+1

I'm sorry I felt the urge to defend Doc Sands when it wasn't even necessary.


The OP is a scumbag liar with a big nose and even bigger mouth.

If the OP is lying, then why doesn't David come in here to tell us that (or at least do so via twitter)? Also, why does he ignore this controversy for a week, then finally tweet a response (albeit a poor one) and then delete that tweet an hour later? That didn't help his case.

what i dont understand is that i thought this situation happened in a poker tourney not in a home game. Should there not have been some sick level start everytime the old guy puts his chips out. Did the other 7 players just led Doc take the old guys chips pretty amazing 2013.

Doc doesn't need to explain anything because he did nothing wrong. The OP's lie is not necessarily about the events that transpired, but his blatant insinuation that Doc offered the man 1 % to entice the chip dumping. That is a very strong accusation which can't be proven without getting inside the mind of Doc Sands, i.e. it's pointless for anyone to speculate and the OP is behaving really scummy to draw his conclusion without hard evidence.

The OP admits that Doc warned the man and the dealer "he had seen the man's hand" before acting on the turn. The floor was called over and made the executive decision to let the hand continue...at this point what the hell was Doc supposed to do? Fold? Why on earth would he do this when he knew his hand was 90 percent to win? As far as his professional ethics, he warned the table that he had seen the man's hand. The fact that the man still attempted to dump his chips to Doc despite all efforts to prevent it from happening cannot be blamed on doc. It's insanity that anyone would think this is even partially Doc's fault. He did nothing, NOTHING wrong. This has to be obvious to anyone who isn't a blithering idiot. Obviously the OP is either an idiot or a lying scumbag.

if it's scummy of OP to draw conclusions without "hard evidence," then it is equally scummy of you to accuse him of being a lying scumbag without also having "hard evidence" yourself.

and nobody here is questioning his actions with regards to what happened after the floor was called. he only did "nothing, NOTHING wrong" with respect to the play on the turn, but it's the situation in its entirety that puts his professional ethics into question here. he talks about chipdumping at the table, makes a questionable play against the same player who offered to chipdump, informs the chipdumper that he could see his hand only after he had been spotted seeing it by another player at the table. this also isn't a random accusation by an anonymous throwaway account: the OP has provided his real name and his position at the table. what's more likely: that this actually happened, or that someone decided risk their reputation to fabricate a story as intricate and verifiable as this one?

he's not necessarily a "lying scumbag" as there's also the strong possibility he's just a blithering idiot. I included that option in my response, but make no mistake it's option A or B.

Dammitt Ted! The man has a thriving medical practice to worry about!!!

No one has said that the rest of the table had any clue what was going on. So as far as we know the OP was the only other player that could've exploited the situation. Certainly he could've recognized what was happening and at least flatted on that hand with ATK to disrupt the dumpers plan. (unless Doc did 3-bet as someone said... in which case the OP should've 4-bet)

Also, the OP never said that the 1% freeroll was in compensation for the guy's stack. That was suggested by others. I agree that the 1% was probably offered with nothing but good intentions at the time.

where do you come up with this ****? Obviously Doc has the same chance of beating 6000 other people as Verlander does throwing a shutout.

(1) Doc didn't talk about chip dumping, the old man did. The old man also paid 10K to play in this event, so one would assume he knows the basic rules of poker.

(2) You called Doc's play with the A7 questionable but, even taking the previous chip dumping talk into consideration, there's simply no way to know exactly what Doc was thinking, so again it's pointless to speculate. Another factor, Doc could not have known if this man was being sincere about the tragedy or being a scumbag. If the man was lying about his father (some people are scummy enough to concoct these type of schemes) this would have been the perfect time to cash in with 2 hands left. Doc had to at least take this into consideration as he contemplated his decisions.

(3) Doc told the table he saw the man's hand, simple as that. The fact that the OP thinks Doc revealed the truth "only after I noticed that Doc saw the man's hand" is irrelevant. OP can't know that for sure so why say anything? If you can't prove it, then shut up.


(4) The OP revealing his real name doesn't mean anything in regards to proving his point about Doc Sands. It means he was there to witness Doc Sands behave like a professional and a humanitarian. Doc selflessly offered the man 1 % because he believed the man had suffered a tragedy. Then, when the man tried to dump his chips, Doc did the best he could to stop it from happening but ultimately it was out of his hands. The stupid old man called off with nothing and ended up costing Doc his tournament life and probably a N9 seat.


