chip...he could have lost. But deals are rampant and mostly done quietly to avoid the uproar along with other reasons.

[Rottersod]

I wonder if a lot of people here have ever played a live shootout? I have and deal making when you are HU to advance is SOP. Should we expect any different at the WSOP? Shootouts are a completely different format than the standard tourney so comparing the deal making between winning a table and advancing to the next table where the stacks will be even and "buying a bracelet" as it appears Elezra did this year against Ngyuen is meaningless. For me it seems like the latter deal was much worse and cheapened the victory than the former.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if a lot of people here have ever played a live shootout? I have and deal making when you are HU to advance is SOP. Should we expect any different at the WSOP? Shootouts are a completely different format than the standard tourney so comparing the deal making between winning a table and advancing to the next table where the stacks will be even and "buying a bracelet" as it appears Elezra did this year against Ngyuen is meaningless. For me it seems like the latter deal was much worse and cheapened the victory than the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Rottersod, I thought i was losing my mind.

One of the first live events I ever played was a shootout at LAPC 2005. I wound up headsup against Tommy Hang, a much more experienced player. I tried to offer to buy him out in a similar manner that Chen did (lol) and Tommy was just like, "Naw, I think I like my chances in the next round, too." He generously agreed to swap 5%.

And to echo another poster in this thread, if Bill Chen had said, "Dude, I'm kinda sick of poker and I need to go buy a belt today, how about I let you advance for X% of your action" (thus allowing the weaker player to advance), would anybody have noticed?

[AtlBrvs4Life]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if a lot of people here have ever played a live shootout? I have and deal making when you are HU to advance is SOP. Should we expect any different at the WSOP? Shootouts are a completely different format than the standard tourney so comparing the deal making between winning a table and advancing to the next table where the stacks will be even and "buying a bracelet" as it appears Elezra did this year against Ngyuen is meaningless. For me it seems like the latter deal was much worse and cheapened the victory than the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

The latter deal, however, does not negatively effect anyone else in the tournament.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if a lot of people here have ever played a live shootout? I have and deal making when you are HU to advance is SOP. Should we expect any different at the WSOP? Shootouts are a completely different format than the standard tourney so comparing the deal making between winning a table and advancing to the next table where the stacks will be even and "buying a bracelet" as it appears Elezra did this year against Ngyuen is meaningless. For me it seems like the latter deal was much worse and cheapened the victory than the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

The latter deal, however, does not negatively effect anyone else in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

No but as I wrote, shootouts are a much different format than freezeouts and the fact that as each table winner advances they all start with the same chips, and the blinds keep increasing neutralizes a lot of the equity. It's just a fact that HU buyouts have always been a part of shootouts. If Chen and the other player had gone off to the side and made the deal and then the other player proceeded to blind himself off and play to lose no one would have said a word.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if a lot of people here have ever played a live shootout? I have and deal making when you are HU to advance is SOP. Should we expect any different at the WSOP? Shootouts are a completely different format than the standard tourney so comparing the deal making between winning a table and advancing to the next table where the stacks will be even and "buying a bracelet" as it appears Elezra did this year against Ngyuen is meaningless. For me it seems like the latter deal was much worse and cheapened the victory than the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Rottersod, I thought i was losing my mind.

One of the first live events I ever played was a shootout at LAPC 2005. I wound up headsup against Tommy Hang, a much more experienced player. I tried to offer to buy him out in a similar manner that Chen did (lol) and Tommy was just like, "Naw, I think I like my chances in the next round, too." He generously agreed to swap 5%.

And to echo another poster in this thread, if Bill Chen had said, "Dude, I'm kinda sick of poker and I need to go buy a belt today, how about I let you advance for X% of your action" (thus allowing the weaker player to advance), would anybody have noticed?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. We played in the same tourney.

[hammond]

I think Chen is innocent except for not understanding the first rule of fight club. If you make a deal you keep it quiet. Harrah's screwed the whole thing up big time. What the heck was the floor thinking? There should be a card in every floor persons hand that they read from when asked by a player about making deals. It should state in blunt words that Harrahs does not approve of deals and that you enter them at your own risk. Most deals except for between friends would end before they start for fear the other person/s wouldn't hold up there end. I'm not taking a strangers word that if I bow out and he wins the whole thing he is going to stroll over to me and hand me $66k. Harrahs f'd up big time this floor should be reprimanded. But if the floor approved it I'm taking Chen's offer and sweating him the rest of the tournament with my "Go Chen" banner.

[Matt Savage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if a lot of people here have ever played a live shootout? I have and deal making when you are HU to advance is SOP. Should we expect any different at the WSOP? Shootouts are a completely different format than the standard tourney so comparing the deal making between winning a table and advancing to the next table where the stacks will be even and "buying a bracelet" as it appears Elezra did this year against Ngyuen is meaningless. For me it seems like the latter deal was much worse and cheapened the victory than the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Rottersod, I thought i was losing my mind.

One of the first live events I ever played was a shootout at LAPC 2005. I wound up headsup against Tommy Hang, a much more experienced player. I tried to offer to buy him out in a similar manner that Chen did (lol) and Tommy was just like, "Naw, I think I like my chances in the next round, too." He generously agreed to swap 5%.

And to echo another poster in this thread, if Bill Chen had said, "Dude, I'm kinda sick of poker and I need to go buy a belt today, how about I let you advance for X% of your action" (thus allowing the weaker player to advance), would anybody have noticed?

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, there is a long thread about this on RGP as well, and I was asked by Eric Rosenberg about this situation to which I answered the below.

First of all I know there are widely differing opinions on the Bill Chen incident so any way we answer will be criticized. Shootouts are a very different type of tournament that create new situations and rulings. I DO think that deals should be allowed in preliminary rounds and have seen them made many times in shootout tournaments. I also feel that they all tables need to be played down to one winner regardless of the deal made. At the time I was not sure if Bill and the other player actually finished out the heat but do feel that calling Bill a cheater is out of line with the situation being what it was.

If I was the tournament director I would have allowed a deal to be made with the caveat that it must be played to a winner and that we will pay the winner the posted amount.

I have even made a shootout tournament where the winner received 90% and the 2nd place player at his starting table received 10% of the advancing player and it made for a good final table.

There was a side bet between Gavin Smith and Bill in this tournament that brought this whole situation to light and Bill was seeking advice on how to settle his side bet to the BARGE group and even then had no idea he would be accused of collusion.

Matt Savage

[MicroBob]

Matt - I'm not understanding something here.

Bill and other player agree to the deal:
Bill will pay other player $X to allow him to advance to next round.
Bill pays other player $X.

Now they have to sit there and have the other player put all his chips in except for 1 (so he doesn't have to turn them over) and then fold to the next bet or something?
Seems like a bizarre formality if I'm understanding it correctly.
And seems more collusive in nature than Bill's seemingly innocent intentions. Many players you are going to have sit there and give them the technical instructions on exactly what they're supposed to be doing in order to officially lose this thing correctly.

[stevepa]

I've been thinking about this more and can't understand how anyone can disagree with this statement: Deals that change the EV of other players in the tournament (players not in the deal) should not be allowed under any circumstances. Can someone please give me a good reason to believe otherwise?

Rottersod, your arguments really don't address the issue. Why in a shootout should deals which affect other players be allowed when they clearly aren't in freezeouts?

Steve