WPT Bans Deal Making

[eMarkM]

According to Paul Phillips (http://www.recpoker.com/article.php?gID=1&ID=236131) (who made a deal with Judah in a WPT event that was reported in SI). I have to say I agree with all his points. Understandable from a certain TV audience POV, but it's going to have some unintended side effects. What do 2+2ers think?

PS: normally I'd post the Google version of the thread instead of recpoker, but it hasn't appeared there yet.

[slamdunkpro]

I played at the WPT event at the Borgata this weekend and this was a fairly hot topic.
The WPT wants to “drive the competition” so that the events are “true” but….

First, and I think foremost is the WPT doesn’t understand that it’s OUR money in the prize pool. Kick some $$ in or leave it be.

Second, if the WPT wants everything “upfront” then stop seeding the room. At the Borg, everyone got a random table/seat EXCEPT the WPT “Stars”. They were deliberately spread out so they didn’t knock heads too soon.

Third, I don’t think any player should be allowed to own another piece of a player in the same tourney. Also, the WPT should not be allowed to sponsor players in their own tournaments.

If the WPT wants a true “level playing field” then fine – no deals, no seeding, no sponsorships. If they want the “Phil, Phil, Howard, Jenifer, and Annie show**” then put up all the prize money and just play the final table.

** these names were selected at random

[HDPM]

He makes some decent points, but the move to ban deals is a necessary first step if people really do want tournament poker to be respected. It may not really work given the nature of it and the lack of a real enforcement mechanism. But eventually there will be an enforcement mechanism. If poker players really want added money in tourns and really want to be treated like other sports (I don't care about this at all BTW), deals must be banned. ANd players caught violating the rules need harsh consequences, like a lifetime ban from the WPT or an enforceable suspension from major tournaments or something.


The point about the players paying all the prize fund is a good and legitimate point. However, it does not mean the WPT shouldn't or can't try to ban the practice. The WPT is trying something new and is bringing publicity to the game. This added publicity draws players into the field. And this factor will increase. This new money is dead money a lot of the time. As the publicity increases, players who are not familiar with or who are uncomfortable with deals will enter. Thus, the WPT has every right to ban the practice. The players who want to make deals have every right not to play. I can understand why they think it is wrong to ban deals. That's why they should not be forced to play.

I don't see how this will really backfire. If some players don't enter, nobody will really care. If anything, they would rather see the next Chris Moneymaker win instead of some borderline hustler type dealmaker. I mean, who is going to pass on the WPT events for this reason? Only guys you don't care about at all. Now, if deals get made anyway secretly, the WPT might not care. That is, if it is truly a secret. If it gets out they will have to ban players. At that point it might look like a cheating scandal. But I think everything can be handled in a way to avoid this.

I think the policy is mostly upside for the WPT with very little downside. It might even affect what other big tournaments do.

Disclaimer: As I said above, I don't care much about tournament poker. I do care about poker surviving. To the extent tournament poker contributes to the overall health of the game, I think the no deals policy is good. Because I think the future health of poker has little to do with the interests of a few tournament specialists.

[Glenn]

". At the Borg, everyone got a random table/seat EXCEPT the WPT “Stars”. They were deliberately spread out so they didn’t knock heads too soon."

They really did that? If that's true it's really shady... If I were in the event and found out they did that I'd want out and want my money back.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I just thought I would point out that I called for an end to all deal making in tournaments a couple of years ago via a column in Poker Digest. For those interested it also appears in my book Poker Essays, Volume III and is called "Keeping Poker Honest."

Best wishes,
Mason

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
They really did that? If that's true it's really shady... If I were in the event and found out they did that I'd want out and want my money back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they really did that - it's really not too different than seeding in tennis although I still don't like it. Once TV gets involved its "Jordan Rules" for the stars. Plus some of the advantage gets broken down as tables get broken up and combined.

I didn't stay all night on Sunday to see who made the final 6 or for the final table on Monday but I know the producers were taking gas as their stars were getting busted out by the locals on Sunday.

[slamdunkpro]

If they want tournament poker to be truly honest then:

1. Ban all deals

2. Eliminate all the "Jordan Rules" ie; seeding, sponsorship by the tournament itself.

3. Ban players selling off themselves to other players

4. Stop the "poker teams"

[zuluking]

I won't play in a tournament with seeding. The next one I'm thinking about playing in is the Open in Tunica, Mississippi in January. If they seed it, I'll head back home with my 10g's in my pocket.

[slamdunkpro]

If it's a WPT event - it's seeded

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's a WPT event - it's seeded

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the most corrupt thing imagineable, and if you are making that allegation, you should back it up. A practice like that threatens the existence of the WPT.

Other than that, Paul Phillips makes a much more convincing argument for allowing deals (i.e. it IS our money and making deals are a strategic element in tournaments) than Mason et. al. makes for banning deals. There is nothing about deal-making that threatens poker's respectability but deals made underground DO just that, which is Phillips' point.

If the WPT wants to ban deals they should A) Impose a more fair and even payout structure on the casinos that sponsor the events and B) Find some sponsorship money to make the WPT more like a sport.

Then they can seed players and do all kinds of regulatory things. As of now, the whole business of the WPT is spiraling out of control into a very dark place.

shaniac

[shaniac]

I highly doubt WPT events are seeded. If I am not mistaken, `Foxwoods, for example, uses a computer to randomly select your seat in its tournaments....unless it is being alleged that, as per WPT policy, a program is built into the computer to locate "name" pros and spread them out accordingly so they won't make trouble for each other early on.

If you read Erik Seidel's post on RGP, he says he landed at the same starting table at the Borgata as many other top pros. He also believes seedings tournaments is fine. I tend to agree as long as seeding is openly disclosed. If it's not, it remains a corrupt and ridiculous practice. And since it's not openly disclosed, I'm choosing to believe that the allegations of seeding is some fanciful conspiratorial thinking.

shaniac

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
and if you are making that allegation, you should back it up

[/ QUOTE ]

OK – It was 9:30 on Saturday morning, I had just completed my registration for the Borgata open and was sitting at a table across the aisle from the resistration table watching to see who came in.

