Offering the 1% is a little shady but when a guy is going out of his way to hand you their chips because they like you the most, how much **** can you give Sands, honestly. The guy who is trying to lose basically chose the shadiest way to lose, being the beneficiary of that is always going to be a bad spot.

If I was in Sands spot I would encourage the guy to start going allin blind after the dinner break and get ESPN to come watch so he could get some coverage/entertainment in light of his miserable day.

Of course it was chip dumping. The guy should have either walked away and let his chips get blinded off or announce to the table "I am going all in next hand no matter what I got" and keep doing so until he goes broke. Instead, he intentionally attempted to lose his chips to Sands. How is this not dumping?

Maybe the guys dad didn't actually die and this was all an elaborate scheme by him and the dealer to scam Doc while also shifting all attention and accusations to him.

Can't believe one of the most respecter tournament players is reacting so childish to this on twitter, these tweets in particular

"After losing an 80k pot with 90% equity 2 hands before the conclusion of day 1, I am left with 3,300 chips to start day two of the Main."

"Failed to run it up. Lost a staggering percentage of all-ins with the best hand this summer at the WSOP. So it goes sometimes."

seems so immature and whiny. so you had a bad WSOP ok bro.

I just think its one of these situations that deserves debate.

Do TDA or WSOP rules allow for this kind of discretion, that is, playing into a players 'kamikaze' style chip dump strategy after he advertised it?

I understand that Doc Sands called the floor over, but did he go as far as to explain the context of the situation so that the TD could make a more informed ruling on how the hand should play out? Taking everything into consideration and previewing Sands' opponent's hole cards when he snap called with 5 high, is it possible that the floor person would have ruled differently with respect to the destination of Sands' opponents chips?

Was a TD called for a second ruling, AFTER the hand played out and Sands lost? Or was the table overwhelmed at that point with the 5 coming on the river that nobody bothered with addressing the 'white elephant' at the table?

Curious what Jack Effel has to say about this situation, that seems like a case of human compassion gone awry.

he should #manup and tell his side of the story here or on twitter asap imo, his silence makes it so much worse

Epic first post by Barth

Lol at people suggesting Doc did anything wrong here.
And thinking Doc needs to explain anything to NVG , get over yourselves.

Agreed! Sands played the hand because of the specific info he had, nothing wrong with that. We need to give Sands props on his 1% offer, that's awesome a poker pro would do this. In retrospect at the wrong time, but at that moment Sands was probably only thinking of helping out someone having one of the worst days of their life.

The only very shady action was not by Sands but by his opponent, and in this case we need to also give him a break. Seems dealer made perhaps biggest mistake not making it clear to player about chip dumping rules once he showed his hand and such. But the last thing on this guys mind must have been poker.

Not slightly different. The two situations have absolutely nothing in common.

HaHa, don't think that would look so good.

"Hey man, just go all in blind".

Maybe you wake up with AJ and you isolate and win the pot! Would be super shady if everyone at table was not aware player was all in blind. I'd be more outraged at that scenario. Almost a loose loose whatever Sands would choose to do.

I am not sure ESPN would want to take advantage of the guy who just lost his father by showing him shove all in blind. The guy was not thinking rationally because of what happened to his dad. This is a very rare type of situation that I haven't really heard of before reading this thread.

Quality 1st poast, OP. Lolz at anyone who thinks Sands dealt with this the right way.

give the damn man a break sheesh. Are people really calling the guy a scumbag?

We know two things:

hes an old amateur

his dad just died.

OMFG SO SCUMMY TO DUMP TO THE FRIENDLY GUY NEXT TO HIM...


I guess this is what nvg becomes when no poker site stealsplayers bankrolls for a month...

dont even care that much but most ppl have played at a table and someone gets short/tilted and youve been friendly with them "if i lose i hope its to you" is a common statement at a table and it seems like thats not indicative of future desire to cheat

Still no reply from doc sands?

Did it ever occur to you that the first flight home that he was able to arrange might have been for the next day? That that was the reason that he decided to play out day 1? Would you rather that he just sat in his hotel room alone all day and night rather than try to take his mind off of the situation by playing some poker since he might have been stuck in LV until the next day anyway?

Did it ever occur to you to engage your brain before typing idiotic statements such as in before the divorce?

It seems pretty obvious that the amateur didn't know what he was doing and I could easily see him just wanting to dump the chips to Doc just because he was nice to him, even though it's in poor form and against the rules.

Doc did know though, and he was complicit. I mean, I don't think that Doc would ever actively try to get this dude to chip dump to him, and I could see how he could rationalize it (he probably didn't know the dude was going to dump to him when he called preflop, and after that he knew he had the best hand so why should he fold, and he probably doesn't wanna get this dude thrown out by calling the floor) but I think he has to speak up and let this dude know that he's blatantly breaking the rules.

also sick trap

He's probably not going to write up his side of things whilst playing the 10k at Bellagio.


I thought after reading Tweets from Ben Mintz et al there would damning evidence against Doc but it turns out to be little more than a situation clouded by ambiguity. Par for the course I guess.

Though there was likely no preconceived plan to collude, Doc should not be pardoned here. The opportunity did arise and Doc did willingly participate. The intent is clear. It can't be denied that in this hand Doc willingly and knowingly anticipated gaining chips from a player he knew was willingly, knowingly, and favoringly anticipating to lose chips. Yeah, that's collusion and it's been exposed.

The silver lining is that it backfired. And it's somewhat satisfying that Doc had just enough chips left to have to return only to prolong his inevitable bust an extra day.

At the minimum, Dave telling the guy he saw his hand and then shoving the turn proves be was trying to rectify the situation. He had not to have liked the situation he was now in. Otherwise, you would just call the turn and let the call bluff the rest on the river

lol what a mind bogglingly stupid post.
u really think if doc set up a chip dump IN ADVANCE this would be what he came up with?????????

jfc.

guy: "omg my dad died, I'm going to just go home now"
doc:"wait i have a good idea..."

wow congrats an even stupider post. pls refer to my original reply.

THIS IS


ENNN VEEE GEEEEEEEE

*frontkicks rbk down a well*

keep up son