My point is that the OP should never have created this stupid thread. He clearly wanted to besmirch the good name of Doc Sands and failed miserably because he has NO PROOF, just meaningless speculation. IMO he's kind of a scumbag for trying to take down a good guy who obviously did nothing wrong (if you can't prove something it didn't happen, simple as that).

he engaged in conversation regarding chipdumping and then acted how a chipdumper would.

this sure sounds like the baseless speculation that you've been accusing everyone of ITT.

when two guys talk about chipdumping, and then one acts in accordance of how a chipdumper would, it is not "pointless to speculate."

the fact that you think that "there's simply no way to know exactly what doc was thinking" goes both ways, by the way.

yeah and i guess in the future, he should probably refrain from making hasty judgments about ducks when he sees something that looks like one, walks like one, and talks like one.

i didn't say that it did. i said the fact that he did makes it a lot less likely that this is a random made up story.

of course it does, doc.


hi, doc!

Your so ******ed. Half of what you wrote here is sucking up to Doc, while the other half is just your own hallucination.

Im not attacking DOcs integrity, but why hasnt he come into the thread yet, if he's innocent?

It's been asked what was Sands supposed to do? If the other guy is trying give you his chips, what could he have done other than play his hand optimally?

This is where many are tricked into believing Sands did nothing wrong, because they would have played the hand the same, AS WOULD I. Maybe not exactly the same, but the same in the sense of as optimally as we thought.

Look at it this way, I'm in a hand heads up and I'm aware there's a remote chance this guy could be soft playing me. After all, I'm playing to win a tournament and I can't let that stop me. As the hand develops, his actions lead me to believe without a doubt that he is trying to dump his chips to me. I don't know what else to do and I don't want to fold and forfeit my equity, so I just try to play optimally. In the end I lose my stack in the same fashion. Later, after enough time passes to think back and reflect on what happened, I am bombarded with questions about the hand. How do I answer? Yes, I knew he was chip dumping, but understand there was no preconceived plan, and it didn't become clear until mid hand. At that point I did not know what to do so I just played it out. I suppose I'm guilty, I remember being caught up in the moment and feeling confused and I now realize I used poor judgement.

So did I do anything wrong? Yes, maybe, maybe not. Did David Sands do anything wrong? Absolutely yes.

Recognize the difference?

A) Sands is an experienced professional and has vast awareness in a poker tournament environment / I'm just some inexperienced amature
B) Sands angleshoots to get a phony floor ruling / there's no floor involved in my hand
C) Sands covers it up as 'I just lost a big cooler hand' and over a week later claims 'I just played within the rules, but my opponent didn't, and I did as floor told me to' which he retracted hours later / I tell it like it is

We both played the hand the same, but the intent is not the same.

So because he is a professional he should fold? I don't see how the intent is different or why that even matters.

Imagine you only say a few condolences to the guy and he whispers to you that if he could he would give his chips to you. You say nothing afterwards. He may be angling you hard, you still have to decide if he is telling the truth. Seriously what are you going to do here to prevent him from chip dumping? What are you going to do in the middle of the hand once you have a bunch of chips in the middle and he shows you his hand other than inform the floor? Which for some reason you call an angle.

Not every situation is dealt with to a moral perfection. If Doc really wanted he could have told the floor he thinks the guy is just dumping his chips, but then they may give him a warning, when it wasn't Doc's intent for him to chip dump in the first place. Instead he took the professional approach, abided by the rules, decided the man was dumping and shoved his A high which was good!

I think it is likely he would have been disqualified or the chips would come out of play had he won the pot. Once the floor hears any description of the story there would really be no choice. Since he reverse freerolled himself and lost, doesn't look like there is anything more to be done. Saying "I played within the scope of the rules" is basically saying I don't think they can take action against me because it is a grey area. I think its a clear lapse in judgement if that person prided himself on being honest/ethical.

Did not see the point at all here. Blinded by Sands' smoke and mirrors.


***Does anybody understand the difference between

A) receiving an unsolicited chip dump openly and letting fair judgement take it's course

and

B) receiving an unsolicited chip dump and trying to hide it?***

So what's going on in here? Some cliffs perhaps?

I understand what you're saying but where's your hard evidence that Doc tried to hide it?

This is what you think:

- Doc only admitted to seeing the dumper's hand because the OP saw what took place, leaving Doc with no alternative

- Doc decided he may as well "admit" what happened and pretend he was doing the honorable thing, but really he knew the floor director would let the hand play and he'd still collect from the dumper.

- Doc hid the truth (lied by omission) by not revealing all of the information (prior dumping discussion) to the table/floor because he wanted to get away with stealing the man's chips.

