I was one of a handful of media members who covered Phil Ivey’s final table march toward a 10th WSOP Bracelet in the $1,500 Eight Game Mix game a week ago. The crowds were surprisingly sparse (not so surprising really, considering the complexities of mixed-game poker), until it became apparent that Ivey was a front-runner for the victory. Naturally, spectator interest centered on the widely publicized prop bet that either he or Daniel Negreanu would take home a bracelet during the 2014 WSOP.

The mixed-game format is ideal for scooping a bracelet. Difficult to master, these relatively small field events have yielded the best results for pros like Ivey and Hellmuth. Five of Ivey’s 10 bracelets come in mixed-game formats and none has come in a straight NLHE tournament. Incidentally, this matchup was held in the side-event stands of the Amazon room, as the main ESPN stage was being retrofitted for the upcoming One Drop TV coverage. This made the action intimate and frenzied, with crowds swelling at the rails, and exciting as hell to watch.

Covering the early stages of the final table, I notice that Bruce Yamron (seated directly to his right) has been chatting away with Ivey. This is certainly not the silent, focused image I have of Ivey in high pressure situations and during the dinner break I ask Yamron about this. An engaging conversationalist, Yamron tells me that he has known Ivey since 2000: “I used to put Ivey into 75-150 games in back in his Taj Mahal days in Atlantic City. Funny story... my daughter is a PokerStars reporter in London and knowing how Ivey loves wine I invited him to The Ivy, a famous West End place known for its wine. When the sommelier comes around, Ivey cuts to the chase––’I’d like to see your reserve list’.” Yabron raises his eyebrows with a chuckle, “These vintages start at around £8,000 per bottle.”

As it turns out, Ivey methodically picks off his opponents over the next two hours, with local favorite and 2014 WSOP Seniors Event winner Dan Heimiller felted in third. Going into heads up play––with virtually the same stack as Ivey––is none other than Bruce Yamron.

While they set up for heads-up, I catch a conversation between a well known player and a couple magazine reporters, cynically discussing the odds that Ivey made a deal with Yamron to throw the match. After all, Ivey has much more than the $167,332 first prize and WSOP glory riding on a successful finish in the Eight Game Mix. He and Negreanu took all comers on a bracelet prop bet that had maximum single bet amount set at $1 million. Estimates place the prop bet totals at anywhere from the $200,000 Negreanu tweeted to a few million.

All thoughts of prop bet angles on the back burner, I get back to the serious business of covering the heads-up battle. With Ivey and Yamron starting with nearly identical stacks, the end is surprisingly quick. A swelling rail that includes the likes of Chino Rheem, Joe Hachem, Mike Matusow, and Erik Lindgren watches as Ivey makes short work of the overly cautious Yamron. On the first hand, Yamron calls down to the river in seven-card stud for 215,000 chips, before mucking to a river bet. I notice that Ivey gives a slight smile and does a boxer-like head bob thing when he has what he considers a strong hand––a sign to his opponent to steer clear, perhaps.

The truncated match ends in Omaha 8, with Yamron’s two pair losing to Ivey’s higher two pair and the crowd going wild. Despite the sense of jubilation among the fans on the rail, there must be a good few onlookers with crushed dreams, as they lose significant propositions that Ivey will not take home a bracelet this WSOP series. Speaking with reporters after the historic win, Ivey notes that he tempered his aggression on the final table, choosing to chip his opponents down rather than “spew off chips and give up the lead.”

After the inevitable hoopla of Ivey’s historic win dies down, I do my research. There is speculation on the 2+2 forums that Ivey could have shipped his good friend Yamron the first prize money (or more) to lose, as prop bets well exceeded the first-second place prize differential. There are many posts on the subject, but the basic speculative gist is evident in these two examples:

Privateworld
“No way Phil did that”

ICallWithKK
“No way anyone in poker would ever cheat anybody. I mean, almost every single poker name has been tangled up in some type of deceit. I have no idea if he did or not, but if ever there was someone who would do it, it would be a poker player who had huge side bets as to whether he would win or not.”

