If more than 5 innings of a baseball game is in he books at the time the event is cancelled, it counts. So, yes, the immediate score would matter.

mike, the "butterfly effect" argument, whether cash or tournament, does not make me conclude the only fair result would be to give everyone back their entries and screw the remaining 27. Such an an argument creates chaos if applied to every situation someone needs to weigh equities and has no real practical value.

Taking an intermediate score and saying its a final score is not the same as taking a final score and claiming its cancelled.

Not the best analogy because the top-half of an inning can be rolled back in such a case.

Example: Team A scores 2 runs to take a 3-2 lead in the top of the 7th, but then the game is stopped because of rain. The final becomes 2-1, with the team ahead, A, losing.

When you get knocked out you don't take your chips with you, they stay in the tournament and therefore have an effect on future outcomes. I think the "butterfly effect" argument is germane to this situation.

This tournament is not a typical experience and you can not view it as such. If my tournament was ended in a huge heads up pot with Christian Lusardi you better believe my tournament was "cancelled" unfairly.

Not trying to derail an epic thread but this game would be suspended and continued at 3-2 top 7th at a later date. Would not revert to 2-1 and team B winning.

4.12 A (5)

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info...tart_end_4.jsp

What isn't typical about it? There were some players that were knocked out regardless of whether lusardi played or introduced chips. There are probably players remaining in the tournament who have not had a lusardi chip in their stack yet. Did your tournament end this way? No, of course not. But even if it did, your tournament wasn't cancelled, it was completed.

Nice first post??

Impressive, out of the 2.7 mirron different ways to get rid of chips, you were able to ferret out two of the only ones that were actually worse.

Anyone care to link something about the prior incident involving Men the Master ? I didn't know this wasn't the first time he was implicated in a similar scenario.

Monday has come and gone and I haven't heard anything about "justbecauseican" being arrested

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...mmerce-148212/

That's one.

Paying out in some way the final 27 and then refunding the players that didn't cash would cost the Borgata what....over $2million. I doubt that is going to happen. I don't see any solution that has the Borgata going into their own pocket for that much money.

Since there is some comparing of this situation to other things...
If in a poker room you are in a hand and there is a lot of action. The deck then is found to be fouled (extra card or multiple of same card), the hand is voided and the monies are returned, in most rules I've read. The guy with the best hand isn't given a part of the pot and people who were in the blinds are not told their money is gone. All the money is returned and the hand didn't happen.

Not really. If starting stacks were 25k and one player got 26k by mistake, does that extra 1k dramatically change the course of the tournament due to the butterfly effect?

Another issue is that there was a lot of randomness to this tournament in the first place, just like any other tournament. The most obvious random variable is whether you happened to sit at the same table as the cheater when he introduced the chips. Maybe you had AA and he had KK and you won many other chips than what his real stack would have been.

But this random variable has nothing at all to do with your play or your skill. It's just randomness. You were seated at the same table as a monster stack which happened to be illegitimate. Many others were seated with legitimate monster stacks or a table of short stacks. Some had good cards and some didn't. Some took bad beats. Some had very poor slow dealers which prevented them from building their stack. For all we know, a good dealer called in sick and they had to get a far worse dealer. With the good dealer, a player may have gotten a cooler or built his stack through skill which would have snowballed through the tournament. But the blind levels went up and he couldn't build his stack.

Basically, the idea that the stack could have changed something, somehow, at some point, to dramatically changed the outcome is not an argument to cancel all results. And that's the logical conclusion: to do what Mike seems to be saying and rescind all the payouts and refund all buy-ins like it never happened.

That idea is incredibly stupid on its face. I would hazard a guess that, despite the fake chips, the people at the top played better on average than the people at the bottom. They also got lucky in many ways having nothing to do with the fake chips, just like all tournaments. Everybody's expected portion of the prize pool was negatively hurt, but it's just not close to a buy-in.

What is not typical about this tournament? Every single player that did not cheat was robbed of equity from the outset.

It is no different then buying into a 9 man sit n go and each player gets 2000 chips. Later you find out one player did not get 2000 chips, he received 7500 chips. Regardless of whether you bust out first or you win this tournament you were robbed of equity from the moment the first hand was played. Also if you had knowledge of what was actually happening you would have more then likely stayed home.

