Quote:
Originally Posted by madlex
Big difference between knowing somebody colludes and being able to prove collusion. Using a panel to decide if a player is bad enough to make a certain -EV play is a terrible idea.
Why less money has to be involved to go the legal route if the casino punishes players for collusion without being able to prove it.
Here's another idea and then I'm gonna try and and give way less mental energy to this whole fiasco.
Let's first acknowledge that we already pay out of the prize pool for dealers, tournament floors/directors and cashiers for multiple days. A hired team of three auditors for the final table is not gonna be that much more expensive.
A simple way to conduct this process, assuming you could find people who were qualified.
a. The panel of three is sequestered during final table.
b. After final table they're each given an anonymous hand replayer of the hands at the final table, up until a chop, or heads up. Let's keep in mind that most final tables are likely to be under 300 hands.
c. They flag hands believed to be suspicious (i.e. Dentale hand from a couple years ago where someone jammed 1.2 BB into his BB and he folds, or whatever the **** he did) If multiple judges flag the same hand individually they are reviewed and acted upon.
d. Additionally itm/final table players are able to report on possible chops/interests to assist judges afterward. Players can self report as well, in the interest of transparency.
e. In regard to 'not being able to prove collusion,' where there is smoke there is generally fire, moderate penalties can be imposed, and the alternative is not being able to protect against collusion.
f. Players are allowed to contest decisions.
I haven't heard any other solutions, not saying this is the best, just an idea.