- It's possible Doc encouraged the old man to dump to him by offering a 1% freeroll

- Doc's intentions/actions were at best selfishly motivated and unethical, at worst illegal

^^ I'm sorry but all of the above is simply what you have concluded based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay....Even the OP does not have any proof of his "beliefs" because unfortunately he does not possess supernatural powers, thus he cannot directly access the brain of Doc Sands. Nobody knows what Doc was THINKING, so we can only judge him on his ACTIONS

How did Doc behave?

Point - When the old man suggested dumping he said nothing.

Counterpoint - It's not Doc's responsibility to babysit this grown man who should know about simple laws like collusion. FFS a 15 year old should know better and understand what constitutes foul play in a game with fairly uncomplicated rules. That's if doc even heard what the man had said. For all we know he didn't.

Point - The old man raised from UTG and Doc called him outta the big blind with a questionable holding A-7

Counterpoint - Doc Sands has the right to play 2-3 offsuit right here and it's unfair to speculate that he was doing it for any reason other than accumulating chips to further his cause in the ME. He could not have known the man was trying to dump chips at this juncture. The old man could have been attempting the long con. Doc had to play against him the same way he would any opponent.

Point - The old man showed Doc his hand.

Counterpoint - Doc revealed this to the table and had a floor man come over. Doubters believe he still knew at this point that he could get away with the dump if he didn't mention the earlier dumping convo. Well, the fact is that it was not Doc's responsibility to mention a throwaway comment the old man made about "if I could dump my chips to anyone it would be you." Maybe doc didn't remember the convo? Maybe his genuine concern for the old man's tragedy put life in perspective and had his brain focused elsewhere (like on his beautiful bride Erika or his wonderful family) and he didn't even HEAR the comment. You don't know!!


Based on Doc's ACTIONS he did nothing wrong. You don't know the thoughts inside his mind, therefore your conjecture is ultimately meaningless. No one can prove Doc tried to hide anything. Give it up.

According to Sands 'I played within the scope of the rules'. Maybe you don't, but I recognize this as a classic angleshooters' defense. Coincidence?

Looks like Sands realized he slipped up and retracted it though.

35 pages in this thread? Over this stupid incident that means nothing? Wasn't it day 1? The entire table could have dumped all their chips to this Doc Sands and he is still probably a dog to make it in the money.

Who cares??? Go walk on the beach with your girlfriends or go get a yogurt at TCBY.

if the whole table had dumped to doc sands on day one he would have 2 less chips than JC Tran right now

Op doesn't have action correct, Doc 3bet pre.

When the floor was called over were they told of the whole "if i could give my chips to anyone..." discussion, or only the hand exposure sliver of the story?

this subject is getting old but I absolutely read Sands' tweet and reading here that it's now deleted+his non response is definitely strange & seemingly out of character for him.

right like he would come by here and open himself up to 100 of your baseless attacks when he did nothing wrong. that makes a lot of sense.

also unless I'm reading things wrong didn't other people at the table also offer him a one percent freeroll? ever think maybe he was just tagging along with What other people were doing to to be nice to the old guy.

if you're only reason he dumped is that he offered this one percent real free roll then everybody who offered him a 1 percent free roll was affectively trying to collude.

tongni:

There's no way to know for sure since it didn't happen, but I've wondered myself what would have happened if Doc had, in fact, won the hand.

The pressure would have immediately fallen upon Barth and the dealer (and theoretically all the other players at the table although I suspect most of them were bewildered as to exactly what was going on.) Barth would have had to make an on the spot decision, (i.e. "Do I call the floor or not?"), since it would have been too late once the dealer started dealing the next hand.

Let's say Barth did call the floor. Now we've got a major dispute involving a known (reputable) "highly respected" pro (Doc) and a relative unknown (Barth) with the scrupuously ethical pro probably insisting that he did nothing wrong. Given that circumstance, would the tournament director have disqualified Doc Sands on the spot and taken his chips out of play, knowing full well that such a decision would have been "controversial" - to say the least? If it got into a heated dispute as to exactly what the "facts" were, who's side do you think Jack Effel would have come down on?

Considering Caesar's history of letting name pros get away with bloody murder at the WSOP, (i.e. Scotty Nguyen and his drunken tirade comes to mind), nobody can say with certainty what might have happened. If the beneficiary of this chip dumping had been a young obnoxious kid named Drew McIlvain, your prediction would probably have a better chance of being correct. As it was, I'm not so sure. Caesar's and the WSOP have a demonstrated history of practicing the double standard when it comes to pros versus amateurs - they tend to give pros every benefit of the doubt while "amateurs" aren't so lucky.