There were three tables for registration; the first one where you picked up your entry paperwork including table and seat; the second where they verified your ID; and the cashier. But…. There was another table that was not staffed by the casino personnel, but by people with WPT badges. While I was sitting there 2 “name pros” went not to the “regular” registration table but to the WPT one. There the WPT lady had a table chart with certain seats marked off. In a very clear voice she told one and then the other pro “OK I’m going to put you at table X seat Y and you at table Z Seat A. She then marked them off on the seating chart handed one of them their entry fee and sent then to the second table for verification.

To me that’s a pretty clear case of seeding.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read Erik Seidel's post on RGP, he says he landed at the same starting table at the Borgata as many other top pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure which table Erik started at on Saturday, but I know there were no "pro heavy" tables. I personally only saw 4 pros get "seeded" so I don't know how many they did.

This was my first WPT major and quite frankly I would have been surprised if they DIDN'T seed the "pros".

As for the Foxwood event - I'm willing to bet that the top Pros "bypass" the computer and are hand seated again.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Other than that, Paul Phillips makes a much more convincing argument for allowing deals (i.e. it IS our money and making deals are a strategic element in tournaments) than Mason et. al. makes for banning deals. There is nothing about deal-making that threatens poker's respectability but deals made underground DO just that, which is Phillips' point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a very naive statement. Dealmaking has the potential to change the way hands should be played. A simple example is if several people are left and one of these does not want to make a deal, the others are encouraged to soft play each other until the no-dealer is knocked out.

I don't know who Paul Phillips is or what he looks like for that matter (even though he has been very nasty towards me on RGP at times), but it is attitudes like his that damage poker. If deal making is okay, then what's wrong with taking pieces of each other since all that is a deal made before the tournament begins or at some point after a tournament has begun. And this type of action definitely gives unfair advantage (because it warps the probability of poker distributions) to players who trade moderately large pieces (see the chapter in POKER ESSAYS. VOLUME III that I mention in another post in this thread).

But what's most important is it will give the preception of dishonesty to the tournament. In my opinion, the WPT is absolutely correct in trying to address this matter.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Timer]

This whole thing simply reeks. What is it the WPT's business anyway? The players put up 5K and play for a few days, and the WPT comes in at the end to film the final six and then gets to lay down all sorts of rules just so the players have the privilege of being on television?

For what? What's in it for the players? Who is Steve Lipscomb to dictate policy? It's none of his goddamn business.

From my point of view the players are bending over backwards to do everything the televions crew wants (especially by revealing their hole cards) and they get absolutely nothing in return.

Is a little face time on TV supposed to be our reward? You can take your "face time" and shove it as far as I'm concerned. I don't need or want the publicity.

The WPT is desperate to make stars of certain people. Hence the endless magazine articles and television programs about Annie Duke and Jennifer Harman et al. They're are desperate to make a game into a sport. They've already got the ratings and now they want more.

Speaking of Harman and Duke. The WPT created another phony event to give these two some more face time. After the Bicycle Club tournament they "staged" another final 6 event with six invited women. They practically had to pay people to sit in the audience. Maybe you should have put a dress on Kato Kalen and invited him as well.

The players have all the power, but as usual they won't use it. Two players at the finals don't want to gamble for 300K, but once Lipscomb gets wind of it he says no more.

It's none of your business, Steve, nor is it your money. Throw in 200K added money and maybe, just maybe we might acquiesce, but I doubt it.

Poker players work for years to aquire the bankroll or backing to enter a major tournament, and then they get to have some dickweed tell them what to do with their money.

Oh by the way, Steve, are you going to bar Men the Master from playing in anymore tournaments? He puts at least 12 people into every event. This is something tournament directors have been turning a blind eye to for years now, but I don't suppose that's something that affects your film production now does it? What a hypocrite.

I've played in ten major tournaments and never have got one sniff. (Not complaining, just stating the facts.) I didn't get invited to the invitational event either, (why not?) and I could have really used the money. I guess it was more important to have that lying, murderer loving Kato Kalen's face on TV.

By the way, I'm curious about something. How much are you paying the dealers who appear on television?

I tell you what, I'll make a "deal" with you, Steve. You put up my 5K, and I'll do any damn thing you want. Otherwise, but out.

[shaniac]

Mason,

Paul Phillips is an accomplished (and rather articulate) tournament player. He posts frequently on RGP and there is plenty of information on him if you do a search. He was banned from Binions' WSOP for some quotes in a Vegas paper that expressed a distate for Binions' 3% rake in the WSOP.

Most recently, he won the Borgata's $500 NLHE event and prior to that he came in second in the Bike's 5K WPT event. There was some mention of a deal he made headsup with Mel Judah (the eventual winner of the event) in a Sports Illustrated article about the WPT and it is that article that sparked the current controversy and the WPT's ban on deals. So, it behooves you to know who Paul Phillips is and now you do.

As for the real issue at hand: Mason, the point is that whether or not there is an official ban on dealmaking in the WPT, there is no way to effectively enforce it. Therein lies the real danger to poker: deals made that are not in the open.

IMO, there is nothing shady or corrupt about a headsup or three-way deal in a tournament that serves to reduce variance and more properly compensate the players who have made it that far. There is, on the other hand, vast room for corruption if the dealmakers are forced to hide their arrangement. If you've outlasted hundreds of players to make it to the final two roughly even in chips, there are very good reasons to make a deal that redistributes the prize payout. This is a well-known aspect of tournament strategy, and it is addressed fairly thoroughly in Sklansky TPFAP.

