Really good analysis of Habib/Tuan Le

[tjw]

This is a good analyis.
But the method he used to calculate tournament EV is just a simple estimation. It is not very accurate. I won't be suprised if it has a +-20% error.
Let's just assume Le plays any two cards. According to his calculation, Habib's EV is 1.34M when he calls, +7% compares to 1.25M.
If he didn't have any information other than this, 7% is good enough for me to call.
Otherwise, 7% is not that reliable.

[Wayne]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="#666666"> That would just make a great TV show!!!</font>

Mike Sexton: Welcome to this weeks WPT. We have an exciting final table today.

Vince Van Patten: Shuffle up and deal!!

Mike: Wait, Vince! The players are talking. They made a deal to chop it 6 ways.

Vince: May all your pocket pairs of AA in the hole be live.

Mike: See ya next week!

[beanie]

A 2-5% swap is very different from a 50-50 chop amongst 2 players. Fact is there are supposed to be no deals, per WPT paperwork. Whether they cheated or not is irrelevant to the fact that they broke this rule.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
A 2-5% swap is very different from a 50-50 chop amongst 2 players. Fact is there are supposed to be no deals, per WPT paperwork. Whether they cheated or not is irrelevant to the fact that they broke this rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

That rule, at a minimum, is broken 6 times per season.

[beanie]

While I agree with you, Daniel clearly says they informed everyone. The others may not have.

[Seahorse]

I think there are two possible right answers.

1 -- suggested by Roy Cooke and Barry Shulman. Disclose everybody who has an itnerest in a player.
2 -- suggested by Mason -- prohibit players havin an interest in each otherand enforce it.

The prohibition exists in WPT contracts now, but seems useless. Mason says himself that his suggestion is impossible to achieve.

I think there is some chance for the Cooke/Shulman idea.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are two possible right answers.

1 -- suggested by Roy Cooke and Barry Shulman. Disclose everybody who has an itnerest in a player.
2 -- suggested by Mason -- prohibit players havin an interest in each otherand enforce it.

The prohibition exists in WPT contracts now, but seems useless. Mason says himself that his suggestion is impossible to achieve.

I think there is some chance for the Cooke/Shulman idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as players pay their own way, there will be deals, period. Not only that, but there should be. Handling the policing of play is a hairy subject though.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree with you, Daniel clearly says they informed everyone. The others may not have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I noticed that on his blog too. It was a bit vague - he doesn't specify what exactly they informed everyone of.

Also, I don't think it makes a whit of difference whether they informed people. If they had swapped significant percentages or had a backing arrangement, it can't help but influence their play, to the disadvantage of the other players.

If seems like common sense that a rule against any player backing or swapping an interest in another player in the same tourney should be implemented and enforced.
Sure, this might cause problems for some players, as I'm sure most of the backers out there are players themselves, so the major source of backing would dry up. Boo hoo. Maintaining the integrity of the game is so much more important than maxing out the number of participants, long term.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
If seems like common sense that a rule against any player backing or swapping an interest in another player in the same tourney should be implemented and enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be ideal. It isn't practical however.

Instead, how about a rule capping the size of each piece. For example, there could be a 5/15 rule:

-you can't have more than a 5% share of another single player in the tournament;

-the total of your shares of other players in the tournament cannot exceed 15%; and

-the total of shares in you owned by other players in the tournament cannot exceed 15%.

So for example you could swap 5% with three other players, or 2% with seven other players.

In conjunction with this, you would have to sign a declaration, before receiving chips, stating which other players own shares of you and which you own shares of. The declarations would be published for everyone to see.

How would this be enforced? Obviously enforcement would not be 100% perfect -- if two players really wanted to break this rule, and they are able to keep a secret, then they could do so. (The suggestion by someone else that the WPT scrutinize all players' tax returns would be an outrageous infringement of privacy.)

However, if the rule is generally seen as reasonable (which I think it would be), and it's made clear that a false declaration is cheating and grounds for being disqualified from the tournament without the entry being refunded, then the level of noncompliance would be very low.

Feasibly a rule like this could implemented for the 2006 WSOP. Putting the rule in place for WPT events might be more complicated because of the multiple jurisdictions involved.

[Pov]

So my wife and I can't enter the same tournament? What about the Brenes brothers? What about guys who are childhood friends?

Just stirring the pot, but it's actually sort of a serious question. I don't think you can control any of this stuff even if you could even theoretically enforce it. All you can do is watch for softplay and make it grounds for disqualification (not that I think you could easily enforce that either). It's really not that hard to spot in general, particularly once the hole cams get involved at the final or feature table. And with tournament fields being the size they are it can't be very likely you'll even be in the position for it to come into effect all that often. Now what if a team of players all got together? Now that is interesting. But too difficult to conceal, IMO.