paulp on various

[Paul Phillips]

There is too much from the last few days to respond to individually, so here are a few responses to what I noticed.

* If you don't see anything wrong with ESPN changing hands just because you don't think those hands figured in the tournament's final outcome, then there's nothing I'd want to say to change your mind. It'd be like trying to explain love to a robot.

* Several people have asked me to post in other forums. You may not realize that I've already logged way more than enough hours in my life talking about how to play this-or-that hand in these-or-those circumstances. I like talking about televised poker because I live on both sides of the camera and I enjoy analyzing concrete big-money tournament situations. I don't have much if any interest in other hand analysis or general strategy discussions, although I'll inevitably inject some strategy talk into my observations.

* In the "how good can you be" thread I said this: "I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?" I thought this obviously meant win a bracelet in any event. That's why it says "win a bracelet", not "win the main event." Read for context; I do try to choose my words carefully.

* The few people who did post numbers in that thread were all extremely exploitable. I am keen on this bet: "Daniel N. is about 2:1 himself to win a bracelet next year." Although I don't like betting against my friends, it would be awfully tough to pass up a bet this good if someone would really make it.

* It's extremely uncool to say that david williams cheated at magic. You don't know. Yes, he was DQed for a deck violation, but every bit of circumstantial evidence says that it was completely unintentional. Unless you somehow have developed a more informed opinion than the majority of people close to the subject, you should keep your mouth shut about this unless you are one of those unfortunate souls who get off on slinging mud at people for the cardinal sin of being successful.

* Crossbooking means pitting your results against someone else's. You pay them whatever they win and they pay you whatever you win. When I brilliantly crossbooked barry greenstein in a tournament and he cashed 42K and I cashed 2K, I owed him 40K. You can crossbook a cash game, a single tournament, or a series of tournaments, and often crossbooks are only for a percentage of the total difference. I like crossbooks a lot better than last-longers because they almost never impact strategy.

If anyone's burning up to know something I missed, feel free to ask.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
* Crossbooking means pitting your results against someone else's. You pay them whatever they win and they pay you whatever you win. When I brilliantly crossbooked barry greenstein in a tournament and he cashed 42K and I cashed 2K, I owed him 40K.

[/ QUOTE ]

*counts number of people who post on 2+2 who even have the means to make this sort of wager*

Kick ass! I still have some fingers left!

The variance in something like that would be huge.

~D

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
When I brilliantly crossbooked barry greenstein in a tournament and he cashed 42K and I cashed 2K, I owed him 40K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want DS to weigh in on whether these results being reversed would make Paul a murderer or not. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Interesting post Paul, I really like the teaching love to a robot line...

[Noo Yawk]

Hi Paul,

I personally have a huge problem withwhat ESPN has been doing in interweaving hands. First off, it's morally just plain wrong to change facts and turn realty into false history.

My Bigger problem is that there are players that have become well known simply because they are on TV more often and not based on any real overall success. Changing the hands they play to show good laydowns (hellmuth) or big bluffs (hellmuth vs. Juanda) is clearly discrediting Juanda and clearly making Hellmuth appear better than he is. The fact that Phil is a shameless self promoter, and lays down way too many hands was clearly evident on last nights show.
No disrespect to Phil or his past accomplishments, but the fact remains that he is not in the same league as the players that were put together in the TOC game, and should never have been portrayed as such. I'm a big believer in just letting situations, facts and accomplishments speak for themselves without embelishment.

Nice job and thank you for your honest and forthright posts.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I brilliantly crossbooked barry greenstein in a tournament and he cashed 42K and I cashed 2K, I owed him 40K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want DS to weigh in on whether these results being reversed would make Paul a murderer or not. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Interesting post Paul, I really like the teaching love to a robot line...