[ QUOTE ]
. A simple example is if several people are left and one of these does not want to make a deal, the others are encouraged to soft play each other until the no-dealer is knocked out.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is soft-playing going to increase the chance of the deal-breaker getting knocked out? I would love to be the odd-man-out in this situation, while I play my A-game and watch the others try to finagle a way to eliminate me to make a deal. Contrary to what you suggest, I feel the deal-breaker has a real edge in this scenario. That's why Daniel Negreanu has a very open "no-deal" policy: he feels that anyone who is playing "not to lose" while he fights to win is at a significant disadvantage and he is correct.

The real issue is that deals will continue whether or not the WPT has a "no-deals" policy just as people will continue to use illegal drugs, despite our government's war on drugs. Both policies serve to drive the practices they intend to prohibit into a secret place where they are unenforceable and potentially very damaging to all involved.

As Phillips pointed out, the final 6 players (or any combination thereof) will have nearly 24 hours to work out a deal in private effectively making the WPT's policy a joke. On the other hand, if dealmaking was explained to the WPT audience for what it is--an organic part of poker tournaments--it could lend to the excitement and sense of reality the WPT is trying to acheive. A segment on deal-making could be broadcast during the show and the viewing audience could derive the extra thrill of trying to figure out who made the good deal and who got screwed.

shaniac

[shaniac]

from Erik Seidel's post on RGP:

[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea of seeding players, but can assure you that that
didn't happen at Borgata. I ended up at a table with Howard L., Toto,
& John Hennigan. TJ had a table that was filled with pros. For sure
this didn't happen. What did happen is that when we signed up they had
a pile of papers that had seat assignments on them. They were random.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, should we take Erik's word for it or assume you scoped out each table and can give an accurate breakdown of how "pro-heavy" each one was.

In a tournament with about 25 tables to start and about 100 pros I don't really see how you can avoid seating pros together at the start even if the event IS seeded.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the Foxwood event - I'm willing to bet that the top Pros "bypass" the computer and are hand seated again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool--I am willing to give you action on this bet. Say, $100? Can we agree that Foxwoods' tournament director Mike Ward be the final arbiter of his tournament's policy?

cheers,
shanaic

[HDPM]

I think this post highlights why the odds against poker tournaments ever being sponsored are long. And as I said above I don't care a whole lot about that. But if it really is only the dealmaking players' business, why didn't they start the WPT Tour? Because they can't. Because they don't have the business acumen or desire. And as long as the attitude prevails, poker will always be a marginal activity, at least in terms of television coverage and such. I agree that in some respects the players don't get a whole lot out of the deal. Their cards are shown on TV, they don't get added money, yada yada. But so what? Don't play. Go play a tourn that allows deals. Start another poker tour. Whatever.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Mason.

[limon]

it is just kept very secret. they also gamble during tournaments. poker players have no sense of history and etiquette like golfers thats why they blab about back room deals instead keeping them gentlemenly and secret.

[shaniac]

So it's more gentlamently (read: respectable?) if deals or kept secret?

Or is it more honest and forthright to just acknowledge that deals are part of the game and keep them in the open?

I think you're missing something here, the least of which is that poker, unlike golf, is a gambling, not a sporting, venture.

Poker players don't need a sense of golf's history and etiquette in order to decide what works best in their own game.

shaniac

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
So, should we take Erik's word for it or assume you scoped out each table and can give an accurate breakdown of how "pro-heavy" each one was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only tell you what happened as I sat there. I saw 4 players seated differently. I was sitting there, Erik was not and I don't believe you were either. I never said EVERY pro was seeded, just a few.


Are you going to play in the Foxwood event? The place to watch for this will be at the WPT production table.

[HDPM]

Glad you mentioned this. Golf did have to ban the practice. Back in the 30's until probably the '50's this was pretty common. But if a player were caught at this today he would be suspended from all tournaments for a long time. It would also hurt their ability to get any endorsements. If players were caught doing a 3-way split of the money in a playoff I would expect up to a 3 year suspension form the tour. If it happens it is kept very secret. There are also a lot of guys who would never think of a deal and have no financial incentive to do so. If first place is a million and second is 600000, they are gambling their whole career on a proposition that is almost ev neutral. A very stupid idea. The purses are all outside money though, and there are endorsement opportunities. So golf is different. But golf might not be that much different if the gambling that went on in the '30's happened after the advent of television and Arnold Palmer. You won't see players participating in calcuttas like they used to or gambling a lot on the outcome of tournaments. Back in the day guys could win more gambing than they could on the tour. No more. Guys don't gamble millions on the tour, which they would have to do to make the money equivalent to the old days. And in practice rounsds the millionaires might gamble and exchange a coupe hundred dollars. Like me playing a $1 nassau. It just doesn't affect the outcome of the competition. Not so in poker.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
But so what? Don't play. Go play a tourn that allows deals. Start another poker tour. Whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just continue to play these tournaments and when it comes time to make a deal, keep it hidden from the WPT, so a deal doesn't openly interfere with the WPT's policy. That kind of behavior will help elevate poker from the level of a marginal activity, eh?

shaniac

[shaniac]

I still don't get it--you saw 4 pro players seated at different tables? Isn't that called random seating?

Anyway, I'm not gonna stand around the tournament registration area at Foxwoods trying to ascertain whether or not they seed players because there simply is no way. I tend to doubt it, though, since Foxwoods has nothing to gain by seeding players (and by what standard would these players be ranked?) and a lot to lose by the appearance of impropriety.

And I'm still willing to bet you on this, as you offered, as long as you agree we use Foxwoods' managament as the ultimate determinate of its policy and not some crack-investigating team comprised of internet conspiracy nuts. Deal?

shaniac

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't get it

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously,

What I saw was 4 players seated by a different method then everyone else. (Feel free to re-read my posts for clarification).

And again re-read as required. The Borgata did not seed these players, the WPT staff did (I am assuming with the knowledge of the Borg staff)

Now, as for your personal attack on me, I am not a conspiracy nut any more than you are a slack jawed apologist for the WPT. I have offered no opinions, or speculation about what happened as you have; I simply reported observed fact.

