Interesting cheating post

Boris · #1 07-02-2003, 08:34 PM

For once the GCA group pointed to a specific instance of alleged cheating. You can read the post on RGP by clicking here link to rgp post
GCA accuses TEd Forrest and Doyle Brunson of scamming at the final table of the WPT $25k event. Here's the hand in question:
Alan Goehring has ~2.5m of 5m chips in play. Ted and Doyle each have ~500k. Alan opens the pot with a small raise. Doyle moves all in with Q-8o. Ted calls all in with A-Jo.

When I first read about the hand I thought it was suspicious. I'm not sure why GCA took so long to make a post about it. Then again, I'm no tournament expert so maybe some one can give a logical explanation for why Ted's move was POS EV, assuming all players are playing independantly.

Tommy Angelo · #2 07-03-2003, 12:00 AM

I don't see anything suspicious about it. Just the opposite. If the other guy had not had JJ, then Doyle and Ted would have had to turn their cards over anyway, right? So they knew there would be no hiding of anything. Plus, if they were sharing a bankroll, I don't see how it would help their team to intentionally remove a team member.

If it they were not cheating, and it was a bad play on Doyle's part followed by a bad play on Ted's part (I have no opinion on either play), then wooptidoo. Somebody played bad. Big deal. If they were cheating, then I do have an opinion. They aren't very good at it.

Tommy

Boris · #3 07-03-2003, 12:39 PM

The thing that I found funny was Ted Forrest's play. Doyle moving in is no big deal. If Ted was playing solo, then he has to hope for a parlay of Alan folding AND Doyle having total crap AND being lucky enough for Doyle not to suck out (A-J is not a big favorite over too many hands).

The alternative is to fold his hand and hope that the big stack (Alan) does the dirty work of busting Doyle and moving Ted one notch up the pay out ladder.

The only reason I thought it was suspicious is because Ted Forrest has a reputation of being one of the best players around. His play did not strike me as a "good" play. That doesn't mean he was colluding. It's very possible that I wouldn't know a good play if I saw one or that Ted just played badly on this particular hand.

Those GCA people have been accusing the vegas poker dudes of cheating for a long time and in this one particular instance they offered a plausible reason for why this was collusion. No one on RGP offered a reasoned rebuttal.

Tommy Angelo · #4 07-03-2003, 01:11 PM

"The only reason I thought it was suspicious is because Ted Forrest has a reputation of being one of the best players around. His play did not strike me as a "good" play."

It struck me as a great play. He's got AJ and he catches Doyle on a Q-8 steal. What could be a better play than that? But then, I have no idea what goes through these guy's minds in late stages of tournaments. I suspect very few people do. And that in itself is a rebuttal against suspicions of cheating. I've heard about many plays far "worse" than Ted's. And now all of a sudden because someone famous makes a routine play, it's cheating?

"No one on RGP offered a reasoned rebuttal."

From what I've heard, that's standard.

Tommy

msk · #5 07-03-2003, 05:05 PM

Hi Boris,

I watched the show, and my immediate reaction to this hand was that they were colluding, but what do I know. Not much probably. Here was my thinking: Let's push one of us a double stack and split the winnings. And if we can catch someone to triple up, even better (and this is chump change anyway for them, so why not gambool). If they figure Alan for a small pair or two other decent unpaired cards, they are way favorites for him to fold or to lose and triple up one of them. His JJ and no A or Q on the board really messed this plan up. Ted looked pretty upset.

JMHO

Mark

Nottom · #6 07-03-2003, 05:19 PM

The play by Ted would have been great except for one minor problem ... Alan called. Ted is probably quite familiar with Doyle's play and might have picked up something that made him think Doyle was bluffing. He was right and called with a good hand.

Now its back to Alan who now has an all-in and a call. Most of the time you need a really big hand to call here and if he didn't have a much bigger stack then each of them maybe he would have folded, but knowing he wasn't going to be busted if he loses he can make the call and hope to knock out both dangerous opponents at once.

I do have to agree with many of the RGP posters who claimed that if this was an attempt to cheat its was a very poorly executed one. If you want to dump chips, don't do it in a raised pot during a televised tourney that shows hole cards.

Louie Landale · #7 07-05-2003, 12:06 PM

Maybe I'm brain dead, but so far I don't think so...Where, pray tell, is the cheating?

[1] Are they suggesting that Brunson gave his money to Forrest? If so, that's bad for the team and good for everybody else. Collusion cheating in a tournament will, for example, show the "best" hand fail to claim a pot and thus give it to his all-in partner, in order to keep them both alive. There is plenty of proof that the team is better off with two active players with a half a stack each than one active player with a full stack.

[2] Are they suggesting that they tried to force Goehring to fold a hand better than AJ by being faced with an unpleasant over-call? Nonsense. Goehring is GOING to call with ANY hand close to value to AJ since there is no more betting (his hand has no bad implied odds), his stack is in no jeapardy, and he can eliminate two players with one hand.

[3] Are they suggesting that they think the team is better off offering 2:1 with a reasonable and unreasonable hand, hoping to play 3-handed show-down against Goehring? Brunson is not that stupid.

Perhaps someone can please enlighten me as to WHY this appears to be collusion.

- Louie

John Ho · #8 07-06-2003, 12:37 AM

If you are going to double up one of the stacks why not do it in a hand where both "team players" can't lose their stacks...ie headsup.

The collusion charge is ridiculous. What if they ran into aces or kings there? Goehrring did not have a huge amount of chips invested in the pot so why choose this spot to risk all your chips on a play like this? I think it far more likely Forrest knew Doyle was bluffing and his long contemplation before going all in was his reading Hansen as weak which he was.