Chip counts when chop was offered?

Not if the thread were to go by viral as Chainsaw has been known to deliver viral worthy threads.

say what you want,but the guy would shove river 100% of the time vs any other player,also 4bet pre with JJ...but it's his wife so...

I mean, I can see her playing this as passively as she did - the other guy is short. She doesn't want to get it all in vs. her BF with one pair and a big lead over the other guy. Nothing wrong with C/C this down...and when her BF bets the river, she knows he must have it - so what? No different than knowing someone's betting patterns who you play with all of the time.

If they did get it all on on the turn and their hands weren't as strong, they'd be being accused of chip dumping. Can't win.

This is brilliant!

I was playing in the WSOP PLO event last week and his table was right next to mine. Saw Kristen come in and deliver some food to him and then they kissed and she left.I was thinking who is this tool she is with. Now I know. Thanks NVG!

If the dude refuses the chop and is aware they're in a relationship/shared bankroll, it's really just the fault of the 3rd guy. Nothing the casino can or should do really. It should be obvious you're at a disadvantage over normal situations, but maybe he thought he was still +EV despite slight collusion likely happening.

Pre flop the call can be explained by ICM quite easily they both have 3x the shorties stack. The river action i agree with that stack to pot ratio and hand strength he would jam vs every other player.

It could have never been made into a thread.

The only reason you're at a disadvantage, is because you know the other players left will be playing " together". They shouldn't be playing together if everyone believes "they" will play like this.


People saying what do you do about this, how about ban them from playing the same tournament? It's really simple and may be harsh, but if they act like this when given the opportunity, then who's to say they won't act like this again?

I watched the whole stream and yea it was horrible. The JJ vs AA hand was laughable. His A6cc fold in the sb to her button 15bb or so open jam was a call, but that wasn't as bad as the JJ vs AA. But him trying to say that folding A6cc in the small blind, to a button 15bb open jam 3 handed was probably a "right ICM fold", while he had the most chips, was pure nonsense. I think she had Q8o or something

One hand where he opened the button, she called in bb, checked flop and turn heads up, then she lead mini on the river with Q high and he folded Ace high or something. Looked so weak it was funny

My question is do the tournament directors not have any obligation to uphold the integrity of the game? Penalties or even banning people who play like this?

The whole twitch chat and even the announcers were talking about the JJ hand. Even the third player Burns or whatever brought up his suited Ace fold to her shove, minutes before he busted, and it was extremely awkward to watch. Should the tournament director not try to protect the third player from obvious collusion?

Implicit collusion is allowed and should be expected. Should a satellite player bet a dry side pot with the nuts when a player is all in and on the bubble? It's impoosible to force them to play differently.

If you're the third player you throw ICM out the window and make all your decisions based on pure chip EV.

You're not dumb. It doesnt matter about any icm chop situation or possible collusion, meta relationship dynamics. This is the most important point. Bets were sized so small on all 3 streets as to avoid busting Foxxen. Anyone saying anything different is just plain ignorant.

I just assume this happens in poker all the time, although rarely when you're down to the final three. When the two players are professionals, you ultimately have to trust that they are exactly that – professional. They will always seek to do the right thing, make good decisions, and not harm the good name of poker.



Okay, so maybe there ARE times to be concerned...

somebody needs to tell her to get that ****ing drink off the table.

I don't think it needs to be done in your $30 Weekly Jeronimo. I'm just saying that maybe it would be a good idea in the majors/SHRB. Also, most of these questions are not that tough to answer.

I'm not gonna type a paragraph here. Big difference between being a fish and colluding to gain an edge.

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.

Again. This just confuses the issue. Implicit collusion is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Two players working together to increase their combined equity without communicating is not implicit collusion. That's explicit collusion.

Any time you take an action to purposefully help another player to the detriment of your own equity that's explicit collusion. It's a pretty simple standard: You are expected to do what you believe makes you the most money.

You could argue that’s that what they did.

True, but what makes you the most money might depend on how many percent of another player you have or if you are in a marriage with combined finances.

If player A swaps 15% with 6 other players and only has 10% of himself, it’s in his best interest for everyone of them to finish ahead of him.

Actually thats what implicit collusion is. And the dude bet his hand all three streets simply because his hand is so strong betting larger probably gets even less action. You can't force them to have any bluffs against each other, so they play accordingly. I don't think they are working together at all and I think the AA and JJ hand proves it. They aren't 3betting light against each other so JJ goes down a ton preflop against a 3bet even 3handed. What does she have when she 3bets? Pretty much no pairs smaller than jacks, maybe tens. Then he flops a set and bets 3 streets, she figure it out by the river and I don't think he signaled her. Maybe I'm naive. Everything in the hand looked fine to me.

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.

I don't think anyone is accusing them of signaling each other.

I think people will see this as a contradiction. It just gives them too much of an advantage and OP is asking what is the fairest way of handling the situation for the odd man out.

I'm not sure the answer, but I think it was fair of them to offer a chop and the other guy should have taken it or tried to negotiate something that he felt was fair for him considering the circumstances. If he is adamant about not making a deal, then oh well I guess.

Thread title should be changed to more accurately reflect its contents.

One solution would be to not allow couples/people with certain close personal and/or financial relationships from registering in the same tournament (or at least at the same time, obv it is fine if one busts out and then the other registers after). Some online sites have rules like this.

Correct. Nobody in the world would ever bet that sizing post flop after flopping that monster. Preflop is understandeable but not post. Im curious to know what Burns woulda thought if he woulda watched the whole hand.