[HDPM]

That is a fair and valid point. But if the deal is TRULY secret, the goals of the WPT will be satisfied. Perhaps that is hypocritical, but in htese types of things, appearances are important. I think in the long run the policy has to be followed pretty much for the appearances to be a certain way, but some hidden violations will occur. As they occur in all things.

[shaniac]

That wasn't a personal attack and I am not apologizing for anyone. I am stunned--as everyone else should be--that the WPT could do this in concert with its host casinos.

And clearly I did not understand, thanks for clarifying. If the WPT does seat top players in a different way than the rest AND does not inform all participants of this, I predict they are in big trouble. The again, maybe not. Poker players tend to be complacent and those who stand to benefit from seeding players are also the ones with the most power in the arena.

Poker ought to be egalitarian, with everyone who ponies up the entry fee getting an equal shot at the prize money. That is, until the WPT chooses to make poker more like a sport by adding prize money and instituting rankings. Then, they can do whatever they want and it is caveat emptor.

Far from being a WPT apologist (I have no affiliation with or affection for the organization) I just tend to doubt they would do something this underhanded AND in a way in which someone could observe it. Is it possible you misinterpreted what's going on? Not suggesting that you are a conspiracy nut, just that it's possible you saw something and interpreted it incorrectly.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

shaniac

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
From my point of view the players are bending over backwards to do everything the televions crew wants (especially by revealing their hole cards) and they get absolutely nothing in return.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get in the middle of this debate but this is clearly wrong. The WPT has increased interest in poker, especially tournament poker. The Borgota's event, which didn't exist last year, drew 235 entrants. The Bike's event drew 309 in 2003, a 229% increase over the 135 players in the 2002 event. (I think the Aviation Club's event only had a marginal increase of 5 players).

This increase means more dead money meaning more prize money and a softer field on average. This is a benefit to the better players (yes, the growth of the field may reach a point of diminishing marginal returns as the sheer size of the event overwhelms the skill advantages of the better players- but I don't think it is there yet). This is in addition to the T.V. "celebrity" status that many players (both good and bad) value and the excitement of playing in a large, publicized poker event.

While these benefits may fall short of the burden the WPT imposes on the players, it does not change the fairly obvious fact that the players (and even more so the better players) get more than "absolutely nothing in return." The players may get shortchanged (which I am not sure is the case either- but I haven't yet played in a WPT event), but they don't get completely stiffed.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Because they don't have the business acumen or desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a more significant reason is that Lyle Berman's bankroll and connections aren't salient traits of the typical tournament poker player (not to downplay the business acumen angle- but I doubt there would have been much venture capital out there that would have been available to a business savy tournament poker player with aspirations similar to those of the WPT).

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I just tend to doubt they would do something this underhanded AND in a way in which someone could observe it. Is it possible you misinterpreted what's going on? Not suggesting that you are a conspiracy nut, just that it's possible you saw something and interpreted it incorrectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they thought it was a big deal. They were giving their "TV stars" the best chance to not bust each other out early. Now they did not go to the extreme of say looking at the seating and putting all the satelitte "dead money" togther with say Phil Ivey or Anne Duke to give them an easy coast (they would not have had one - the locals kicked some serious pro butt!). But they did delibertly seperate at least 4 players.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
The WPT has increased interest in poker, especially tournament poker. The Borgota's event, which didn't exist last year, drew 235 entrants.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no question of this. The WPT has been good for poker. But remember the Borg wasn't there last year either. The Taj event was down from last year as well.

[shaniac]

I'm just curious at this point if you (or anyone else) thinks that this is fine or inherently underhanded.

As far as I'm concerned the TV pros should NOT be given a better chance of making it to the final table than anyone else who paid $5,000 to compete in a No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em event.

And if it is their policy to give name brand players this edge, how far does it go? When they break tables down, do the WPT organizers continue to distribute seats in a manner that helps the names avoid their toughest competition?

shaniac

[ChickiePoo]

[ QUOTE ]

But what's most important is it will give the preception of dishonesty to the tournament. In my opinion, the WPT is absolutely correct in trying to address this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're entitled to your opinion, I think you're out in left field on this one.

The WPT is a good and wonderful thing in general, and I'm happy that they're bringing more players into poker. However, I do not believe that they should be altering the play or outcome of the tournament in any way whatsoever; to do so would be overstepping their bounds in a most egregious manner.

While I don't often make deals in tournaments, I'm generally a supporter of allowing dealmaking; I believe that calculating a fair deal is a key tournament poker skill, and I'm happy to use this skill when I have an edge over my opponents in doing so.

As for the perception of dishonesty in tournaments, I can't honestly say that I give a flying fsck, and once again I don't think that the WPT should be allowed to alter the play of the game. However, deals will be made whether they're public or not, and I would much prefer to have them made in front of everyone, rather than in a backroom. The WPT could capitalize on the negotiations.

[Rushmore]

I agree with a fair amount of what you've said here.

But then, of course, there's this:
if dealmaking was explained to the WPT audience for what it is--an organic part of poker tournaments--it could lend to the excitement and sense of reality the WPT is trying to acheive.

There is nothing exciting or suspenseful about dealmaking. It DOES hurt their product, IMO.

Pragmatism ain't great entertainment.

[limon]

the fact is that the public elimination of deals in golf was important to the growth of the sport. the same goes for poker. in golf deals are still made, moreso on the "side" tours than in the big show. and gambling is a HUGE part of both tours but it is kept VERY secret. If people knew how much hustlers, tiger, MJ, barkley, trevino, tycoons, and other assorted riff raff gambled on a weekly basis sponsorship and the purses would be hurt. the WPT advertises poker as a skill event NOT GAMBLING. this destinction needs to be kept very clear for sponsors to come around.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Just an aside, but Sam Snead, maybe the greatest of all time, never made it a secret that he gambled on the course.