Just to answer your question, I did not play in the tournament.

Refunds will be given probably the day before spring open opening event come to borgata to pick it up or they will mail them out may 1st or something.

I don't agree with your premise but it may be your use of math terms that i am not completely sure are being used correctly. If only 10 percent of the field was getting paid, i don't think every player was robbed of equity. By design, 90% of the players have no equity in a tournament. Regardless of the cheating, only 10% could be robbed of equity. Math guys jump in if I'm wrong, but i think the proper statement would be the cheating would lower the expected value to not equal the actual value. As an aside, i thought skill level could cause the same variance.

+1

Everyone that played gets a refund otherwise it's a blatant freeroll.

Some of the expectations itt are a bit wild imo.

EV impact
(Assume it was just one cheater). Police said he made $6,814 profit. That's what he took out of the tourney through his cheating. There were 4812 entries. The average negative EV impact on other entries was .... $1.41 *

Impact on players at his table
Of course, some players were affected much more by his presence, notably those who played at his tables. But that impact was on average positive for players at his table since (a) its good to be seated with a player who doesn't care about his chips and (b) in practice he lost all the chips he introduced - he can only have lost them to players at his table.

Impact on other players
The players who didn't play with him were losers from the cheating. They each lost a couple of $ of equity (on avg).

Impact on day 1A players
If he (and any other cheater) didn't play day 1A then there was no impact whatsoever on players who played 1A and were knocked out during the day. There was an impact on those who survived to day 2.

Compensation
The above doesn't say anything about the right course of action for the casino. The tourney was compromised and players have a right to feel disgruntled. They paid rake to the casino and one of the things they reasonably assumed they were paying for was to play in a tournament in which all players had equal chances (ignoring skill differences).

Day 1A: Assuming no cheaters then for players knocked out on that day: $0.0.

Final 27: I can't see how anything less than ICM/chip ratio is justifiable.

Other winners: Obv they should keep their winnings (and those who haven't received them should be paid).

Non-winners: It would be reasonable that loss in equity + at least part of the rake is the starting point for any compensation. (The rake because the casino failed to deliver what it was being paid for). There is an argument for full buyin refunds but that would be extremely generous iyam.

Ultimately this will likely be driven by DGE not Borgata.

Disclaimer
To pre-empt the complaints: The above are just average equities - there will obv have been large individual winners and losers through his presence in the tourney (as for any other player in the tourney).


* If you assumed average 2.5 entries per player then the average impact per player was $1.41 * 2.5 = £3.53. So, interestingly ...

well thought out. not sure I agree with it all but most importantly....

+ 1 on boss use of spoiler. I clicked before looking at your formula and LOL'd

27 Players get ICM Chop
Cashers keep cash
Everyone who played gets a full refund

All having nothing to do with the when's and how's or forensic investigation of Poo Poo man and his band of chip buying morons. And having everything to do with two posts below.

I also predict that after the above is announced, Chainsaw will start a thread to correctly point out that cashers and final 27 should also get their rake refunded, because others did too.




oh and +1 on this which gets lost in all the other stuff. how many times you gonna make it to final 27 of ~2500 player field with ~400K up top? not often the beat of all beats for this.

I think the final 27 are going to get some sort of chip chop after the investigation is complete (just my opinion). If you played the tournament you had a chance to get into the final 27 and get that money. So the prize pool will be paid out. You could have easily been helped by being at this guys table, if you won a big pot off him you certainly benefited. So, i think its all mock outrage because people want some sort of refund.

In the end once the investigation is complete i think that Borgata will do something for everyone who played in terms of some sort of refunds. Just because they have always treated their customers well and it would be horrible pr to not do something.

But of course if this ever happened again in the future (and this event will make is less likely) they need to be in a position where they don't take a big hit on refunds. Probably put some procedures in place for a stoppage or whatever.

This doesn't seem right either. Just because only 10% get paid doesn't mean the other 90% never had equity in the tournament.

I don't think casinos and cardrooms can be put into a position where catching cheaters could lead to their own financial ruin. Borgata and the gaming commission have to be conscious of setting an industry standard when deciding what to do. If it happens in the future somewhere else, everyone will be looking back at what happened at Borgata for guidance. So unfortunately, I don't see full refunds being likely.