Conflicts of interest happen all the time in tournament poker. Players are sponsored by the same companies or affiliated companies. Players share pieces or backers. There may be players with jobs wherein their employers are affiliated (this is what you're specifically saying in this instance, right?).

Golf may be a good analogy, as the same thing happens in golf tournaments.

It's usually not a big deal and there is no rule against it. Unless you can show some impropriety here, then you're really just casting aspersions.

When you were a little boy, you had a dream of growing up to rule the world. Now you're reduced to trying to rule an NVG thread, with everyone laughing at you. Life is cruel.

"Why don't they understand? Why?? :banghead: I stated a point, and offered my solution, and I stated my opinion on another point, and offered my solution to the important problem in my opinion, and I challenged all of you to cite situations that I think are somehow related to something that I feel is similar but NOBODY RESPONDED TO ME, it's like nobody understands my valuable thoughts that I am freely sharing with all of you??? OK you're all a bunch of whiners and misogynists and probably racists too, why am I even bothering to help you guys come up to my level?? "

.....what were they?

Oh I see you guys made up. Bobo has the patience of a saint.

None of those are remotely close to the same thing. If one of the PGA officials made a ruling on the course and also worked for the same player's sponsor, that would be an apt comparison. What do you think would be the public's reaction to that?

Actually, that inspires me to bring up my own analogy; I usually avoid these as they're almost always flawed and wind up leading to a mini-derail, but I'll try one here.

PGA golfer John Doe also does some golf officiating on the side (or if you find it more realistic, he's primarily a golf official, but qualified for a PGA event). He is involved on the executive of an officiating school. It just so happens that Bob Smith, one of the PGA officials on the course that day, is also an executive of the same officiating school. A situation comes up where an official ruling on John's last shot is required, and Bob is the official who makes the ruling. If it becomes public later that they are executives of the same officiating school, do you think anyone would have a problem with this?

And yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect (they never are), but I think the principle is close enough.

No, I've been extremely careful to avoid casting aspersions. I think the ruling was fine, and have been very clear that I'm simply discussing a conflict of interest, and whether tournaments can and should take steps to avoid ones of this level.

Ah, I've misunderstood your meaning, then.

What do you suggest as far as steps?

I would think tournament organizers would be wise to have some rules in place that floor people who have close relationships with players shouldn't be the ones to make rulings on their actions. The threshold of how close those relationships should be to have this kick in would be a matter of some debate, I'm sure, but I think the case at hand would be on the wrong side of the line.

It would be a rule that would protect the integrity and reputation of the tournament and the floor people. I expect that in the vast majority of situations like this, the ruling made is fine - it's mostly bad perceptions that you're looking to avoid. But of course, even though I suspect they would be rare, you really want to avoid any actual improprieties.

All that said, I'm sure situations like this don't come up often, and if there aren't any rules about this, that's probably why.

see? as I said in PM, we need a thread. ;-)

Feel free to start it!

In MTTc - Live, of course.

Sry no strat in NVG. Just watch again . One is blatant. Other one more subtle but very reliable .

The guy in the opening credits beard is so beast it's sucking hair from his scalp

This is why I can't watch televised poker dumb stoic stares and confused facial expressions as if they are calculating something when really they are just deciding if they feel lucky or not.

This guy talking and pushing the director is at least making it entertaining.

First they BITCH about internet guys not talking and now they BITCH when someone does talk make up your mind. If this were during the Jamie gold year he would have been DQ based on these standards.

Yeah +1

Funny post too

Is what Kassouf does angle shooting or cheating?

I think its gamesmanship, if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen, if you cant run with the big dogs stay on the porch

You make it sound like it must be one of the other. It's neither.
Complaining about it, however, is an kind of angle shot.

a syllogism, then:

1) intentionally breaking the rules to gain an edge is cheating.
2) Kassouf is intentionally breaking the rules to gain an edge.
3) therefore, Kassouf is cheating.

I don't think anybody can genuinely argue against #1.

#3 follows from 1 & 2 as long as #2 is true.

So, is #2 true? It's plain Kassouf is doing it intentionally since he continues to do it after being warned and penalized from the TD. Is it breaking the rules? I've posted WSOP rule #116 itt, and yes, it seems a clear violation of that rule.

He's a cheater.

It is information extraction, but it should be a hard and fast rule that if it is your turn to act the other player should not be allowed to speak to you if you indicate that you do not wish to be spoken to and do not then engage them in return.

Problem solved (Oh, and add an automatic shot clock controlled by the dealer!)

I suggest you read rule 116 again then, especially the very first word, etiquette.

An etiquette violation, by definition, is not cheating.

I would add that, to me, the section you highlighted actually refers to players not involved in the hand in progress. This is what Hellmuth was complaining about in his famous blowup on Poker After Dark with Annie, Sheiky and Gus.

1)when you break the rules in basketball you're given a foul.
2)To avoid easy baskets players often intentionally break the rules to gain an edge and intentionally foul
3) Basketball players are cheaters

I liked the new episode where the other Englishman whined with great Sarcasm .. flooor he's trying to influence my actionn...

There is nothing in the wording of the rule that limits this to players not in the hand. It hasn't really come up before that I remember because nobody has taken the opportunity to gain an edge by intentionally disrupting an opponent's right to think while it's their action. Well, Tony G, I suppose?

I'm not sure what you're saying about etiquette violations. Are you saying it's in the rules but isn't really a rule? Or, it's ok to intentionally violate this rule to gain an edge? Serious question. Frankly, I'm not sure how we could ever write a rule that really stops disruption while still allowing games to be social.

#1 is false.

There is plenty in the wording that implies that, but because it's so vague Jack used it how he felt like at the time.

I was pointing out that you are wrong to say violating etiquette is the same as cheating.

Look up the meaning of the word etiquette.

I didn't say an etiquette violation is necessarily cheating.

Yes you did. See below. You have said he is breaching Rule 116 (the rule that refers to table etiquette) and have come to the incorrect conclusion that by breaching Rule 116 Kassouf is cheating.

You wrote it, not me!