Poker Superstars Buy In a Fraud!

[jojobinks]

back to the subject at hand...the 400k "buyin", and whether it was a fraud.

if 8th place got 150k, and they were each paid 25k to appear, doesn't that mean the buyin was 225k each?

btw, i doubt even that number. why would they make these guys buy in? what if a few refused, and they were forced to invite someone like farha or gavin griffin (no offense, mate)? that woulda hurt the old 8 greatest players in the world thing, wouldn't it?

[TightIsRight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A) There was a deal cut at the WSOP Tournament of Championship between Hellmuth and Duke

[/ QUOTE ]
There was a strict policy against making deals for this tournament. So if Duke and Helmuth did make a deal, I really doubt that you would know about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding all this about a deal at the ToC, Negreanu writes:
On the break, I was feeling pretty good about making a comeback, and my focus was intensifying. I was chatting with Phil Hellmuth, and he said, “No offense, Daniel, but I have to root against you tonight.”

“Fair enough, Phil, but why is that?”

“Well, because as soon as you get knocked out, we can make a deal.”

Phil knows my policy on dealmaking, and even in an event in which it is $2 million for first and nothing for second, I wasn’t about to compromise my position on dealmaking. I genuinely believe we need to eliminate deals from tournament poker, and more importantly, from televised events.

link

[freekobe]

My guess is Negreanu's commentary on this won't be enough for the posters in this forum. Jesus Christ would have to tell them there was a deal to believe it.

Thanks for the link.

[jojobinks]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is Negreanu's commentary on this won't be enough for the posters in this forum. Jesus Christ would have to tell them there was a deal to believe it.

Thanks for the link.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess negreanu's commentary, while undoubtedly true, doesn't mean that a deal was actually cut. the way i read it:

DN doesn't cut deals. everyone else is more likely to. so phil was joking with him about hoping he busted out so they could chop.

again; i don't believe DN has reason to lie, so i guess that conversation happened. there is, however, quite a leap of logic to then infer that a deal was actually made.

i guess that's your inside source, eh?

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess that's your inside source, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that wasn't my source. Just pointing out that there is someone who you all are much more likely to believe discussing the prospect of a deal at the TOC. If my "source" was that link, wouldn't I have posted that in my original post?

It's unclear to me why Phil would be joking here, but again, you can choose to believe whomever you want. Of course, if you believe there was no deal, nothing will convince you otherwise. Negreanu's commentary would appear to lend support to what I was saying.

[jojobinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I guess that's your inside source, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that wasn't my source. Just pointing out that there is someone who you all are much more likely to believe discussing the prospect of a deal at the TOC. If my "source" was that link, wouldn't I have posted that in my original post?

It's unclear to me why Phil would be joking here, but again, you can choose to believe whomever you want. Of course, if you believe there was no deal, nothing will convince you otherwise. Negreanu's commentary would appear to lend support to what I was saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not true to say there is no way i could be convinced. there is no way i'll be convinced by what i've heard so far.

you've never heard hellmuth say anything that was disengenuous? you've never heard him joke? or bs?

and you haven't really addressed my point, which is that even if PH felt like after DN busted out there was a better chance of a chop, it's quite a leap to then assume it happened.

i couldn't be less interested in playing guessing games about your source. i'm sure it's very impressive.

[freekobe]

I'm not asking you to guess my sources. I'm just asking that people consider the very real possibility that there was a deal at this particular tournament and in tournaments in general.

I agree - taking Phil's comments in Daniel's blog and determining that a deal was indeed made is a bit of a leap. That should not be conclusive proof. However, it does, at the very least, lay a foundation for what I've asserted here.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, if you believe there was no deal, nothing will convince you otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing? All it would take is some evidence. But there isn't any.

Besides, this isn't about whether we believe there was a deal. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. None of us can say either way. So I'm not saying there wasn't a deal; I'm saying that your claim to know that there was a deal is highly likely to be B.S. If there was a deal and you were in a position to know about it (e.g., if you are Annie's tax accountant), you wouldn't say anything.

[JoeTable]

[ QUOTE ]
... I'm sure that Phil would not want to tarnish his bad boy image by admitting to making a deal with Annie.

[/ QUOTE ]

since when is Helmuth a bad boy? A whine boy maybe, but he's not particularly bad.

[JoeTable]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, this is not the kind of place to say where I heard this info, and I realize that this hurts my credibility. Like many of these types of things, you hear them through the grapevine. Of course, you don't have to believe me, and I certainly understand why you wouldn't believe/trust me. I just know that my grapevine is shorter and more authoritative than most.

Could I be wrong? Possibly. I think my information is accurate. To the one poster who cited Annie's presence on this site as the defining reason why there wasn't a deal struck....I ask this: what else is she going to say?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the most boring arguments I've ever read. I feel dumber now.