Jamie Gold's mistake in WSOP 2006

[spintronics929]

Going into heads-up play, Gold had a commanding chip lead over Wasicka. Gold probably also knew that half of his prize money would go to Crispin Leyser, based on a prior agreement between them before the tournament. With Gold winning the tournament, allocation of the 1st and the 2nd prize money would look as follows:

Gold: 6 million
Wasicka: 6 million
Leyser: 6 million

Now, what would have happened if Gold struck a deal with Wasicka that would have given Wasicka the match? Then we would have a distribution that looks something like this.

Gold: 3 million
Wasicka: 12 million
Leyser: 3 million

But Gold could have struck a deal w/ Wasicka such that in exchange for the match, Wasicka would have needed to pay him an amount somewhere between 3 and 6 million dollars. Then the distribution looks something like this.

Gold: 6 to 9 million dollars
Wasicka: 6 to 9 million dollars
Leyser: 3 million dollars

It seems obvious to me that just going strictly by these numbers, striking a deal w/ Wasicka would have been the best move at the point. Any thoughts?

[Bonified]

That would be an option if a) your opponent was foolish enough to accept given that the very fact of the offer marks you as being completely untrustworthy and b) if you were a giant douche.

[spintronics929]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be an option if a) your opponent was foolish enough to accept given that the very fact of the offer marks you as being completely untrustworthy and b) if you were a giant douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got the impression that these kind of deals at the final table weren't too uncommon. Perhaps I'm overestimating the frequency as well as the acceptability of these occurrences.

[FyteOn]

1 - I don't think Gold thought he would ever have to pay a penny to Leyser
2 - I don't know the settlement terms but the rumors are he paid in the $3-4m range anyway
3 - Gold is a "producer" and probably figured an outright win would mean promotional riches beyond anything he would owe Leyser
4 - I'm pretty sure the agreement with Leyser was for half of anything he won which would be half of anything he won. Not sure how a settlement would get around that. If it was part of the tourny proceeds it would divided per the terms of an agreement; if it was outside the tourny then it would be a gift and Wasicka would have to pay taxes on anything over $12k he gave to Gold.

Isn't this a little late, anyway?

[Bonified]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'm overestimating the frequency as well as the acceptability of these occurrences.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's just as likely that I'm underestimating the same things. I'd be interested in other peoples' views.

[Taso]

Things like that happen all the time, and they aren't questionable ethicly speaking. They are common practice. Basically, they'd negotiate some sort of split (would be good for Jamie because Wasicka had like no chance at that point) and then they'd keep playing the tournament.

FyteOn, I agree with everything but #3. They'd keep playing, and Gold would still have won, so it wouldn't matter.

#4 is the most important. The agreement is for whatever Gold won, so the deal with Wasicka would be incorporated in this.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
Things like that happen all the time, and they aren't questionable ethicly speaking. They are common practice. Basically, they'd negotiate some sort of split (would be good for Jamie because Wasicka had like no chance at that point) and then they'd keep playing the tournament.

FyteOn, I agree with everything but #3. They'd keep playing, and Gold would still have won, so it wouldn't matter.

#4 is the most important. The agreement is for whatever Gold won, so the deal with Wasicka would be incorporated in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I can't believe I'm even reading this thread.

2. I can't believe I'm responding to it.

3. I can't believe this response is even necessary.

4. By what agreement between Gold and Leyser can you envision it being remotely ethical for Gold to negotiate a deal with Wasicka essentially to screw Leyser out of the agreed split? You are proposing that Gold bribe Wasicka to participate in scamming Leyser, no?

[Taso]

Err...

Lets go to #1 of your post. 'I can't believe I'm reading this thread" Did you actually read it? Because it doesn't seem like you did.

What I was saying, was really just repeating what Fyteon was saying, is that the deal with Leyser was that he won half of whatever Gold won. So even if Gold won it by making a deal with Wasicka, Leyser would still get half.

No where did I suggest they make a deal to scam Leyser, stop talking out of your ass. And next time, don't respond to posts. Just like, don't do it...Um, any post I mean. No one needs your condescending 1. 2. 3. crap.

Edit: In case it isn't clear, I don't take kindly to people misreading posts and then acting like they are more intelligent than others. If you thought I suggested what you thought I suggested, just write that, no need for all the [censored] infront of it.

[gortster]

[ QUOTE ]
You are proposing that Gold bribe Wasicka to participate in scamming Leyser, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone could try something like this, it'd be Gold. He didn't seem too opposed to scamming Leyser when he tried to not pay up.

[eljizzle]

Ya, the only possible way this could possibly work would be if it was a deal strictly between Wasicka and Gold with no one else knowing about it. If anyone else knew about it, it would be a "legit" deal and Leyser would be entitled to half of whatever Jamie got (assuming he got anything.) The only way to screw Leyser would be for Jamie and Paul to agree that Jamie would "throw" the match, and considering the stack sizes and hole card cameras this would have been blindingly obvious. Not to mention that I'm sure neither of them would have trusted the other to make good on the money side of things. Not only that, but if I had to guess, based on they payouts they were already guaranteed, both guys would have wanted the bracelet more than any monetary gain could they could made from such a deal. Just my opinion though...