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, it would then mean Barry owed Paul 40K /images/graemlins/wink.gif. word of advice: Quit watching those episodes of Cold Case Files on A&E.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
No disrespect to Phil or his past accomplishments, but the fact remains that he is not in the same league as the players that were put together in the TOC game, and should never have been portrayed as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say this? I'm not a huge Phil Hellmuth fan at all but I'll admit he's at least a good tournament player and definitely WAS one of the best (though his play lately seems to suggest that may no longer be the case). Regardless, I don't understand why you state as fact that he is "clearly not in the same league" as the other players. That's a pretty bold statement to make without any kind of supporting evidence.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
No disrespect to Phil or his past accomplishments, but the fact remains that he is not in the same league as the players that were put together in the TOC game, and should never have been portrayed as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of what you think about Hellmuth, the guy has 9 bracelets, end of story. Johnny Chan and Doyle haven't won a bracelet for a while either, should they not be at that table?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
nah, it would then mean Barry owed Paul 40K /images/graemlins/wink.gif. word of advice: Quit watching those episodes of Cold Case Files on A&E.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get your joke here. Of course you clearly didn't get mine, so we're even.

[Neil Stevens]

Not only that, but aren't all 9 of Hellmuth's bracelets IN holdem? To have left him off of this event would have been a FAR greater travesty than leaving off Negreanu would have been.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I brilliantly crossbooked barry greenstein in a tournament and he cashed 42K and I cashed 2K, I owed him 40K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want DS to weigh in on whether these results being reversed would make Paul a murderer or not. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Interesting post Paul, I really like the teaching love to a robot line...

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, it would then mean Barry owed Paul 40K /images/graemlins/wink.gif. word of advice: Quit watching those episodes of Cold Case Files on A&E.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point of the joke. There was a post that said if you beat Barry in a tournament, you're taking money away from his charity.

The joke's not funny if you have to explain it though.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
* In the "how good can you be" thread I said this: "I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?" I thought this obviously meant win a bracelet in any event. That's why it says "win a bracelet", not "win the main event." Read for context; I do try to choose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Noo Yawk]

I neither like or dislike Phil. I think his play last night was very weak-tight. He played to survive, not to win. You simply cannot go up against the best players and toss away hands that have an overlay. His big folds are constantly overtouted, and in some cases simply spliced in. He has thrown away too many best hands and opened himself up to being bluffed. Read Annie Dukes post on how she got the chip lead. Bluffs and Semi-bluffs. Every player at the table would have been able to take advantage of Phils weak tight play. Phil on the other hand, had to catch big when someone bluffed. Annie created her victory by exploiting Phil. He is not the handreader he wants us to believe, just a guy who plays scared of losing.

ESPN does not do justice to these hands or the history involved in the decision making. Phil is a good tourney player, but not in the league of Doyle, Chip, Jonny, Howard, Annie,Daniel, TJ or Greg. His constant play to the camera is an act of self promotion, Something ESPN has unfortunately bought into. That doesn't increase his skill. Just his marketability.

[Noo Yawk]

Hi Nolan,

Phils bracelets have nothing to do with belonging in an elite group. When I look at that line-up, the only one with a clearly exploitable strategy was Phil. His Nine Bracelets won't help him there. Unless of course he melts them into a club and bludgeons his opponents to death. Then he might have a shot, although gold is a pretty soft metal.

[Ghazban]

This is going to sound pretty silly now that we all know who won, but Annie Duke hasn't been phenomenally successful in no-limit tournaments, particularly compared to the other people at the table. Chip Reese is also more known for his cash game play than tournament play. I don't think you can really dispute Phil's entrance into the TOC as he clearly has an impressive resume of no-limit holdem tournament performance. Yes, his play was less than spectacular on the show and, after the fact, its very easy to look at that and say "well, he shouldn't have been in there-- he's totally lost his ability to play these things" but I don't think you could really make a case for excluding him beforehand.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]


* It's extremely uncool to say that david williams cheated at magic. You don't know. Yes, he was DQed for a deck violation, but every bit of circumstantial evidence says that it was completely unintentional. Unless you somehow have developed a more informed opinion than the majority of people close to the subject, you should keep your mouth shut about this unless you are one of those unfortunate souls who get off on slinging mud at people for the cardinal sin of being successful.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, Paul, but to a point. The evidence that Dave cheated is indeed circumstantial, but it's heavy enough that it has come credibility. Forgive me if I miss some of the details...4 of the same cards in his deck were bent in such a way that the judge could cut consistently such that one of the cards would always be near the top and thus in Dave's opening hand. And it was pretty well reported that after Dave's deck was shuffled by his opponent, Dave would then cut it, which is allowed but my no means a common maneuver.

