I thought it was pretty much confirmed that Ivey was given huge (7 figure) loans to play Isildur1?

He crushed him for $3m while playing on a loan

its not even the fact that they may have recieved a loan that they were not intending to pay back that is disturbing. after all it is still real money they would have recieved. whats really disturbing is if they had recieved that loan with players deposits, as what was discovered when they(ftp) went insolvent.

Having no fear of loss does not automatically give players greater skill at big bet games. It's similar to the idea that a big stack can run over the table. Playing in a wild style does not give any special advantage over other styles, except against those who do not know how to adjust.

Now someone employing a wild style may cause greater variance for everyone at the table, and this will raise bankroll requirements. And it is true that someone playing under bankrolled is likely to play scared and thus play poorly, but think about what this implies:

If a very wealthy player plays nosebleed stakes, partly with the intention of taking advantage of other players who may be under bankrolled, are they actually cheating him if they turn out not to be under bankrolled? It's a ridiculous claim.

I get the strong feeling that the players colluded against Guy.

Well I guess it's settled then

So I guess what I've learned here is that if you want to make a baseless accusation stick with a decent amount of people, the key is to make your accusation something that's questionable as far as whether or not it's even bad. Then when people are arguing about whether or not the offense is actually an offense, they completely forget the part about you being full of **** in the first place.

fish lost money and now hes mad about it lol. nothing to see here

Yeah this. Was that a rhetorical question coltranedog? If not then my thoughts about you:

i guess what you have actually learned is that there is this idea that it's innocent until proven guilty ..but actually it is the other way around: you better prove that you are not guilty because you may not get action if you can not do so.

"you have to give me action because you can not prove i am cheating" simply does not fly.

I know this may be a shock to you, but my life is probably a lot more interesting, and worth a lot more than 500k.

Not sure how you can possibly argue that playing with money you can't actually lose isn't an advantage? You either lose money you don't pay pack, or you win real money. Regardless of skill or opponent this is an advantage.

JFC this is so tilting. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO GUY HOW THE OTHER GUY GETS HIS CHIPS

As long as Guy wasn't colluded against (I've seen nothing approaching proof of that yet) and can cash them out if he wins, from Guy's perspective the origin of the chips of his opponent is immaterial.

This is putting aside the fact that these players almost certainly weren't operating under the assumption of HAHA I DONT EVER HAVE TO PAY ANY LOANS BACK SEND ME THREE MOAR MIRRION PLZ HOWIE

I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

Unless you can show that Guy's opponents were not thinking they were playing with real money (and there is not a shred of evidence for that afaik), you have no point.

Pretty sure that most loans were secured with ftp-shares or future earnings and would have been deducted from other payouts at some point. Do you honestly believe Howard would have just forgotten the money if they lost it? lol, if so.

Completely legit to play on credit if you are good for the amount you risk, and find a creditor who agrees.

plus you can argue with guy's unending supply of money they were just leveling the field. a bankroll is a bankroll no matter who or where you get it from. hes a sore loser, typical fish crying about losing

Yes. I believe someone that co-mingled company money with player money would fully support creating fake money for highly skilled pros to go get actual real money added to his Ponzi scheme.

It's a great thing to have as a player, but when it comes to extracting money from the opponent, it's no different than being a billionaire, or having a billionaire backer. Having a huge or unlimited bankroll isn't going to suddenly make you know how to play your hands better.

i think we have a winner

Durrrr, jeez Rob I would think you would knw this. Everyone makes mistakes though you know...

fish is mad he lost wtf is everyone talkin about

I wonder what will happen next.

This post raises a lot of interesting questions. Does having a large bankroll and the pure knowledge that you have a nice edge in the game and for all practical purposes can't go broke in the game give a player a n advantage. I would say absolutely yes. It is kind of like if you are the Bellagio or Caesars right? Isn't that exactly how they operate? Is it cheating? I would say no, but I could see how some would think it is a little shady. I have played in large, well organized private clubs where some really skilled players have had access to the chip box. The club's owners let them play on credit because they felt the players edge protected them and it was good for business, keeping the rake going et cetera. These arrangements were kept as secret for as long as possible because it bothered the other/rec players.

The second point is if the players were colluding. Here is the situation. Some really great players with varying degrees of acquaintence had the chance to play together at the same time against a monster fish, who might quit at any time and had the money to do some pretty significant damage to them if he got hot. Said whale could also make their lives if he got beat bad and played long enough. Would collusion/soft playing make sense in this situation? I would say yes. Can I prove that happened, no. Would any shady deal among high stakes regs shock me, obviously no.

A casino would never let bill gates play uncapped betting blackjack. So yes having an unlimited bankroll of imaginary money is absolutely an advantage.

I'm guessing they would probably let Bill Gates play within the limits of the game no matter how much money he had available to keep playing, which is exactly how poker works also. Not that having a bankroll isn't an advantage, but that's a pretty dumb analogy considering you can't buy into a poker game with a billion dollars, not that it matters since no one has to match it anyway.