[Bill Murphy]

Over on RGP. Erik claims his starting table had TJ, Toto Leonidas, and some other big name at it. FYI.

Aside to HDPM, if he's here: IMO the WPT is the best thing to ever happen to ring games. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[HDPM]

Yeah, I am hearing that. All the more reason to screw over the tournament specialists who want the deals. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Bill Murphy]

"There was another table that was not staffed by the casino personnel, but by people with WPT badges. While I was sitting there 2 “name pros” went not to the “regular” registration table but to the WPT one. There the WPT lady had a table chart with certain seats marked off. "

Who were those two?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know who Paul Phillips is

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea at all? Now why don't I believe that?

[ QUOTE ]
If deal making is okay, then what's wrong with taking pieces of each other since all that is a deal made before the tournament begins or at some point after a tournament has begun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I would expect you to research what I wrote, or to be anything less than wholly disingenuous, but I did say that banning dealmaking is a bad idea precisely because it will lead to a proliferation of large swaps. When players cannot expect to be able to hedge at the end of a tournament, they will start hedging at the beginning. And large swaps are much, much worse than openly discussed deals.

I will not be a twoplustwo participant; anyone who wants to talk about this can find me on rgp. I only created this account to find and message the guy alleging that the WPT is seeding players.

[ QUOTE ]
But what's most important is it will give the preception of dishonesty to the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banning deals will eliminate the perception of dishonesty, and in its place we'll get actual dishonesty. Since I will be playing in these tournaments, as opposed to just watching them, I do not consider that a good exchange.

-- paul phillips

[Andy Bloch]

[ QUOTE ]
I have offered no opinions, or speculation about what happened as you have; I simply reported observed fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? This is what you posted first:

[ QUOTE ]
At the Borg, everyone got a random table/seat EXCEPT the WPT “Stars”. They were deliberately spread out so they didn’t knock heads too soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only after others replied did you begin to report facts instead of speculations.

Please state who were the two "stars" that you think received special treatment. If you don't know, how do you know they were "stars"? Can you describe what they were wearing?

[baggins]

'Seeding' players can be viewed the same as stacking the deck, in one manner of thinking. it takes away the random nature of seat distribution, and such a method is highly questionable for sure.

however, if you are truly deserving of winning a tournament, you should be able to take on whoever you end up at a table with, pro or otherwise.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I agree with Andy on this. It's very important when making these type of accusations that specifics are supplied. In fact, if the appropriate specifics are supplied, there may not be any need for accusations since the facts will speak for themselves.

Best wishes,
mason

[Andy Bloch]

Who were the "name pros"? What were they wearing? It sounds to me that this might have been players who had won their seats from Paradise or Prima. I don't remember seeing any of them buying in when I did. Did anyone else notice them buying in?

The Borgata did not do a good job handling signups, like most of the casinos in AC. They should not have handed out seat assignments until after a player bought in -- the way they did it could have allowed someone to come back at a later time and pick a different seat -- although this procedure was better than the Taj's where the seating cards were in a drum with many easily visible.

[Mason Malmuth]

Paul:

I have no idea who you are. Perhaps the next time you're in The Bellagio you can introduce yourself to me and then I'll realize that you are someone I know. Furthermore, perhaps we can talk for a few minutes and solve this problem.

As for your position, I strongly disagree with it. Saying that a problem is very tough to solve is not a reason in my opinion not to start the process to solve it. However, I am convinced that the claim of seeding in the recent WPT event is not accurate.

As I have pointed out (and see my article below), for poker to be successful, all players need to play independently of each other at all times. Because of the initial success of the WPT, there is an opportunity for poker to grow to an unprecedented level. But scandal can ruin it, and the perception of something not being quite right can also damage it severely.

Yes I know it is your money. But sometimes events are more important than the sum of their parts. I believe this is one of those situations.

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I would expect you to research what I wrote, or to be anything less than wholly disingenuous, but I did say that banning dealmaking is a bad idea precisely because it will lead to a proliferation of large swaps. When players cannot expect to be able to hedge at the end of a tournament, they will start hedging at the beginning. And large swaps are much, much worse than openly discussed deals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What about when players stake other players? Isn't that the ultimate hedge at the beginning of the tournament? Again I strongly support the WPT in any efforts that they make in this area.

Best wishes,
Mason

The following is from my book Poker Essays, Volume III

Keeping Poker Honest


The biggest enemy of poker is cheating. Many people are quite concerned about it. Over the years, I have seen many cardrooms collapse and go out of business. I believe that some of these closures are due to the fact that these cardrooms developed a cheating reputation. Now this may surprise some of you since on many occasions I have argued that the games I play in are very clean. I have taken much criticism for this stance on cheating, but believe it to be the case. I try to call things as I see them. However, one thing is certain. Once a poker room acquires a cheating reputation, it is simply a matter of time before it becomes severely damaged. And this is the case whether the reputation is deserved or not.

There are many mechanisms present in cardrooms that help to keep the games honest. These include well-trained dealers, knowledgeable floor personnel, knowledgeable management, and modern security systems (which include surveillance cameras) to name a few. There is, however, another force at work in all cardrooms which plays an extremely important role in keeping the games clean. It is simply the fact that the players play independently of each other, and thus help to police the games themselves.

When I play, there are usually several experienced players at the table. Of course, with luck there will be some weak players as well, but these experienced players serve a very important role. They watch the game. It is hard to imagine that hands could come down “funny” in which these players would not recognize something was wrong. Again, they police these games because they are playing totally on their own and are only interested in their own results.

Let me give a simple example of how partnerships can change things. Suppose three players are in the pot. Furthermore, suppose that Player A bets, and after he is done betting the pot is offering Player B 3-to-1 on a 4-to-1 one shot. (That is, Player B will win 20 percent of of the time). Notice that Player B should fold, since his expectation is negative. Also, suppose that Player C is in the same situation, except that the cards required to make his 4-to-1 shot are completely different from those that Player B needs. (A possible example would be when each player has a flush draw on the river and their suits are different.) He too should also fold because he has negative expectation.

