|
|
#11
10-16-2005, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ANNIE PLEASE READ
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Again, for Canterbury Park players, the basic thing is this: YOU CAN ACCUSE TWO PEOPLE OF COLLUSION (MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THEM) AND REGARDLESS OF YOUR REASONING FOR IT, THOSE TWO PEOPLE WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY AT THE SAME TABLE. So, all you CB'ers, go wild. Can't stand that guy with BO? HE'S A COLLUDER. Can't stand the obnoxious 18 year old punk and his friend? OK, THEY'RE COLLUDING. [/ QUOTE ] let me be the first to say that the next time i am at a table with you and BK, i will cry collusion IMMEDIATELY. [/ QUOTE ] See that is the whole point: I am seriously worried that someday this very thing will happen, especially because BK and I often win and are friends, BK and I play eachother aggressively, and there are certainly a few people at CB who do not like BK because of the way he acts at the table. And apparently if it does, there's nothing I can do about it even though I'm not colluding and it's obvious I'm not. [/ QUOTE ] agreed. this whole incident/situation is alarming. it seems that the floor didn't want to disappoint a whiny loser, and chose instead to pass the buck. 
|
|
#13
10-16-2005, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ANNIE PLEASE READ
[ QUOTE ]
So now, the next time Player A and C come to Canterbury, Player B has also driven with them and is a known friend of A and C. BOOM. Guilty by association. Player B is told he cannot play with A or C, too. [/ QUOTE ] I forgot to say the two in question last night were player A and B. B hasn't played at CB in close to two months.
|
|
#14
10-16-2005, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury floor ruling
So, so, stupid. Ugh.
Btw a few people have accused andy and blake of colluding before. It mighta been when they went and donked at 4/8 though. Of course anyone that knows anything about the 30/60 canterbury game knows they aren't. I'm not worried about people thinking you and I or anyone else collude...because we're well known enough with the general group of players and it's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention we're not colluding and I think they'd stand up for us...so I don't really worry about it. Actually now that I think about it didn't somebody once accuse you and I of colluding once Schneids? I think they mighta been kinda kidding but I was drunk and got pretty offended...and the table convinced the player we weren't and told me to cool down and that was it. The floor wasn't even called if i recall. Most of the main players are friends outside of poker in this game. That's why this is a ridiculous precidence. At some points there are 7 players who are friends playing in the same game...and they're playing probably harder vs eachother than vs anyone else. Nobody says anythign cause everyone knows nothing against the rules is going on. I don't know why they're punishing the players they are. They're just like everyone else. If you were gonna work with somebody, wouldn't you be a little sneakier? I mean jeez, you ride and show up with the guys, hand eachother money from time to time, and play eachother hard. Hmm. Oh, and no proof. None. Not even remotely. Good call. The funny thing is I bet most 30/60 games wouldn't object to the two players sitting at the same table.
|
|
#16
10-16-2005, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ANNIE PLEASE READ
I don't know the room, I don't know the players, I don't know the floor. But I've learned how to listen and read skeptically.
Just based on that I don't believe that things went down as you said. That doesn't mean I believe the players were colluding, just that I don't believe that the entire basis of the decision not to allow these two to play together was that some player stated "Why do you think they're colluding?" "Because Player A is winning too much money, and Player A and C are friends." People hear all kinds of things in a cardroom and seldom do they hear the full story. I don't know what the full story in your situation is, but I really doubt that what you have written is the full story.
|
|
#17
10-16-2005, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury floor ruling
If the floor has evidence that there is collusion between two players, why are they allowed to play in the cardroom at all? And if they only have a suspicion, based on no evidence, why are they doing anything based on BS?
|
|
#18
10-16-2005, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ANNIE PLEASE READ
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what the full story in your situation is, but I really doubt that what you have written is the full story. [/ QUOTE ] you may be right, but I know all 3 players and the suggestion that they would collude is utterly absurd. They can beat the games straight up, why would they risk it? Besides, none of them are smart enough to pull it off. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#20
10-16-2005, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury floor ruling
[ QUOTE ]
If the floor suspects collusion between two players, why are they allowed to play in the cardroom at all? [/ QUOTE ] exactly. i get the impression that the floor thought it was BS, but had an irate regular who wouldn't shut up. they wanted to please the regular and since the 2 players allegeldly colluding are nice guys and young, the floor tried to pull one over on some "kids". it's disgusting.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