I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent. I think it's about 50/50 either way.

Anyway, anyone else hit the Champions prerelease last weekend? The set looks like a lot of fun to draft...

Will

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, Paul, but to a point. The evidence that Dave cheated is indeed circumstantial, but it's heavy enough that it has come credibility. Forgive me if I miss some of the details...

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe you should be authoring an opinion like this if you don't even care enough to confirm the details. Allegations of cheating are very, very serious among people who play cards for a lot of money. It's just not right to act like you know when you don't know. You have no idea. You can't set on a line on it. You don't know.

David was DQed at worlds because his deck contained bent accumulated knowledges. It's been a while since I was into magic so I'm not up on the intricacies of this card, but in reading about the incident it's usually observed that manipulating the deck to receive this card in his opening hand would not offer an advantage in his match.

His position was that the cards stood out because he'd borrowed used cards from someone else and placed them into an otherwise good condition deck. This is completely plausible. The magic rules are strict and the incident required him to be DQed regardless of intent. But it's a huge distance from not being careful enough about the uniformity of one's cards to intentional cheating. And you don't know nearly enough to make that jump.

In every informed comment I ever found about this, the opinion was that he did not intentionally cheat. His reputation in the magic world was impeccable. Cheating with that card didn't make sense. Even the judges who DQed him said they didn't think it was intentional.

In light of all this I think it's low for you to be out here in public saying "it's 50/50 whether the guy is a cheater." You don't know. Rather than inventing odds out of the sky about whether the man is a cheater, maybe you should remain silent unless you care enough to mount a real investigation and document your reasons for setting a line.

And let's be clear here, this doesn't mean anyone caught cheating gets the benefit of the doubt from me until the end of time. If the evidence is strong enough you are going to earn that scarlet letter. But in this instance the case that david didn't cheat is much stronger than the case that he did.

This is a corollary to "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail."

[jedi]

David Williams is playing a card game at the highest levels. He knows the rules, and if he should choose to borrow cards for his deck, he'd better be sure that those cards conform to whatever standards the game requires.

David may not be a cheater, but he got DQ'd from a tournament for cheating, intentional or not.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
David Williams is playing a card game at the highest levels. He knows the rules, and if he should choose to borrow cards for his deck, he'd better be sure that those cards conform to whatever standards the game requires.

David may not be a cheater, but he got DQ'd from a tournament for cheating, intentional or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as "unintentional cheating." There are rules violations, and then there is cheating. If a runner gets disqualified for a false start, would you call him a cheater?

[WillMagic]

(sticks foot in mouth)

Point taken. The 50-50 comment was out of line...You are right, I don't know if Dave cheated or not, and my line has no basis in any kind of analysis. And you are quite right about the borrowing of four cards from someone else.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that it seemed like you were shrugging off the possibility that he cheated. Cheating was (and is) still a major problem in tournament Magic. It is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if someone of cheated or not, and the DCI does not act upon this kind of burden of proof, as you are well aware.

And I have no malice at all towards Dave - in fact, I met him at Worlds in SF three weeks ago, and he's an extremely approachable, smart, nice guy, and a great ambassador for the many Magic players who are moving over to poker. The intention of my post was not to degrade his character, or defame him or what have you. I just felt you were kind of shrugging this allegation off, when from what I had heard and read about on the DCI website I didn't think it should be just shrugged off so easily.

I guess I'll do my research next time.

