|
|
#1
04-28-2005, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
More info on the Habib-Le collusion theory.
Not sure that this portion was posted before, but if not, this comes from Paul Phillips' website;
"Pulled from a comment: While we are on the subject of the WPT , whats your opinion on the so called percentage swapping between Habib and Tuan Le , some forums are suggesting it was as high as 50 % . I've been reluctant to post about this since I don't know for sure what the arrangement was, if in fact one existed. It is widely believed by people who would tend to know that there was a large shared interest between hasan and tuan; I heard it was hasan owning 50% of tuan, not a swap, but the potential problem is the same either way. It's hard to overlook hands like this one, when still 6-handed: Hand 43: John Phan has the button in seat 5, Hasan Habib raises to $400,000, and Tuan Le pushes all in for $965,000 more. Habib thinks for a while, counts out the proper number of chips, thinks a little longer, and then folds. 2-1 to call for the dominating chip leader on a hand he opened with. Or this one, 3-handed: Hand 117: Tuan Le has the button in seat 4, and he immediately pushes all in. Hasan Habib asks for a count, and it's $1.54 million more for him to call. Habib says, "I should call you," and folds K-J of clubs faceup. Tuan had fewer than five big blinds in his stack and pushed on the button in a 3-handed game where he is way behind the other two in chips and thus has virtually no chance of "sneaking up a spot." How do you think KJs does against Tuan's hand range under those conditions? I don't know whether anyone did anything unethical and I like both hasan and tuan. But it's not realistic for people to ignore huge shared interests at the poker table, and I have no idea what could be done about it. You could try to ban it but people will do it anyway. You could require swap disclosure but not everyone will, and even if they do it doesn't help you that much to know about it. I fear that tournament poker is already on its way into becoming a "team sport" and eventually people might start feeling like they have to join a team just to keep up. Dread." If true, and I don't see how at least these hands cannot be, this is EXTREMELY shady. It would be different if these were reraises from someone like Dewey Tomko, but versus Tuan Le? Is there a player in the poker universe with a LAG-ier tournament image than Tuan? 
|
|
#4
04-28-2005, 11:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More info on the Habib-Le collusion theory.
I would be surprised if Hassan did not have 50% of Tuan. As was posted on this board and confirmed by several respected posters, Tuan won a satellite into the Foxwoods WPT event. Hassan then bought 50% of Tuan. If I was Hassan I would expect 50% of Tuan's action in the WPT final since the entry was part of the Foxwoods prize pool. Not much you can really do about it since backing arrangements are common. It was highly unlikely that Hassan and Tuan would end up at the final table anyways. Seems like one of these situations you just have to deal with.
|
|
#5
04-28-2005, 11:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More info on the Habib-Le collusion theory.
[ QUOTE ]
If they were colluding, couldn't he have just mucked the KJs and not aroused any suspicion? Unless Habib's thining on a higher level [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I think it may be because he knows the hands will be seen by editors or get shown on WPT, so he has to make it seems like he knows he should do it, but just can't. A bit of "Methinks he dost protest too much", I think.
|
|
#6
04-29-2005, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More info on the Habib-Le collusion theory.
Occam's Razor
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
