I would not take a slightly +ev bet that puts my entire net worth at risk either. In fact I might take -ev bets to protect it (such as buying insurance policies). Relating this to poker, I might decline to get involved in a situation with a very small edge for my entire stack, if the stakes are high relative to my bankroll

Therefore a very rich person can induce me to decline certain types of wagers. In that sense, being rich is an advantage. It does not represent an unfair advantage that constitutes cheating. Even more to the point, if the rich player thinks he can use this advantage against me, and it turns out that in fact he cannot, this also does not constitute cheating.

Laliberte didn't know the bankroll of the players he was playing against. Okay. But how often do you know the bankroll of your opponents? Almost never. Even if you have an idea of their networth they can be still be staked, perhaps multiple ways. The only thing that changed between now and then is now he knows their bankroll. Oh, they had a backer that would just keep on staking them and staking them? Crime me a river, tough luck Guy! What I think he should be griping about more is the equity chopping deal. Not that I'd ever get the chance, but that was bad enough that I'd never play against any of these players again. I was really shocked at how relatively little was said about this by the big names in the poker community. This deal and the lack of response was really bad for poker.

In all my years on the internet I've never seen someone use that many capital letters and be so wrong. Good job

Someone with a billion dollars should keep $200 and give away $800 ? ... That idiotic socialist belief has nothing to do with this thread. Go jerk off in your Prius and don't comment here you LOSER.

They should cap the WSOP at $5 mill, right ?

I have a friend who is a venture capitalist who had a meeting with a Russian computer guy who offered to build him and run an online poker site during the boom. We brainstormed about a name / theme/ concept, etc. He had a bad feeling about the Russian guy and declined the offer.

He told me 5 yrs later the Russian guy got somebody to invest in the site, and he sat at his computer looking at everybody's cards and taking down pots. He was a scammer. The investor lost about $500k and the big players on the site lost a lot of money.

If guys were playing against Guy with play money, and Guy was playing with real money, that's not a level playing field. I don't understand why anybody would argue that fact.

This argument is totally bogus. Guy never said he was playing with real money and they were playing with play money. (And I always enjoy stories about 'a friend of a friend'.)

I'm just here for your enjoyment, so you're welcome.

I think that any type of deal between two or more players at the same table compromises the game, therefore it is unethical.



PS.- I believe that guy was colluded against on FTP. ( Of course I don't have concrete proof that he was, but no one has proof he wasn't either.)

egotistical and delusional fish is butthurt because he lost and makes unsubstantiated claims about being cheated...did anybody really think all the losers in this forum wouldn't be sympathetic to that?

If by losers you mean losing players then you should say that, otherwise you come off as a big D.

signed,

Butthurt

Take it however you want m8, makes absolutely no difference to me

Sent from my LG-L38C using 2+2 Forums

Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means or finding an easy way out of an unpleasant situation. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation.


Looks like this Guy was cheated out of millions nothing surprises me with some of these high stakes players most are immoral low lifes.

How did Guy know which guys were colluding? Maybe the guy playing Guy thought he could team with another guy and then a group of guys vs. Guy would be +EV for the guys and –EV for Guy.

I personally played in some of the games with Guy. I never received a nickle from FTP, nor did many other pros who were in the same boat as me. The games weren't all Red FTP Pros & Guy at the time. Technically someone like me was even more f***ed than Guy, based on his logic - because I got 0 help from FTP money and I don't have essentially infinite money (for this purpose) like Guy.

As far as red pros - I had always assumed that they were getting paid their monthly payouts in their FTP account. That was generally the money they were using the play high stakes games. In hindsight, it appears they were also sometimes borrowing from FTP - with the idea being they pay back if they win, or could pay back in the future either out of their future earnings, or if too desperate by selling a piece of their ownership stake. If this was what was happening - it's hardly infinite (as every pro's borrowing capacity would likely be limited by their piece in FTP)... and the 200/400 PLO game and later 500/1k HA game could easily wack someone enough so that they'd be broke for a while until their payments covered their debts.

Sure, is that wonderful situation that was orders of magnitude better than my own? Yes. Was it worse then Guy's situation monetarily? Yes. And I'm not sure how it's any different than anyone else who owns a piece of a company and borrows against earnings/asset-value.

I do agree though, that it's unethical if they were borrowing out of players funds, and not from another one of the owners. Because obviously if another owners is lending, than it's not putting the company at risk - nor is the money "infinite" in that case. I doubt that anyone other than the top-most FTP owners know exactly how they were doing the borrowing. My guess is they had so much money rolling in pre black-friday that they didn't think too much about it.

This process could have been done completely ethically had FTP backed up players funds the entire time and the borrowing was accounted for, and coming from another owner... and in fact most of the Guy games, if I remember, happened well before black friday - and I doubt that FTP was financially unsound at those times... but I have no information about most of this one way or the other - just speculation.

Is it not Guy's point that players called bets or placed Guy all in because:

a.) They were equity chopping the all in hands. and
b.) they had access to vast amounts of FTP Cash and knew they could withstand swings they otherwise could not afford and thus didn't fold certain hands they otherwise would have folded.

That's my take on his concerns.

"Jibe," not "jive." Jive is a dance white people do, and is also a way black, urban, self-empowered folks spoke in the '50's thru '80's (we could debate the dates, I suppose).

But you definitely meant "jibe."

XO

I wonder why Guy was playing poker with all those guys. Did he honestly expect to make money?

Maybe he was hoping to gain an advantage due to his nearly unlimited bankroll.

The bankroll advantage arguments are ridiculous because guy was often playing against ftp sponsored pros and he had no idea of their income resulting from this in relation to the stakes they were playing.

If your sitting with players all playing a shared roll, you can't see the advantage in every multi-way hand?

With 3 way action, two players don't need to consider what the other is holding and can freely optimize their strategy against a single range. Guy has to play vs 2 or more players using strategies that make no sense.

Also I'm sure he felt the Full Tilt Pros which he probably admired as poker players, but were also, TV personalities, poker ambassadors, and seemingly very successful businessmen were people he could trust. I'm sure his trust was not something he gave away lightly.

He did let Benjamin off the hook for a monster pot which was a very generous gesture. So he may have started to see them as friends as well. Why shouldn't he.

And don't give me any BS about how he should know better when everyone reading this has friends they met through poker and were probably flaming players who had anything bad to say about FT prior to BF.

The fact that the whole thing was setup by those he trusted was far worse than just a betrayal. It turned his entire experience with them into a stab in the back. It's the ugliest kind of experience no one deserves to have.

Well said. Those that disagree are just rationalizing bad behavior.

Why do people play roulette, black jack etc?

Lol at people who think that its OK to be robbed if the victim can afford it.

Why bump an old thread by quoting a post that says "unless he was colluded against" and explaining why him being colluded against is wrong. If you have evidence of collusion please present it otherwise you're just speculating. The people saying it's OK are saying they don't believe there was collusion. The only rational argument against what they did was they colluded. But this is nvg so people just wildly speculate and assume they know everything.