maybe a little chip dumping between annie and howard? why not?

[nothumb]

Well, you made a wildly offensive post, possibly without even knowing that one of the people you mentioned posts here, and when she responded with the expected level of indignance you buried your nose in her ass like a pig digging for truffles. Nobody else has made fun of you for it, so I will. I think Annie can afford a bedee, your services will not be needed.

I'm not even a big AD fan and I thought you were being an ass.

Also, how often is this (admittedly interesting) ethical situation actually going to come up? I think it's pretty impressive that both of them made it to the point they did and even had the chance to play against each other.

And, if you want to speculate on collusion, aren't Annie and Phil both promoters of some cardroom or another?? ...Geez, if you go deep enough, all these pros are just colluding with each other. They had already done their job when they got it down to three...

NT

[pokerraja]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Annie and Howard were colluding, but I think collusion is a legit concern in a single table, winner-take-all tournament.
I also think that some interesting ethical questions are raised when two friends or family members are playing at a tournament of this style. For example, let's imagine the tournament is down to three players with even stacks and that two family members are in a hand heads-up against each other. One of them, who has been playing really tight, raises all-in preflop, and the other looks at his hand and sees JJ. Noramlly, this person would fold JJ against a tight raiser, but because the raiser is his brother he thinks to himself: "Well, I would normally fold this hand, but there is a chance that I'm slightly ahead against an AK. Since this is a winner take all tournament, I'm willing to gamble a little bit so I can be a 2-1 favorite against the third guy. And even if lose, I won't be that upset because my brother gets all my chips and he will be the favorite against the other guy. I'd much rather lose my chips to him than the other guy." Then he calls.
Is there anything wrong with the fact that his relationship to the raiser comes into his decision to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

you worded it perfectly. this is actually what i was trying to say. by no means are we accusing dukes of colluding. just saying that is this even a concern in future tourneys with similar structures?

[OPJayhawk]

You know its an interesting scenario.

Lets assume all three are even in chips and have roughly a 1 in 3 chance of each being the winner at this point.

Now Annie and Howard go all in vs each other giving one person 2/3 of the chips and leaving Phil with 1/3.

Is Phils chance to win here still 1 in 3 ? If Phil was given a choice do you think he would prefer that they went up agaisnt each other leaving him heads up vs the other with a smaller stack ?

If it was me I would prefer to be heads up in the final two with a smaller stack than even money with equal size stacks in the final three.

I answer this partly because I really enjoy heads up play, and even with a smaller stack I like my chances.

Obviously in "normal" tournment where the prizes go up the higher you finish Phil is the big winner when the two of them go heads up vs each other, but in a winner take all it does changes things, but I'll stil take my shot in the final two if I had a choice.

PacmanKs

[Al Schoonmaker]

You should be very careful about making such accusations. You offered absolutely no evidence. The 77 vs 66 hand was played properly by both of them. I know of no evidence that any dumping occurred. I believe you owe them both an apology.
This post was written before I saw the apology. I'm glad you made it, and I am VERY glad to see Annie posting here.
Al

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
where I was definitely not the best player left.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see you rank all of the players who competed in that event.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the play they made would be the exact opposite way they would play if they were colluding.

A much more effective way would have been for the two of them to take turns attacking Phil's blind while not attacking each other.

They did the exact opposite.

PacmanKS

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they could wait until the one of them that was shortstacked had a hand that dominated the other and then both go all in to help the shortstack get some chips, which is exactly what happened.

I totally don't think they did this at all, but thats probably the way they would do it if they wanted to.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be very careful about making such accusations. You offered absolutely no evidence. The 77 vs 66 hand was played properly by both of them. I know of no evidence that any dumping occurred. I believe you owe them both an apology.
This post was written before I saw the apology. I'm glad you made it, and I am VERY glad to see Annie posting here.
Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the amount of outrage being displayed here. I think that any time you have two close people(in this case siblings) in a high stakes game, that everyone has a right to be concerned regardless of their repuatation.

If my sister and I went to a local card game that had a bunch of regulars, then I would expect them to be cautious of us.

Annie, I totally believe that you and Howard do not cheat in any way. However, due to the fact that you are both very intelligent people and obviously loyal to one another, I don't think its outrageous for the question of collusion to come up now and then.

If I was at a final table and it was just me and two siblings, and there was a lot of money at stake, you're damn sure that I would raise the issue of collusion and let them know that I'm looking out for it.

[sbkid]

Didn't you see her expression when she was all-in with 66's versus Howard's 77's? She was absolutely horrified for Howard when the flop came down QQ6. That was one of the best poker shows I have ever watched no doubt. Every single person fighting for first place -- remember second place got zero for this tourney. So I think multiple people were playing differently than normal -- even Raymer. I really believed her and Howard would have fought to the end.

[sbkid]

And Raymer has given me more insight into poker than any one else in this forum -- he invented the term "stop n' go" (I admit that I read this in a poker article).

So though I think he played "worse on TV" (i.e. which doesn't mean much since they only show 1/500 hands), I do think he played differently than a normal game since he took very small edges (and even the worse of it before the flop a few times).

Greg Raymer - please correct me if I am wrong - but it seemed to me like you played a different game since there was no second place. Am I wrong? I'm guessing not very much here (I'm a gambler right??) ?

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the amount of outrage being displayed here. I think that any time you have two close people(in this case siblings) in a high stakes game, that everyone has a right to be concerned regardless of their repuatation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your disagreement.

I believe that while being concerned about close players at a high stakes game is natural, to bring up such a concern is extremely disrespectful without any evidence other than the relationship of the players.

The hand in question here was played perfectly by both of them. 77 and 66 are extremely strong short handed. Unless Annie could somehow be sure Howard had a higher pocket pair, she easily had odds to call.

Let's say Howard would push the following hands: AA-22, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-ATo, KQo.

66 is 47.14% against these hands. I don't remember the pot details, but I'm sure she had these odds. Not to mention the fact that Howard may have pushed lower aces, which would make Annie a favorite.

This is a stupid discussion, but we all can't resist.

Congratulations Annie, and just stop responding to this thread. We trust you.


-Jman28