Will

[ohgeetee]

You are completely unfamiliar with the circumstances involving the situation, and really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

No one in the high end MTG circuit beleives David was cheating, that I have ever read. When David is referred to about the DQ in articles, he is used in examples of the DCI going overboard with their newfound "crackdown" on cheaters.

If you're playing blackjack and you find a creased 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, and the guy next to you points it out and the floor comes over and bars you from the casino for card marking, do you really think that would make any sense? Who would mark the 2/images/graemlins/club.gif in blackjack?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
You are completely unfamiliar with the circumstances involving the situation, and really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

No one in the high end MTG circuit beleives David was cheating, that I have ever read. When David is referred to about the DQ in articles, he is used in examples of the DCI going overboard with their newfound "crackdown" on cheaters.

If you're playing blackjack and you find a creased 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, and the guy next to you points it out and the floor comes over and bars you from the casino for card marking, do you really think that would make any sense? Who would mark the 2/images/graemlins/club.gif in blackjack?

[/ QUOTE ]


Okay, here's what I understand about the situation:

David Williams is playing in a high level $:TG game/tournament.

He borrows some cards from someone else.

These cards are creased or bent in such a way that it is possible to know exactly where these cards are at all times.

He did not bend themselves and thus no one is accusing him of "actively cheating."

This is a high level event and he should know the rules with regards to cards and how bent they're supposed to be.

David gets kicked out for these cards. He isn't asked to replace them, he's DQ'd.

Basically, the question is: Did he get kicked out for cheating or not? If not, what would you call it?

It's like a race car driver getting DQ'd for some idiot equipment manager putting the wrong type of something or other on his car. The driver didn't do it, but should have known about it.

Same thing with the golfer who had too many clubs in his bag because the caddy forgot.

Did he "cheat", probably not. But he got DQ'd for cheating.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

David may not be a cheater, but he got DQ'd from a tournament for cheating, intentional or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as "unintentional cheating." There are rules violations, and then there is cheating. If a runner gets disqualified for a false start, would you call him a cheater?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I see the point now. But where does one draw the line between violating the rules and cheating?

He's trying to gain an edge on the field by leaving before the gun goes off. OR He's mistakenly left the blocks before the gun goes off. Either way, the result is the same, DQ.

[Gainsay]

Although I wasn't personally present at the Worlds where Dave was DQ'ed, I have played a lot of professional magic so I'm probably more aware of what happened then a lot of people posting.

Clearing a few things up : Dave was both DQ'ed and banned for six months. People who are caught red-handed in major cheating situations usually receive a ban of 1 to 3 years.

It's very unlikely that Dave was intentionally cheating, because the thing he was accused of doing was of no advantage to him.

In high level magic your opponent is required to shuffle your deck, at which point he gives it back to you and you may cut it. From my experience the overwhelming majority of people will cut their deck. There is nothing unusual about Dave cutting his deck in this situation.

Currently at large tournaments, I do not think most players suspect Dave may be trying to cheat them. I certainly would not. There are many other people who I would be wary of them trying to cheat me.

I think what Paul is saying is basically correct. People have blown this way out of proportion. For peopl who know some of the magic "pros", there's a world of difference between Dave and Ryan Fuller/Mike Long/Trey Van Cleave.

[WillMagic]

Gainsay,

Thanks for your insight into this matter. Your points are well-taken.

I'm curious...how are you and the CMU crew doing right now?

Will

[TheJackal]

You wrote in one of your live journal forums that Phil Ivey is the best you have played against and even though he gives it away too early sometimes. You have played against a lot of the top players in the world, what makes him any different?

[Daliman]

The best way I can corollate David William's DQ is this; he is responsible for his own gamepieces. If he chooses to play with someone else's,(not sure why you would, but I guess it's common in MTG), he bears the responsibility of their legality. If they are deemed illegal, he is DQ'd, and bears responsibility.

