|
|
#11
06-23-2007, 03:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bill Chen accused of collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
But to claim the Bill Chen did ANYTHING unacceptable or unethical is simply wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I'm with you on the unacceptable....if the floor approved it then it was acceptable. Just because something is acceptable, though, does not make it ethical. It was unethical for Bill Chen to ask for this. I am amazed that the floor said yes. I would imagine Chen fully expected the answer to be no, and was shocked when it was yes. At that point in time, it would have been right for Chen to say that he has reconsidered his request and withdrawl it. Imagine if this were to be exploited by the rich (professionals and non-professionals alike) at the main event. As soon as day 1 begins they all offer 2 or 3 buy-ins for the other players chips. To the rich, it's like the ME is a rebuy and they take a quick early advantage. To the players that take the offer it's +EV to take a payday of any sort. To the players wihtout the luck of having one of the richies at your table...well by the time you sit with them they have a huge chip advantage and shove the [censored] out of you. I hope there's more to this story that we're not hearing. If not, I hope the poker world goes out of their way to express their extreme disappointment with Bill Chen. I would also hope that Harrah's fires whoever the hell the floor person was that approved this. 
|
|
#14
06-23-2007, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bill Chen accused of collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
Hold on, what's wrong with what Chen did and why should it be against the rules? [/ QUOTE ] I agree that Chen did nothing wrong because the floorperson said it was OK. But it sets a bad precedent. Is it much different from paying someone to dump chips to you? Isn't that the definition of collusion? Or are you saying this is a different situation because it was a shootout?
|
|
#15
06-23-2007, 05:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bill Chen accused of collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hold on, what's wrong with what Chen did and why should it be against the rules? [/ QUOTE ] I agree that Chen did nothing wrong because the floorperson said it was OK. But it sets a bad precedent. Is it much different from paying someone to dump chips to you? Isn't that the definition of collusion? Or are you saying this is a different situation because it was a shootout? [/ QUOTE ] I think it's different because it's headsup, in a shootout, and I don't think it affects the equity of anyone else in the tournament.
|
|
#16
06-23-2007, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bill Chen accused of collusion?
In regard to equity, what do you think about the argument Gary Wise puts forth on his ESPN blog:
"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?" http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...amp;id=2910103
|
|
#17
06-23-2007, 05:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bill Chen accused of collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
In regard to equity, what do you think about the argument Gary Wise puts forth on his ESPN blog: "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?" http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...amp;id=2910103 [/ QUOTE ] But it's not a random opponent, it's one who made it to headsup in a single table, and is probably not as good as chen to be sure, but also probably not THAT much worse...I dunno.
|
|
#18
06-23-2007, 05:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bill Chen accused of collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In regard to equity, what do you think about the argument Gary Wise puts forth on his ESPN blog: "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?" http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...amp;id=2910103 [/ QUOTE ] But it's not a random opponent, it's one who made it to headsup in a single table, and is probably not as good as chen to be sure, but also probably not THAT much worse...I dunno. [/ QUOTE ] Come on, any random donk can make it HU in a SNG, especially when you consider there were probably at least 6 fools at the table to begin with! The fact that the guy was willing to give up for only 25% should be enough to show that he's an idiot, and obviously it hurts the rest of the players at Chen's next table. The fact that you don't see this is wrong is just... obscene
|
|
#19
06-23-2007, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bill Chen accused of collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you don't see this is wrong is just... obscene [/ QUOTE ] Deal-making is allowed in WSOP tournies as far as I know. Although, after the headsup event had already begun, they announced that "any deals would result in disqualification," and it was the first i had heard of such a thing. I thought it was an absurd rule to tack on after the event had already frickin begun, given the severity and ambiguity. When I asked Jack Effel about this, he essentially told me he prefer it if players keep any deals they make private and away from the table. If you think that's a better approach than allowing people to openly negotiate to advance, well, "that's just...obscene." (I know you didn't say that). No self-respecting poker player oughta give up his shot at a WSOP win for 25% of Bill Chen's action, and I also think it's a little pathetic that Bill Chen didn't just play for it himself, but I do think it should be allowed. (Again, I'm not totally passionate about my side of this debate, I see why people are agitated, but for the time being, I do think this is the sort of negotiation that should be allowed in a shootout tournament.)
|
|
#20
06-23-2007, 06:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bill Chen accused of collusion?
During one of my hu matches, one of Bill's friends (Matt Hawrilenko) was at the next table and we got to talking about the situation. Apparently Bill had the tournament director over there and made 100% sure it was alright before doing anything. So he clearly did nothing wrong. That said, I don't really think it's something that should be allowed as it clearly affects the EV of the other players playing at the next table. Normally deals involve all remaining players, and imo those are the only ones that should be allowed. Deals that affect 3rd parties EVs seem like they should never be allowed. Side note: Supposedly Chen's deal is also the reason why deals were disallowed in the HU event.
Steve P.S. To clarify slightly: I don't have any problems with trading %s when hu in a shootout or in the hu event, as long as the match is still played out. It's the choosing a person to advance to the next round part that seems somewhat wrong to me.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
