I don't see a problem with what Sands did here. Those saying what he did was "shady", explain how the situation should have played out differently?

Calling the floor, or telling the guy to just play out the night isn't going to do anything. He clearly had no intentions of playing day 2 unless his father rose from the grave. He was going to dump his chips off regardless.

So if you're Sands here, you just fold every hand till the end of the night knowing that this guy wants to give you his chips?

Interesting situation nonetheless

such honor

Pretty sure this is collusion, even if that was not the intent

This I think is a rather unique, and if true, unfortunate situation. The gentleman whose father passed, essentially going to be chip dumping to someone. I doubt highly he had ill ilntent, with his father passing, his thoughts were elsewhere. I agree he should have likely have left at the point he decided he was not going to return, or if he wanted to play, play as he would normally and let his chips blind down naturally the next day.

If the OP version of events as portayed is true, then I think Doc Sands was very likely genuinely taken with the gentleman's story, and I also doubt highly the 1% offer, was in his mind any kind of staking arrangement, but merely a gesture of goodwill to someone who was hurting. Unfortunately, the situation gradually deteriorated, and went from 2 people trying to be nice to one another to an inappropriate arrangement. I think Doc probably was in a really awkward spot which he could not have conceived he would be in, and wasn't sure what to do.

My question is, how would this have all gone if the 5 had not come on the river. We would have a really sticky situation then.

x1000. I have long followed, "In the best interest of the game." and I know most good TD's live by this motto. I can't think of a better use than refunding a day 1 runner in an 8000 deep field because of the death of a parent.

I really don't understand why he is playing the event at all? If my father passes, first thing I do is unregister(if time) or talk with TD immediately and let him know the situation. If he says no refund, I reply so I'll just dump my chips off then?

But if he did do this and he felt his best option was to just play for the experience, then telling everyone at the table your dad died etc is not exactly going to give you proper Main Event experience.

With that said, the guys father just passed, so as much as I would like to say how I think I would act, who knows. I'm sure he was a mental mess.

As far as Doc Sands involvement, I'm not sure what to think. Seems he was looking for easy equity to me.

From the way OP described it the 1% staking offer seemed pretty shady. I would note, however, that OP made an alternate staking offer. Was he competing for the dump-off chips when he did so?

best story ever if the guy stands up and yells "TRAPPED YOU, SHIP IT!" and then goes on to win the M.E.

They were not "staking" offers.

+1 atleast a seat for next year or something


You think he knew about it while he could still unreg? Seriously?

I'm curious about this as well... Given that Doc was basically crippled by the hand, I can kinda understand why the op and the rest of the table didn't get the floor involved at the end of the hand. If the river is a blank, however, someone at the table probably go nuts about the chip dump, no?

Then whichever table his chips get placed at will get the benefit of both their stacks.

Sketchiness everywhere you look.

1.) Your dad dies... and you KEEP PLAYING?!?! WTF? Get up and let your chips get blinded off. Who gives a **** about $10K or the "experience"?

2.) IF you keep playing for some bizarre reason, DON'T DUMP YOUR ****ING CHIPS at the end of the day. Get up and let your chips get blinded off.

3.) IF you are Doc Sands, don't be a huge ****ing douchebag and
a.) Chat up the bereaved dude in advance
b.) "Donate" to the bereaved dude when it is in your self-interest to do so
c.) Do nothing to discourage the bereaved dude from chip dumping to you
d.) Play random **** when the bereaved dude is about to chip dump to you
e.) Start Hollywooding when the bereaved dude is in the process of chip dumping to you
f.) Play the whole thing off as "understandable" to the floor, dealer and table

That's all... except I wish I could say I was surprised.

If you take the accuracy and timeline of the OP as gospel (i mean it's hard for anyone to remember exactly what was said and in what order) then Sands offered the 1% AFTER the guy said he'd love to dump his chips to him. In that case I don't see him offering the player a cut of his winnings adding much shadyness to this situation.