Now suppose that Players B and C are partners and are playing from the same bankroll. Notice that instead of each of them getting 3-to-1 to call, the team is getting 3-to-2 since the initial size of the pot stays the same. But also notice something else, instead of each of them individually having a 20 percent chance of winning, the team now has a 40 percent chance of winning, and 40 percent is exactly the same as 3-to-2. So in this example we see that the partnership has greatly benefitted them.

Again, I have very few worries about this sort of thing in the regular games. That is because virtually all participants play independently and we all do our job of policing the games.

As most of you know, my time at the poker tables is spent mainly in side games. Occasionally you can find me in a tournament, but it is only occasionally. Part of the reason for this is that I feel the independence of players is frequently violated. There are many practices in tournaments which are common place, which virtually never happen in the standard ring games. These include deal-making, players trading pieces of each of other, players buying pieces of other players, and players being staked — some of whom have long-term staking deals.

My fear is two-fold. First, these arrangements should have the effect of weakening the independence between players that poker (and tournament poker) must have to help assure that the games stay totally honest. Second, I feel that as these arrangements become more common place and more people become comfortable with them, they will spill over into the ring games. This will have the effect of damaging the cardrooms and poker in the long run.

(I am aware that in some of the very largest games, where only a very small number of people participate, players do take pieces of each other. However, when this is done it is usually announced to everyone at the table and all players have the option to object.)

So it appears to me that tournaments need to make efforts to clean up these practices. With that in mind, here are some suggestions which are targeted mainly for tournament directors, but which all of us should be aware of:

1. All deal-making needs to be stopped. Most tournaments are top heavy in their payout structure, which causes players to want to make a deal towards the end when the betting limits tend to be very high relative to the number of chips left on the table. Payout structures should be flattened, and the incentive for making the deals will be over.

2. Players should not be allowed to trade pieces with each other, nor should they be allowed to buy pieces of other players. Of course this may be difficult to implement, but one way to help accomplish this could be through peer pressure, and having tournament participants sign an oath, pledging themselves to be playing totally independently of other players in the tournament.

3. Tournament directors should talk to those individuals who are known to stake more than one player in the same tournament, and ask them not to do so.

Another point which should be especially important to tournament players, is the idea that as long as these practices are known to be widespread it is hard to imagine any legitimate national company coming in as a sponsor. The potential for scandal and perceived improprieties is just too great.

The poker world is often divided into two groups. The tournament players and the non-tournament players. Of course there are many individuals who participate in both areas, and that is just the point. To assure that poker stays honest, which will allow it to grow and expand, all aspects of poker must be “squeaky clean.” It is hard to imagine poker being this way without all players who participate, no matter what form that participation takes, playing totally independent of each other. This is not something that should be taken lightly; and to achieve this goal many of you would have to make some sacrifices. In the short run, some of you who are getting free rides in these tournaments will have to pay your own way; some of you who are reducing your fluctuations by selling or trading pieces of yourselves will just have to live with higher swings; and some of you who are making a living at the tournaments may find it tougher to do because your income will be less consistent. But for the long-term good of poker it needs to be done and it needs to be done now.

Finally, I’m well aware that what is being proposed will not happen in totality. It is hard to imagine many poker players who are willing to accept a short term disadvantage for the long term good of poker. But if nothing else, I believe that what I have proposed should at least be the official stance of tournaments in order to give them the same degree of legitimacy that other sports tournaments have.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I think this is a very important thread. That's because the WPT is having such a tremendous positive impact on our game, and remember that I'm someone who hardly ever plays a tournament.

There are two issues here. First is the idea of seeding. From what I have read, I'm convinced that it did not happen. Furthermore, even if it did happen, due to the large amount of short term luck that occurs in poker, and especially in a poker tournament, it should have very little impact on long term results.

At the US Open, a player like Pete Sampras just isn't going to lose in the first round. But poker, and especially tournament poker, isn't that way. Top players frequently bust our very quickly, and many of these bust outs are to anything but top players. As one participant of this year's WSOP told me, "My two kings ran into an Internet's player's queen-seven."

The other issue in my opinion is more significant. I strongly believe that deal making at the final table for events like the WPT that get such tremendous national exposure need to come to an end. Yes I understand that it is the player's money. But again in my opinion, all of this is bigger than the particular players in question.

I'm also surprised at the number of people who seem to disagree with my position. So perhaps I'm over reacting. However, I do encourage as much debate as possible on this topic, and believe that vigorous debate here will be healthy for all involved.

best wishes,
Mason

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
There was another table that was not staffed by the casino personnel, but by people with WPT badges. While I was sitting there 2 “name pros” went not to the “regular” registration table but to the WPT one. There the WPT lady had a table chart with certain seats marked off. In a very clear voice she told one and then the other pro “OK I’m going to put you at table X seat Y and you at table Z Seat A. She then marked them off on the seating chart handed one of them their entry fee and sent then to the second table for verification.

To me that’s a pretty clear case of seeding.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it sounds like they were ensuring these players have seats with good camera angles. If that's what they were doing, it might have an effect similar to seeding, even if that's not what they intended. Or maybe they had the tournament director assign these players to a table randomly, but then the TV people chose which seat at the table they get. Then there would be no "seeding" effect.

But all this is just speculation. Hopefully someone can get an official response from Borgata and/or WPT, and post it on this thread.

[slamdunkpro]

O.K. everyone has convinced themselves that I’m either a sh*t stirrer, liar, or fruitcake.

Fine.

After some deep thought I’ve decided that I want to continue to play tournaments in this arena so I’m just going to drop the whole matter. On advice of counsel I will not name the players that I observed.