Here is a direct quote from my blog article in the aftermath of Ivey’s win:

“Beyond the logistical difficulties in trying to arrange such a deal during a break when many eyes are on you, I find (throwing the tournament) improbable simply because––as people who know mixed-game poker far better than me have noted––Yamron was playing less-than-optimal poker throughout the final table. He failed to raise pots and capitalize on premium hands, and limp folded to late street bets with some frequency. His performance heads up was a continuation of that style and he did not hit the right cards. With the pride of beating Ivey heads up for a bracelet also on the line, I say let’s give Ivey full props, as he ties Doyle Brunson with his 10th bracelet win and moves just three shy of Phil Helmuth’s record 13 WSOP victories.”

If that was the end of the story, I would not be writing this. However, I just got an email from Bruce Yamron (who along with Dan Colman turns out to be an avid reader of my blog). He wanted to set the record straight with someone he felt had reported on the tournament fairly. Yamron says “you can quote me on this” and I do quote:

1. Phil would NEVER have considered a deal if offered

2. Bruce would NEVER have approached Phil for a secret deal. Just not my style to want to live with that kind of secret for money! If I were to win a first WSOP bracelet, it was going to be 100% clean with whomever I were to get heads up with. His side prop bets were his not mine.

Yamron proceeds to give a succinct, blow-by-blow account of his end game strategy:

My play was exactly as you described at the final table. Remember, the best player in the world had position on me for four hours. My goal was to get heads up with him and then go for it from there. I stayed out of Phil's way and my plan worked perfectly EXCEPT for the ending.

Heads-up did go fast as we each had some premium hands, especially when I had spilt Qs in stud high and made open 6s on 5th or 6th, forget which. He had pocket 2s and hit a 2 outer on 6th. That was quite a big swing pot. Many bets.

Both big Omaha 8 hands were rough for me. First I had a set of Js and river makes a 4 card straight and a flush with the Ah hitting river. It was a very tough fold on river, but felt I could not beat anything. I believe it was not worth 80k of my remaining 300k to see that I was correct.

Final hand, I did flop Aces up when money went in and Phil did get there with a K on the turn. No complaining here. Obviously best player won. I needed to get lucky HU and just the opposite happened!

It was a perfect spot to win a bracelet against the best. Blinds and antes were very high, which left less room for Phil to grind me out. A lot of joy and good feelings from our entire camp, most who were watching on live stream. It did feel like an away game there, but I could handle that. I don't have any regrets finishing 2nd to Phil, might have other thoughts if it were someone else.

PS. I did miss one bet in Omaha8 hand earlier against Aaron Steury. I didn't realize I had a 2-way hand. Missed that I had 2 baby spades for flush along with my low.

So there you have it, the straight gen. I personally take what Bruce Yamron says at face value––it was a complete accident that we got to talking and from what limited interaction we did have, he seems a complete gentleman. I believe that people who know him well will confirm that he has enough money of his own and (more importantly) integrity, that he would not stoop to throwing a bracelet event.

Somewhere in that giant wall of text is what people clicking on the thread will want to read...

cool, I make no apologies about being an old-fashioned writer glad to share news first hand

Cliffs: Ivey didn't cheat.

Hi shulenberger:

There's one point you bring up which I think is even stronger than you realize. It's the fact that both Ivey and Yamron, if they made a deal, would never be able to mention it to anyone for many years to come, and that's not only not an easy thing to do, but if your opponent/partner was willing to make such a deal, would you be willing to trust him to be quiet for many years. And of course the same would be true for your opponent/partner relative to you.

But there's another issue here. And it's why are these high profile players even making public bets like this? I'm sure the +EV they may have in the bet is not something they need, and yet it not only brings suspicion upon them, but it can't be good for an event like the WSOP.