However, if Sands really is a stickler for the rules then it looks glaringly bad that when the amateur tells him that he'd love him to have his chips that Sands doesn't voice to him how this would be collusion. The fact that Sands didn't say this- combined with him playing a hand he normally wouldn't in the hopes of receiving a dump- is very shady, at least from someone who is a stickler for the rules. It's not only shady, it's hypocritical and makes his rules stickling look really selective and self serving.

Btw, OP's account makes it sound like Sands informed the player that he had seen his cards only because OP saw him do it. I'd also like OP to clarify this.

It was mighty dumb of Mr. Sands to go all-in. If he thought the guy was calling or folding, if he saw his cards or didn't. Who's to say the dead dad thing wasn't some big angle? He should have tested the guy and min-raised or just called him down. Risking his whole stack (with A high) on some shady tomfoolery is ******ed, glad the 5 came. Somebody get a pic of the stack/empty seat and Tweet it to him. Def would bang his gf tho.

Pretty much everything about your post is wrong.

A) Doc seems fine here, he was nice, tried to let everyone know what was going on, and everyone clearly understood what was going on. it wasn't cloak and dagger, it was completely open.

B) What's wrong with that? I would do that same, it's a simple and nice gesture.

C) He did, actually.

D) That's a fine play. Open your range when you know someone is going to dump chips to anyone.

E) I think he did this to let everyone know what was going on, but also to think about whether it was okay, or not to do it.

F) It is though, and all of those parties agreed.

AND WE ALL THOUGHT LEDERER, JESUS and OTHERS WERE LEGIT

GET A CLUE MANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1

Nick:

You know, now that you mention it, it does seem strange that this man would receive this devastating news and still decide to stay and play (for one day only) rather than leaving as soon as he received the bad news. I would think 99 out of 100 people finding themselves in the exact same situation would not hang around to play in a poker tournament - even the WSOP Main Event - with grieving relatives back at home. I'm not implying that this was a set up and a carefully planned collusion, (Doc Sands would have to be crazy to attempt that), but most people who have just been told that their father has died aren't going to hang around a poker table with their suitcase packed. Also, if this man was truly a "clueless amateur," then how did he [apparently] know Doc Sands and reach the conclusion "If I have to give away my chips, I would want to give them to you." There's something a little hinky about this.

On second thought, I think it's impossible that Doc would have participated in any kind of collusion or planned any of this in advance. (He certainly didn't plan the way it ended!)

A question Doc should ask himself is what he would've done if he were the one watching this unfold from seat 9 (in hopes that he could be objective). At a minimum he makes it clear to the two players that what is happening is wrong and they should stop immediately. If they follow through, a call to the floor and/or tweets to Effel would've likely been in the mix. Absolutely no way Doc Sands just sits back and lets this happen.

Nice river , deserved , #karma

There is no wrongdoing on Doc's part whatsoever imo. He didn't put himself in a position to get chips dumped to him, but he found himself in such a situation created by someone else. At no point did he make a conscious decision to collude or do anything out of bounds. Under circumstances imposed on him completely by someone else, he acted reasonably and fairly. What else could he have done?

Edited to add: I agree what the other player did was clearly out of bounds. But, under the circumstances, I don't think poker has any answer as to how to fix the situation. All you can do is cast moral judgment on the dumper. In my case, at least, any outrage is overridden by sympathy.

That's the really eerie thing about this imbroglio - it had to be karma. Each of us could play poker for another fifty years and probably never see this identical situation again. This WSOP will probably be remembered more for the "Chip Dump That Went Wrong" rather than whoever winds up winning it - unless Doyle manages to pull off the victory of a lifetime.

Sounds like:
Dude says he would fold if Doc raises.
Doc saw his hand.
Said he saw his hand.
Floor was notified.
Doc, with the knowledge that he has floor backing, tries to get dude to fold 5 high.
Dude doesn't fold it.

Doesn't sound like shadiness on Doc's part. Should he have just avoided hands with the player?

so so sick. gj OP bringing us this story.

one of the best first posts evar