I used to bowl in tournaments. One of my friends cashed pretty high in a tournament we went to, and when they weighed his ball, it was .2 ounces side-weighted too much( side weight affects hook, roll, etc). Now, he didn't drill his own ball,(Most non-pros don't and few pros do.), but he was responsible for his own equipment, and was DQ'd. Now, he actully COULD have sued the driller of the ball, but he didn't, and that's another story altogether..

[West]

I'm curious, i don't think you ever stated, and if I'm not mistaken, I don't think anyone actually asked, what your own opinions might be on those possible proposition bets you suggested. Would you mind playing oddsmaker and answering your own questions for us?

* dan harrington made the final table of the two largest fields in big buyin tournament history, on top of having won the wsop a decade prior. What are his chances of making the final table in 2005, assuming a field of 5000? Say final 10 to simplify the math. The exactly average player's chances are 1/500. What are dan's?

* I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?

* How much positive equity does the very best player have in whichever currently existing $5K+ tournament you believe has the weakest field? Ignore juice. The exactly average player gets paid back his $X buyin on average. How good is the best? 3X? 5X? 10X? 20X? More?

* Two tournament players each play 100 large field tournaments. In the end, player A has averaged a profit of 0.5 buyins/tournament and player B has averaged 1.5 buyins/tournament. With what percentage confidence can you say that player B was actually playing with higher EV than player A? Alternately: what line would you place on player B winning more than A over the next 100 tournaments as well? What if B had averaged 3 buyins per tournament?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
* I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say 3.

Negraneu, Lederer, and Erik Seidel, if they each play a mojority of events is fine by me.

[Easy E]

which is the point

[Easy E]

I'll ride on your coattails instead.

Care to humor us, Paul?

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]


* If you don't see anything wrong with ESPN changing hands just because you don't think those hands figured in the tournament's final outcome, then there's nothing I'd want to say to change your mind. It'd be like trying to explain love to a robot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I share your vehamence on the topic, but I can say that it's important.

[ QUOTE ]

* In the "how good can you be" thread I said this: "I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?" I thought this obviously meant win a bracelet in any event. That's why it says "win a bracelet", not "win the main event." Read for context; I do try to choose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read into it the context of the first question that you asked, which evidently wasn't linked

<font color="blue">* dan harrington made the final table of the two largest fields in big buyin tournament history, on top of having won the wsop a decade prior. What are his chances of making the final table in 2005, assuming a field of 5000? Say final 10 to simplify the math. The exactly average player's chances are 1/500. What are dan's?

* I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet? </font>


[ QUOTE ]
* The few people who did post numbers in that thread were all extremely exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it when you talk dirty to me, big boy.


<font color="blue"> I am keen on this bet: "Daniel N. is about 2:1 himself to win a bracelet next year." Although I don't like betting against my friends, it would be awfully tough to pass up a bet this good if someone would really make it.</font>
I'D even take this bet! THAT should tell you something!


[ QUOTE ]
If anyone's burning up to know something I missed, feel free to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]
What did you EVER see in those dreadlocks???

[Daliman]

I think it would.

Do you really think that those three will go 2 years without a bracelet more often than they won't?

If they all played a relatively full slate of WSOP events, i'd take this bet in a heartbeat, although I'd have to get back to you about how much, lol.

[fnurt]

Of course he bears responsibility. Of course he should be disqualified. But it doesn't make him morally equivalent to someone who intentionally breaks the rules, and it doesn't merit the label of cheating.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I brilliantly crossbooked barry greenstein in a tournament and he cashed 42K and I cashed 2K, I owed him 40K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want DS to weigh in on whether these results being reversed would make Paul a murderer or not. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Interesting post Paul, I really like the teaching love to a robot line...

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, it would then mean Barry owed Paul 40K /images/graemlins/wink.gif. word of advice: Quit watching those episodes of Cold Case Files on A&amp;E.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point of the joke. There was a post that said if you beat Barry in a tournament, you're taking money away from his charity.

The joke's not funny if you have to explain it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

i must agree. even without the explaination it's still not funny.