Best wishes,
Mason

No need to quote the entire post, Mason.

You're a reporter? I thought brevity was an important aspect of journalism.

Uh, no. Phil Helmuth has never won a mix game bracelet. He has one Razz bracelet, which is a single, not mix (multiple games) event.

I think you meant "non-NLHE" events when you said mix games. But even if so, again, uh no for Phil Helmuth. He has a Razz bracelet, but has entered at least 100 non-holdem events in his career, and probably over 200, one bracelet is no sign of great skill.

The truth is what you correctly noted, non NLHE fields are small, giving even players who are small dogs (which Phil Helmuth may be in most non-NLHE events) their best chance at a bracelet. Running better than 100 or 400 players for 3 days is far easier than running better than thousands of players for longer periods.

Phil Ivey has played far fewer WSOP events than Helmuth in his career, and not just because of his later start. But also because Phil Ivey is primarily a cash game player and has certainly skipped many events to play at Aria or in Bobby's room when a more profitable game is running (and for Ivey they almost all high stakes cash games are more profitable than low buyin WSOP events). Worse, due to his late start he's likely played a higher percentage of his WSOP events post Moneymaker than Phil, and since then all NLHE WSOP fields have become enormous and very inefficient means of pursuing bracelets.

So it's not surprising that a very good mix game player like Ivey would focus on smaller field non-NLHE events and win most of his bracelets there. He's never skipping a good game in Bobby's room to play a $1500 buyin NLHE WSOP event.

So now it's solid old-fashioned journalism to publicize elaborate conspiracy theories that lack supporting facts, evidence or sources?

One thing that might have been overlooked is that maybe Yamron is a big fish, they often miss bets & raises, that's what makes them fish.

I don't want to be too harsh, I appreciate your writing and your update. But I find the meat in this particular sandwich lacking substance, even though you presented and finished it well.

Texting to each other a deal as they both have each other's phone number is possible? and been friends for long time and both of those players could keep a secret. Who knows though

Perfectly solid post. Please ignore the ADHD crowd. Thanks for taking the time and effort.

No surprise

Its not like Mr Yamron would say anything different if they did actually make a deal

This proves nothing lol

Why would a poker site like Ultimate Bet, which was making millions, blatantly steal from customers? Why would Full Tilt poker insiders risk long potential prison sentences all for more money? Why do professional athletes risk millions of dollars and season/lifetime bans all because they just have to smoke marijuana?

At the end of the day, poker is flawed because unless you are playing heads up live and you know that the cards aren't marked, you are ALWAYS at risk of being cheated. Always, always, always. That is just the nature of the game.

Whether Ivey and Yamron struck a deal is almost immaterial. If anyone would ever strike a deal, it would be these guys in this spot. If you say that these guys would never strike a deal, then you have to say that nobody would ever strike a deal...lol.

Think of how many tens of millions through the years were taken from businessmen in the big games in Vegas. What were the odds that guys like Chip Reese and his cronies weren't going to get all of the money from these businessmen? They didn't have to have written agreements in order to know how to play in order for the group to get the most money.

Who knows if there was a deal or not, but the fact of the matter is that virtually all poker scenarios are ripe for some type of fraud or scam, and that has been proven time and time again by the biggest names in poker year after year. If Ivey would jump through hoops to pull off the card reading maneuver that he has been in the news for, you cannot say that he is not capable of looking out for himself and making a deal here. A deal would not even be outrageous in the scheme of poker tournaments. 99 percent of all deals never are made public.

The ONLY thing that you cannot argue is that there is an incentive to be honest in this spot. The incentive here is to be dishonest. Whatever defenses you can come up with don't overcome the obvious incentive to be dishonest. Whether a deal was made or not is immaterial.

That's not true at all. If anything, the spot Ivey and Yamron were in would be among the least likely spots for an underhanded deal to be made because, for starters, both guys are smart enough to KNOW that such a possibility would already be scrutinized by the general public (since they both go back to AC in the old days).