I will however offer the following scenarios:

1. Things happened exactly as I said they did as I sat there 6 feet away and it was deliberate seeding. If this is so, it will come out sooner or later.

2. Things happened exactly as I said they did as I sat there 6 feet away. The WPT pulled a number of entry sheets and pre filled them out for certain persons due to travel schedules or whatever. This to me is the most plausible “non seeding” explanation.

3. I can’t explain the entry fee except perhaps that a check was cashed for an individual by the WPT.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I think this is a very important thread. That's because the WPT is having such a tremendous positive impact on our game,


[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this ad naseum, and I for one am getting sick of hearing it. What positive impact? You're doing great because your book sales have gone through the roof. I'm so happy for you. How am I benefitting? Are tournament entries up. Yes in some venues they are up somewhat, but they were slowing going up anyway. Online poker has increased, but I wouldn't touch that venue with a ten-foot pole.

I have seen no increase of any kind in the middle and high limit poker games of Southern California. So if you would be so kind, could you please tell me just exactly how I am benefitting?

[ohkanada]

"What positive impact?"

I am not sure if it has reached the middle/high limits yet but I was in Vegas this past weekend and I could see a noticable difference with the players in the lower limits (4-8). Lots of new money with little clue for the most part. The 3 main places I played live all were quite busy. And on-line the WPT has made a huge difference. Just look at Party Poker, Pokerstars and Ultimate before the WPT and now.

Ken Poklitar

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
After some deep thought I’ve decided that I want to continue to play tournaments in this arena so I’m just going to drop the whole matter. On advice of counsel I will not name the players that I observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the advice of counsel? You're willing to libel the deep-pocketed world poker tour, but not risk the wrath of a couple of poker players?

If what you say is true, there are many reasons to name them and none not to. It is an act of pure cowardice to allege what you have on this board and then to refuse to cite the specific details that would allow us to confirm or refute your story.

You are permanently and deeply marring your reputation if you clam up now, regardless of what actually took place. Every bit of your credibility hangs in the balance. This is a situation you have made for yourself by stating as fact that the WPT is seeding its tournaments. It is time to back up your claims.

-- paul phillips

[slamdunkpro]

I love this.

You send me a private message asking for a private email response then post a portion of my response in public.

[Paul Phillips]

You're delusional. I quoted using the "quote" button on this board. Try reading your own post.

[CrackerZack]

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker has increased, but I wouldn't touch that venue with a ten-foot pole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant. You ask how its benefitting you, then refuse to play in a venue that has basically been built by the interested generated in the WPT. Online poker pre-dates the WPT but its explosion certainly doesn't. Also, define mid-limits? the 5-10 kill games I frequent often have 5-6 tables going on weekends as opposed to 2-3 and hold 'em is running stud off the map.

[ QUOTE ]
Are tournament entries up. Yes in some venues they are up somewhat, but they were slowing going up anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now they've exploded up. You have to be at the tourneys at foxwoods at least an hour before hand for a chance to get a seat when I used to show up 10 mins before the start and never have a problem.

Maybe LA is just immune. After hearing how people behave in the Commerce, and reading this oh,so cheery response, I, for one, am not surprised.

[slamdunkpro]

My error - that post was very close to what I sent you. My apologies.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not be a twoplustwo participant; anyone who wants to talk about this can find me on rgp. I only created this account to find and message the guy alleging that the WPT is seeding players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paul you can't even make up your mind about posting here. How can you demand anything and expect it to be served to you on a silver platter?

Shoo fly back to RGP!

[shaniac]

Personally, I think 2+2 needs more intelligent, outspoken, reasonable voices (and accomplished poker players) like Phillips and fewer idiots whose only M.O. is to harrass and offer up lame arguments like the ones we get from you, WUC on the tournament board. Why do do you think Phillips is reluctant to engage in discussion here?

I challenge you to come up with a more articulate individual in the online poker community than Paul Phillips. So let him have his cake and eat it, too, whaddya say?

shaniac

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think 2+2 needs more intelligent, outspoken, reasonable voices (and accomplished poker players) like Phillips and fewer idiots whose only M.O. is to harrass and offer up lame arguments like the ones we get from you, WUC on the tournament board. Why do do you think Phillips is reluctant to engage in discussion here?

I challenge you to come up with a more articulate individual in the online poker community than Paul Phillips. So let him have his cake and eat it, too, whaddya say?

shaniac

[/ QUOTE ]

You only want one? Being articulate has little to do with being knowledgeable about the subject. Personally I am at least as articulate as Mr. Phillips, for that matter you are clear and able to express yourself well. That does not mean when he contradicts himself it should not be pointed out so that his credibility can be properly questioned in other areas of so called expertise. I read RGP as well and do not see him earning any superior levels of respect there, nor do I see that he deserves too much.

I do have a problem with a goober like him who blows in, says I'm only making one post so don't bother responding to me here but go to RGP if you want my input, then comes back questioning someones integrity. If I remember correctly he jumped on the bandwagon of those who criticized David when he posted that he would post primarily at 2+2 rather than RGP. Now he has his alter ego sticking up for him as well, quite pathetic in its' own way.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Now he has his alter ego sticking up for him as well, quite pathetic in its' own way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is his alter ego? I'm confused.

And while I acknowledge his hypocrisy--he asserted his unwillingness to continue this discussion on this forum and then did just that--I'd still rather hear from him on 2+2 than not. No reason to call his bluff there Wake Up, when you really have more to lose in the end by his absense from 2+2 (which I think is inevitable anyway, of course).

As for this:

[ QUOTE ]
Being articulate has little to do with being knowledgeable about the subject

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true enough--and there are some noticeable examples on this site of inarticulate characters who nevertheless enjoy a high level of credibility. However, I think Phillips' ideas and philosophy (as opposed to his ability to articulate them) should gain him a fair amount of respect (and do by the more savvy members on RGP). If not that, then how about his accomplishments in poker tournaments, which dwarf that of just about anyone speaking his mind on 2+2 or RGP. If his accmplishments don't impress or warrant credibility, how about the fact that, as Phillips has pointed out, he (unlike, say, Mason) will actually be affected by the WPT rules because he has and will be participating in these events, not merely pontificating on "what's best for poker."