[Joseph Busti]

Mike long, HAHAHA. I remember that guy.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say 3.

Negraneu, Lederer, and Erik Seidel, if they each play a mojority of events is fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done...how much?

FWIW, I think the better answer is like 7 or 8 and this is only because there are a handful of tourneys w/ fewer than 100 entrants (lowball, stud hilo, etc...) that I wouldn't expect to have huge field increases (although, who knows).

An interesting bet would be to limit the bet to hold'em, stud, omaha and mixed events...how many do you think it would take then? I think something like 12-15.

two words for you: field size.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't see anything wrong with ESPN changing hands just because you don't think those hands figured in the tournament's final outcome, then there's nothing I'd want to say to change your mind. It'd be like trying to explain love to a robot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Has ESPN said anything on this? Has anyone complained about it directly to them?

-McGee

[sprmario]

Regarding Dave Williams DQ: Here is the official article by wizards of the coast regarding his disqualification in Toronto. I was at this event btw in Toronto in 2001 and it was quite the stunner. While the acumulated knowledges might not have been an advantage in this particular match... they are exactly the kind of card that would provide a big advantage if they could be cut to consistently over the course of a tournament. I knew Dave when he played and he was always a nice kid who was not thought of as a cheater. Most cheaters in Magic were and are well known and they barely try and hide it. I just wanted to give an accurate account of what happened.

============================================

After game 4 of the Quarterfinal Match between Dave Williams and Tom Van de Logt, the judging staff examined Williams's deck following suspicious draws, and decided to disqualify Williams without prize. Head Judge Mike Donais explained, "Dave Williams had three copies of Accumulated Knowledge that were bent more than the rest of the cards in his deck. He cut his deck after his opponent shuffled in games one, three and four. Each game that he cut his own deck before drawing, Accumulated Knowledge was the top card of his library. The one game where he did not choose to cut his deck, Accumulated Knowledge was close to the top of his library. The Accumulated Knowledges were visible from the side of the deck, and his deck was always sideways when he cut. After the match, we were able to cut consistently to the Accumulated Knowledges. As a result, he was disqualified without prize for manipulating his draws."

Williams admitted that the Accumulated Knowledges were marked, but claims that it was unintentional. He explained that they were old and played, and that he had been using them for a long time. David suggested that he had no advantage to gain by drawing the Knowledges in his opening hand against Van de Logt's aggressive deck.

Jeff Donais commented on the situation, noting that "David has always been a great ambassador for the game and today's events should not detract from that. This penalty was unfortunate but fair and necessary. The investigation was thorough and comprehensive. The DCI Penalty Committee will continue to analyze the situation to determine whether further action is appropriate."

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Has ESPN said anything on this? Has anyone complained about it directly to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shortly after it first came up we got I think two non-answers on rgp but they never attempted to address the specific hands.

Here's the first one (http://tinyurl.com/6lk5o) and here's the second (http://tinyurl.com/54f7d).

In my one real-life conversation the guy dismissed me as a "conspiracy theorist" and made no effort to answer the unanswered questions. Their claim that they have "never intentionally changed" a hand is still consistent with a) asking players what they held when they didn't know and presenting the answers as fact and b) making up hands if the hole card cameras sometimes didn't catch the cards, since there's no data to "change".

[Aces McGee]

Thanks, Paul.

I figured someone had at least tried to check with them, but hadn't seen anything.

-McGee

[Daliman]

Good digging for this. Sounds like cheating to me. Although, from the little I know about MTG, this is considered more of an angle shot than cheating in their circles.

[AlexM]

Obviously you know nothing about MTG.

[SossMan]

Do you really think that those three will go 2 years without a bracelet more often than they won't?


danny n won a bracelet this year

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that those three will go 2 years without a bracelet more often than they won't?


danny n won a bracelet this year

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a non-sequitur prize around here?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that those three will go 2 years without a bracelet more often than they won't?


danny n won a bracelet this year

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a non-sequitur prize around here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Purple monkey dishwasher.
http://images5.theimagehosting.com/Dali.jpg

[Hofzinser]

Even altering the chronology seems highly suspect to me.

