Close enough. Let me reiterate, though, that I can't be sure any of Guy's allegations are accurate. All I'm certain of is that Guy is mad, and that's fine with me. Even if everything he said is true, I'm still fine with it.

Whether you want to go as far as breaking the law is up to you. I wouldn't advise it, because it carries pretty stiff consequences and a legal battle against a billionaire is way worse than a poker game against a billionaire. Also, now you're involving third parties who may or may not deserve such treatment, and you're using violence. Maybe you think violence and law-breaking is the same as soft-playing and equity chopping in poker. I don't happen to share that opinion.

They do. What does this have to do with anything? Heard about some juicy games with Zuckerberg?

I think the difference is that in a backing deal the losses of each hand played are equal to the money put into the pot for each hand. Doesn't matter if half is going to the player and half to the backer or whatever, $1 still equals $1.
Obv. in equity chopping the actual loss isn't what it's perceived to be by an outsider. Seems to me that it's a huge advantage to be playing smaller stakes within the same game. Maybe I'm way off though, idk.

This^ is 100% the bottom line. He got robbed.

The notion that everyone else was playing with unlimited money is absurd. Had Guy ran off and won 10-15m to start. Most of the guys he was playing against would have went busto - he would have killed the HS action on FTP until someone backed those players - and that someone would NOT have been FTP. FTP wasn't backing anyone for cash games. Just for live tourneys.

billionare ego is hurt, who cares. grow up.

I am 100% sure he was colluded against, no doubt.

Actually even just watching it on tv he is spot on an he was probably acting less himself than usual in front of cameras.

When he gets it in vs benyamine with 2 pair vs a flush draw in a 1.2 mil pot or something he literally says the exact thing haralobo mentions. He agrees to just take 50 racks out of the pot and chop the rest ending the hand on the flop while repeatedly saying he doesn't care this money means nothing to him but to benyamine it is his life

It's not smaller stakes though. All it affects is all in pots where instead of running it out to decide a winner the pot is split according to the players equities. You might think about it as 'losing less' but you also win less too so in the end it is the same.

Put another way equity chopping does not affect winrate

correct

Its possible to like someone and still be well aware of their flaws duh

Harabob's post is very good and interesting but I suspect he underestimates the amount of times Guy was ganged up on by high stakes poker players in a way that was not completely ethical.

Coltranedog:Guy would also do things like sneak chips on the table to replenish his stack (quietly) so that nobody would notice how much he was down. At the end of the night, Guy was pretty much the only loser and yet he would always remark that he was "breaking even"
How many times was Guy ''pretty much the only loser'' No one else ran bad played bad or got sucked out on.Sounds like everyone was taking turns picking off Guys stack but not each others.But that's not collusion or soft play.

Depending on the table dynamics, this can happen naturally.

Two scenarios that happen when one player is hopelessly outmatched:

Assuming the spot is playing way too many hands, the other players could try to isolate, which will cause other players to attack those isolating and it turns into a wild swingy game where people are showing down weak hands in big pots

or

everyone else pretty much plays super straight forward and waits until its "their turn" to get called down by the spot.

The latter makes for a much easier game all around. Prisoners dilemma at work

When you're talking about NO limit hold em, and you're sharing bankrolls to pick off a mark, you absolutely are cheating, theres no ifs ands or buts about it. You have no fear and guys one advantage as davino and prague pointed out, that he could apply max pressure playing at nosebleed stakes against guys who probably shouldn't have been playing that high... is taken away.

they gave out tons of "loans" which were never repaid and which were not backed by real money.

As mike pointed out this happens all the time at nosebleed stakes. This isn't anything new, what is disgusting about it however is that guy staked alot of the same guys that cheated him, and that he has also done a hell of alot for the poker community. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least if many of the high profile pros were colluding while playing in those games against guy. Got an ace? maybe i shouldn't four bet my dry aa in plo this time...

Correct. Its easy to play fearless when you're playing with funny money. I am actually really good friends with a pro who played on full tilt at this time, he never played nosebleed stakes, but when he saw the action and how the pros played particularly in the plo games, he said im withdrawling all my money off this site, somethings wrong here, these guys are playing so bad and so wild it's like the money isn't real. Turns out he was pretty much spot on and semi predicted the storm to follow.

Fish with unlimited money...sounds terrifying.

It wasn't money, that's the whole point. They were gambling with digital monopoly money, we were gambling with real money.

Who received a loan and didn't repay it (or even just a loan) that was playing in those games with Guy?

There were 19 players who owed FTP money according to this:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/0...l-ti-11962.htm

Don't know if the full list of players has been published. Only found six names in this article:
"Several of the players who owe money and have not yet expressed a willingness to pay their debts include Phil Ivey, Layne Flack, David Benyamine, and Erick Lindgren. Barry Greenstein, Mike Matusow, and others owe a smaller but still significant amount."
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...illion-587145/

That leaves 13 unknowns on top of the six named who might have played against Laliberte.

What are the odds those unpaid loans would be to someone who played high stakes against Guy??? Probably was just a lot of small loans to 2/4 players.

Are you asking this question rhetorically because you honestly thought we couldn't come up with answers to this? In fact almost all of them have loans they never paid back, but if you must know, degengamine, ivey, flack, greenstein to name a few. In fact honestly, you lose all credibility by even asking that question as if none of them borrowed money that they never paid back, when in fact almost ALL of them did.

yea, im one of those 2/4 players, I have a direct line ala a red batphone to FTP headquarters where they ship me virtual monies when asked, errr no.

I am pretty sure NONE of the the mentioned players@the list were random midstakes or lowstakes players. It is all highstakes/nosebleeds its just a less significant amount than Ivey and CO that probably owed more than a few millions.