Really good analysis of Habib/Tuan Le

[Seahorse]

http://extempore.livejournal.com/

[sirio11]

This whole incident really, really bothers me. I'm surprised it hasn't received more attention here in 2+2. This incident is huge. Don't know, maybe the reason is that poker players don't care a lot about the ethics and collusion in the game; unless affected directly.

[IHateCats]

The obvious answer to that is a lot more than you think are involved in it.

[IHateCats]

The other answer is that Paul's analysis is way, way above the heads of most 2+2 posters, it took me quite a while to work my way though it and I've been reading his blog for quite a while so I already knew some of the formulas he's using.

[Masquerade]

It's not that good. The formula used to determine winning probability from chip count seems overly simplistic and doesnt reward big stacks enough. There are also many intangibles at the poker table ... Habib knows Tuan Le's style well ... he knows he "ought" to call with KJs but some little glint in Tuan's eye or subconscious trigger he's not even aware of tells him he's calling on a 3-outer. Who knows? You can't apply "math guy" rules to intuitive players.

There's also the more basic fact that keeping Tuan Le down at 2.7 by folding is much better than letting him get up to 4.3 with a double when he's a live force again. I would assume Habib is confident he has an edge against Maxfield simply due to experience, so is happy to let him take the risk of eliminating Tuan Le and not be so concerned if Maxfield moves ahead as a result.

I would assume Paul Phillips privately believes there was some soft-playing going on, or he wouldnt make such a fuss about it. But I believe he has made deals at the final table before and I can see no moral distinction between deal-making and players owning percentages of eachother. Both reduce variance.

[gumpzilla]

Deals at a final table are usually agreed upon by all remaining players. This is a hugely different issue from two particular players having pieces of each other at the final table, where they can act in ways that increases the team equity at the expense of everybody else. You really can't compare the two things.

And yes, you can still apply mathematical reasoning to the plays of intuitive players.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see no moral distinction between deal-making and players owning percentages of eachother. Both reduce variance.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is a difference and a different set of problems. Which situation would you rather be in?

You're at the final table against myself and my buddy; you know that we play out of the same bankroll.

or

You're at the final table against myself and another guy and the three of us have agreed to split the money up evenly amongst ourselves.

I hope you realize you're in a far more disadvantageous position in Scenario A.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[Seahorse]

[ QUOTE ]
This whole incident really, really bothers me. I'm surprised it hasn't received more attention here in 2+2. This incident is huge. Don't know, maybe the reason is that poker players don't care a lot about the ethics and collusion in the game; unless affected directly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading the Cooke on Cheaters thread in NVG I think the official position of 2+2 forum is that there isn't much cheating and collusion.

[beanie]

I don't believe I have seen anyone mention this. On the WPT it is well known that you can't do deals. Wouldn't this incident as we know it be in direct violation of that paper we sign? Even if they didn't cheat.

[Phill S]

if no backing was allowed, then most WPT players simply couldnt turn up.

% sharing is just an extention of this.

deals should be allowed at the final table. thats for sure.