If they're going to manipulate and twist the facts for the sake of telling a good story then why not just go the whole hog and hire actors and write a script for them?

If you're covering a sports event you have a duty to report the facts as they happened, not twist them to suit your desire for a story.

I don't see any difference between doing this and, say, showing a football game but then editing it first so that it looks like the winning field goal comes in the last second of the match when it actually came with 4 minutes to go.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say 3.

Negraneu, Lederer, and Erik Seidel, if they each play a mojority of events is fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take that bet. How much?

I'll also be happy to add a clause where they collectively have to play a certain number of events, else the bet is void.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say 3.

Negraneu, Lederer, and Erik Seidel, if they each play a mojority of events is fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take that bet. How much?

I'll also be happy to add a clause where they collectively have to play a certain number of events, else the bet is void.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gonna be awile before I'll know how much I could bet here, but I'm thinking I'd have to include the caveat that losing pays one unit, but if my guys win more than one in the same year, i get that multiple. I'd have to go over the ramifications of that specifically, but I'm thinking that's the proper way( game theory?)

[Tosh]

Don't you need some idea of the field sizes to even consider the bet?

[Daliman]

I doubt it. Unless they're all 2k people plus

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you need some idea of the field sizes to even consider the bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your estimations of the field sizes are incorporated into your assessment of a good line for the bet.

(Or they're not, which is that much better for the guy on the other end of the wager...)

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you need some idea of the field sizes to even consider the bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your estimations of the field sizes are incorporated into your assessment of a good line for the bet.

(Or they're not, which is that much better for the guy on the other end of the wager...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know this, but I don't think the rest of the WSOP events are going to have the exponential explosion we had this year in the main event. We had more in the preliminary events this year than ever, to be sure, but I just don't see a ton more than this year next year.

[Tosh]

I wouldn't be surprised with a number of 2k plus fields outside the main event; unless they have a cap.

[Daliman]

Care to bet on THAT!?! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know this, but I don't think the rest of the WSOP events are going to have the exponential explosion we had this year in the main event.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then if your estimate is better than the other guy you can set a better line. Nobody has to know the answers to these questions: they only have to be willing to bet. Point being that the suggestion that you have to have some idea of the field sizes to propose a line is incorrect. You don't have to know the odds of a nuke wiping out vegas and ending the wsop either. You only have to guess at it better than the other guy.

[Tosh]

Heh, I'm good thanks.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Heh, I'm good thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nyaah, Nyaah, Made ya blink....

[Tosh]

Meh, I don't get it. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know this, but I don't think the rest of the WSOP events are going to have the exponential explosion we had this year in the main event.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then if your estimate is better than the other guy you can set a better line. Nobody has to know the answers to these questions: they only have to be willing to bet. Point being that the suggestion that you have to have some idea of the field sizes to propose a line is incorrect. You don't have to know the odds of a nuke wiping out vegas and ending the wsop either. You only have to guess at it better than the other guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is a bit of a corollary to the theory on how fast 2 friends need to run to have one get away from the bear chasing them...

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
Gonna be awile before I'll know how much I could bet here, but I'm thinking I'd have to include the caveat that losing pays one unit, but if my guys win more than one in the same year, i get that multiple. I'd have to go over the ramifications of that specifically, but I'm thinking that's the proper way( game theory?)

[/ QUOTE ]
Game theory!?! Ha ha ha. I hope there is nothing flammable around you while you try to figure out the "ramifications" of your sweet-ass wager.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
* In the "how good can you be" thread I said this: "I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?" I thought this obviously meant win a bracelet in any event. That's why it says "win a bracelet", not "win the main event." Read for context; I do try to choose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about that Paul. I was one of (or perhaps the only one - no time to check now) who make this mistake. From reading RGP, your live journal and your posts here I agree you chose words carefully, but I just wasn't sure how many events (and especially how many special events) are on tap for next year so I just "made up my own question that was sort of related". Was this an innocent mistake or should I go work for ESPN? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

~ Rick

[JasonDB]

I would take my chances on Negreanu, Lederer, Ivey, Juanda, and Nguyen.