Underhanded deals (collusion, chip dumping) would be more likely to be made in the darkness, away from public view.....so you are right that it's highly likely that cheating deals go down elsewhere.

Thanks DesertCat, I do appreciate the heads up about Hellmuth.. I'll change that in the blog.

Well, I did come close to calling Yamron a fish in my analysis, then I let him do the explaining. Sometimes survival is the name of the game.

Speaking of fish, I myself am a HUGE fish in mixed games. I went through the steps on WSOP.com $200 to $600... then waited around for a week until we had enough players to do a satty into a $1500 event. By the time I won that satty, the only $1500 left was Event 63, 10-Game Mix, so I bit the bullet and entered that. I was the one with the STUD 7 book open and the Badugi/2-7 Hi-low rules spread out over the table. Notes like "flush, straight no good" "two of a suit BAD." SO call me the ultimate fish.

I'm not a journalist. I do not enjoy much of the dry stuff in the newspapers or poker rags. Call me a storyteller.

solid post. well-written and with a nice info content. Much appreciated.

Exactly wrong. It is the most likely spot for a deal because they have a very close history and so they don't have to establish a level of trust in making the deal. They are both smart enough to not make crazy plays. There would be no way to guarantee a Yamron loss, but they could tilt the odds in Ivey's favor if they wanted, and they wouldn't have to say a word.

You are talking about a guy who took an Asian lady to casinos with him to help him pull off one of the great casino heists is recent memory. He is willing to do all of that in order to make money, but somehow you can argue that he is not capable of making some sort of deal in order to make money on his side bets. You have to get real here pretty soon or you will not be taken seriously.

There is no point in even talking about why Ivey would not make a deal. The only argument to make would be that his ethics precluded him from making a deal. However, deals in poker tournaments are not unethical, so the only thing holding Ivey back would be reputation risk, or risk of people not paying him if they perceived that he struck a deal. Deals are made in almost every tournament, so that is not the unethical part.

The fact that the people betting against Ivey allowed themselves to be put in that situation is something that they understood would be possible. For Ivey to win a bracelet, he has to be heads up against someone. Maybe there was a deal, maybe there wasn't, but there will NEVER be a way to say for sure that there wasn't a deal. That is the nature of the beast.

Start from the beginning and ask what are the odds that a deal would be struck in a random heads up match for a bracelet. Who wants bracelet more in this spot? Now, whatever those odds are, do the odds of a deal increase if one person has 500K, and possibly a million or more in bracelet bets? The answer to that question has to be yes. The next question would be if the odds of a deal increase if these two people have a close trusting history between each other. The answer to that is yes. So, whatever the normal odds of a deal are, the fact that Ivey had substantial sums wagered on himself that he would win a bracelet, and the fact that these two have a very close bond and trusting financial history together, definitely increases the odds of a deal.

And nobody will ever know.

Has anyone who had a bet with Ivey/DN said there was a back room deal?

Unless someone who actually put up money thinks something underhanded went down, shouldn't we just end the speculation?

So I guess when DN finished 2nd to Paul Volpe earlier in the WSOP Volpe texted "No deal!" and kept quiet about it?

Best player in the world has position on me for four hours. I just wanted to get HU and go from there.

PI destroyed that table and the poker gods let Bruce watch.

Harlabob thought the odds of PI & DN winning a bracelet this year were grossly underestimated by the public.

A poster above made a very good point about PI playing a lot of cash games during the WSOP instead of fooling around with low buy-in events. PI & DN's bracelet win %'age is much higher than what the public was led to believe because there is not much (if any) solid public information on how many ENTRIES these two guys made in the WSOP in past years.

+1

haha nice

Loggy made some super strong points though. (Mason too).

I think it's clear that making a deal here would be unethical given the bracelet bets. I think most people, including Ivey, would agree.

Considering DN publicizes his WSOP stats each year, this information is certainly attainable. Ivey is a different story.