If none of that sways you, how about the fact that Phillips is perhaps the prime cause of the new rule (due to the Sports Illustrated article). Doesn't any of this make his a a voice worth hearing on 2+2?

shaniac

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now he has his alter ego sticking up for him as well, quite pathetic in its' own way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is his alter ego? I'm confused.

And while I acknowledge his hypocrisy--he asserted his unwillingness to continue this discussion on this forum and then did just that--I'd still rather hear from him on 2+2 than not. No reason to call his bluff there Wake Up, when you really have more to lose in the end by his absense from 2+2 (which I think is inevitable anyway, of course).

As for this:

[ QUOTE ]
Being articulate has little to do with being knowledgeable about the subject

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true enough--and there are some noticeable examples on this site of inarticulate characters who nevertheless enjoy a high level of credibility. However, I think Phillips' ideas and philosophy (as opposed to his ability to articulate them) should gain him a fair amount of respect (and do by the more savvy members on RGP). If not that, then how about his accomplishments in poker tournaments, which dwarf that of just about anyone speaking his mind on 2+2 or RGP. If his accmplishments don't impress or warrant credibility, how about the fact that, as Phillips has pointed out, he (unlike, say, Mason) will actually be affected by the WPT rules because he has and will be participating in these events, not merely pontificating on "what's best for poker."

If none of that sways you, how about the fact that Phillips is perhaps the prime cause of the new rule (due to the Sports Illustrated article). Doesn't any of this make his a a voice worth hearing on 2+2?

shaniac

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I would be pleased for him to become a regular poster here and feel he would have much to offer. I doubt he could keep from being censored for very long but I could be mistaken. All I really meant to address was his hypocrisy and hit n run tactics.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
And while I acknowledge his hypocrisy--he asserted his unwillingness to continue this discussion on this forum and then did just that

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'll weigh in again now that we're throwing around extreme words like hypocrisy. What I said was that I will not be a participant on twoplustwo, not that I swore on my mother's grave never to post here again. Clearly in the face of obsessive nitpicking I should have said "regular participant" but I tend to anticipate some measure of reasonableness in people until they prove otherwise. This is probably a failing of mine when writing online.

Second of all, what I said I wouldn't discuss here any further was the ban on deals, a discussion that's healthy at rgp. What I did continue to discuss here were the allegations that the WPT has been seeding tournaments. I did that because the guy making that claim is only talking about it here, and at the moment I'm carrying the primary torch for trying to find out of it's true.

Calling any of this "hypocrisy" dilutes the usefulness of the word to nothing.

(I know that you are "on my side" but I still rather dislike being called a hypocrite.)

-- paul phillips

[David Sklansky]

Paul says that actual dishonesty is worse than the perception of dishonesty. A clever statement that is not always true. In the case of the WPT tour, driving dealmaking underground, could be the preferred option. It would be if deals are looked askance at by the general puplic. It is possible that including dealmaking discussions, as part of the show itself, would fix the problem. But the main thing is that the WPT does what is best for poker in general. If that means doing something to disturb high rollers or even to encourage something technically dishonest, so be it. Too much is at stake.

[Vehn]

As far as I can tell WUC is simply a troll that offers nothing of value to this forum, and unlike RGP we can't killfile him.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Too much is at stake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is asking quite a lot, but would you care to elaborate?

These tournaments existed long before the WPT started interfering. Do you mean your book sales?

Perhaps you could tell me what is at stake for me?

I'm genuinely serious. I'd like an honest response. I respect your opinion.

[David Sklansky]

What is at stake is whether there will be lots of new players who play worse than you.

[Luke]

So if you would be so kind, could you please tell me just exactly how I am benefitting?

I won't speak for Mason or how you are benifitting, but I'll briefly state things that I've noticed over the last year regarding poker:

1. When I go into my local Barnes & Noble or Borders, I'm seeing more and more poker books.

2. When I go onto Party Poker I'm encountering more and more fish in limit ring games, NL ring games and tournaments.

3. When I go to AC's casinos I'm seeing more and more green faces.

4. I have friends who never were big poker players but all of a sudden have this desire to "play some cards" after watching that "cool new show" on the Travel Channel.

5. I have co-workers who never were big poker players but all of a sudden have this desire to "play some cards" after watching that "cool new show" on the Travel Channel.

And I'm not saying all of these things are a direct result of the WPT, but I have to think that it had at least a little to with with all of these things.

[Schmed]

I am very good friends with a guy that's been on the tour almost 20 years. The only time these guys gamble on the course during a tournament is when it's between a couple of friends. Generally these guys do not gamble for any real money during the tournaments, they are already playing for money at only their entry fee risk.

A few years ago they found out that they were splitting the skins money. They quickly put a stop to that.

It's just not done for all of the reasons that were mentioned in the first reply to this post.

Now these guys certainly play a nassau when they're in a practice round or playing against some CEO.

[Schmed]

seeding is only okay if the WPT puts up some money. If the purse is totally a result of people's buy ins then they should be seated randomly

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Schmed:

I agree with you in principal. But what I'm saying is that because of the nature of poker where the short term luck factor is high, as compared to something like tennis where the luck factor is much lower in relation to the skill, the effect of seeding should be minimal.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. But if it is done, I wouldn't worry a lot about it.

Best wishes,
mason

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />

Online poker has increased, but I wouldn't touch that venue with a ten-foot pole.


[/ QUOTE ]


wow, i feel bad that you are costing yourself that much money

[MRBAA]

Little known fact: Tiger Woods sucks, Phil Mickelson and the rest just let him win the titles and he gives them all the prize money.