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
* In the "how good can you be" thread I said this: "I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?" I thought this obviously meant win a bracelet in any event. That's why it says "win a bracelet", not "win the main event." Read for context; I do try to choose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me the top 100 from this year's employee's event and the top 100 from this year's women's event and I'll take my chances.

So, Paul, how many do you think it would take?

[Easy E]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike long, HAHAHA. I remember that guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of people who have cheated in MTG...

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* In the "how good can you be" thread I said this: "I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?" I thought this obviously meant win a bracelet in any event. That's why it says "win a bracelet", not "win the main event." Read for context; I do try to choose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me the top 100 from this year's employee's event and the top 100 from this year's women's event and I'll take my chances.

So, Paul, how many do you think it would take?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take that bet. (...going to confirm that these events don't award bracelets to the winners...)

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Nolan,

Phils bracelets have nothing to do with belonging in an elite group. When I look at that line-up, the only one with a clearly exploitable strategy was Phil. His Nine Bracelets won't help him there. Unless of course he melts them into a club and bludgeons his opponents to death. Then he might have a shot, although gold is a pretty soft metal.

[/ QUOTE ]

He got second place! And if he got the cards Annie got in the heads up match and vice versa, then he would've gotten first! Jeez......what more do you want from him?

If anyone didn't 'belong' there, it was Greg. I don't say that to slander him, but I doubt hes truly in their class. He was obviously just there due to his WSOP win and being well known due to that.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mike long, HAHAHA. I remember that guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of people who have cheated in MTG...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yeah ... that was why his name was mentioned in the first place.

[Noo Yawk]

Hi JW,

I'll adress your point about Greg first. Greg got there because that seat was reserved for whoever won the WSOP. So to say he does not belong in a group with legends like Doyle, Chip or Johnny is obvious as his career is just begining. To say he has not yet proven that he can play with some of the more recent elite like Howard, annie or Daniel is also fair, although I do believe that if he were to play with them for a few years he would more than gain their respect. I believe that he has proven he can exploit and play with the Phil Helmuths and Mike Matusow's of the world. One would only have to compare Greg's post's on this forum to Phil's book to quickly realize that Greg understands poker better than Phil does. ESPN did not do justice to Greg as we never saw how he got his large chip stack. Instead they opted to show Phil whining and agonizing.

Which leads to your next point. Phil finnishing 2nd has nothing to do with his skill level. Annie stated several times how she beat Phil. Bluffs and semi-bluffs that ESPN never showed. Annie won because she knew that she could not outplay Howard, Doyle, Chip , etc after the flop. So she opted to get her money in on coin flips so she could not be outplayed. This takes away some very important tools from an experts strategy. Smart girl. She gave herself every chance to win, and it paid off. Phil on the other hand was laying down AQ to a raise by Jonny Chan. A reasonable laydown if you have a table full of bad players and you want to wait for a better spot. At that table, who are you waiting for? Johnny's range of hands to raise here are well beyond A's, K's, Q's and AK. You can not laydown here. Even more important, you cannot announce to a table full of great players the specific hand you layed down! It would make sense if he wanted them to play at him, but he didn't. Instead he opened himself up to being bluffed while he waited to catch that monster. Horrible. Howard took the opportunity to tell Phil how bad he played as it was obvious this would get into Phil's head even more.

The point being, that ESPN has done no justice to what truly makes a great player by showing fake footage of supposedly great laydowns. Phil obviously makes too many bad laydowns as he fears losing more than he wants to win. You think he shows up late to the WSOP for attention? I'll bet he shows up late because his nightmare is to be the first one busted out of the tournament.