I think the base argument of the post was, there is lots of examples that demonstrate "deviation from expected play" that obviously demonstrate there was strong elements of protecting the partners stack/equity over playing the game fairly and individually. But also that the way they situation was presented show there is no ill-intent or pre-meditated inclination to cheat players.

I agree that the other player should not ever be pressured into a chop, but lets be realistic about the situation - he knows that the most +EV for either of them is for neither to bust, and for them both to stay ahead of them in chips. Thin (or even not thin) value bets, all-ins or really any sort of aggression between the two of them is franky -EV for the pair of them. He is therefore trusting them to sacrifice obvious, easy EV to maintain a completely fair game, I think if we're being real that's a BIG ask (not impossible) and like AW says, an equal chop or a winner take all structure is the best way to protect himself from giving away a LOT of EV.

Certainly not fair... he's found himself in a spot where he's been screwed out of a little equity through no fault of his own...take the deal and move on to the next, **** happens (even though it shouldn't).

R.E The Germans. Someone said they all refuse to chop with anyone out of their group. I know of a few very big private chops (3handed) that have occurred because of this exact thing, one guy admitting to having a large financial interest in the other.

This is ignorant, you can flip the situation and ask why did the 3rd guy (who is a professional poker player) enter this tourney if it wasn't value.

Softplaying is an epidemic...

I would argue it’s the norm..

People are shocked whenever I sit down w a friend and we go right after each other.

No one is surprised; they know you guys are splitting up all the money in the parking lot.

I don't think you understand how collusion works.

It's just a completely asinine take. What are the odds that if they are the two best players in the field, they are both going to make the final table of a 250 person tournament?

Yeah, why would they play this random tournament? I mean it's just a tourney with 30k start stack, 60 minute levels, and a 7 figure guarantee prize pool. Those happen, what, five, six times a day in Vegas summers!!

This

My point is that 2 people on a shared bankroll can go completely aggro on each other for the sake of appearance ; it’s irrelevant because they are just splitting the money later. Obviously this only applies in cash games.

It's not a threat, it's the reality. I feel that you view it's some theoretical universe where everyone can make perfect decisions without the weight of the world under them.

What are they supposed to do? Let's just suppose for the sake of argument they are under a shared bankroll and have 50% of each of themselves. People aren't robots, I would argue they can't even not-softplay even if they tried to, because a lot of decisions in poker are made by feel. Obviously, the knowledge that you are torching $xx,xxx by getting it in, influences the play whether you want it to or not. It's like a hand history, where when the result is shown, it influences the opinion strongly.

Also this type of 'advice' or opinion doesn't help anyone, because you offer no constructive solution. If this is cheating behavior, the end result is that the next couple says **** it, if this is cheating then why offer a chop, let's just open every button, open fold the flop when headsup, and **** everyone. The intent was clearly not to take advantage of the situation and try to offer a resolution that would make it as fair as can reasonably be. It's important to weigh that in and not just say "**** them they are cheaters."

That pragmatic view of "let's make this unfair situation as fair as can reasonably be made" trumps the theoretical view that "every player has a right to play through to the end of the tournament without being cheated" because of the circumstances. In this case, the situation is de facto unfair due to the nature of the tournament (that anyone is allowed to enter and sell pieces) and that cannot be undone. Trying to pretend that playing through to the end of the tournament can be done legitimately is doing nobody any favors. It is like if the dealer habitually is flashing your card during the deal. The best I can do is say that your cards are being shown. Or I can offer a chop based on the equity. But if you force me to play it out, I can't now pretend that I don't see the cards the dealer is flashing and play "as if" it was totally GTO. I can't do it even if I tried (and I am a player probably more than 99% of players that tries to play every hand as if it was versus a computer.) For obvious and pragmatic reasons, you should just take the chop and move on with life.

I did offer a solution, and that was that casinos should not allow both members of a couple to enter the same tournament.

I certainly understand the criticism that this is unenforceable on the casino's side. So perhaps it should simply be standard accepted practice in the poker world that couples (or anyone else playing on a mostly shared bankroll) should not enter the same tournament, enforced by reputation.

During the WSOP, there are dozens of tournaments being spread every single day. There is no reason why both members of couple need to enter the same tournament at Venetian for both of them to do their jobs.

Alex Wice is friends with Alex Fox apparently. He's throwing a bunch of gibberish to defend two people who were nice to him in real life. "Kristen has studied 100 bbs" and apparently she had no clue what to do 3 handed. Good work. Cheating is so prevalent that everyone should be doing it, is what you're saying.

And if you're entering the tournament together with a friend/co worker/BF/GF/backer or whatever, with the intention of colluding at the final table, you and your friend are cheating. I don't care if it's 200 people vs 2000. The problem I have, is if there's a 200 person tournament and a 2000 person tournament, going on at the same time, and they enter the 200 together, it's because of "they're" value, together. How the **** would that tournament be best, for both of you to enter? Would people not want to avoid this situation for the integrity of the game, or is an edge and any amount of profit way more important?

If players are entering together, they're cheating. Whether it's you and your friend, or Alex and his. Any of it, needs to be looked and tried to stop. Period. I've been backed and have never had the impression that I should be soft playing any of the other horses. I'm sure if you go after the other horses in the stable you'd get dropped, but that's nowhere near what this is, and anyone who has backed or been backed knows this.

And for whoever said what are the odds if they're the 2 best players in the field. If they're playing together, and use game selection to limit the field, those odds surely increase. That's ok? To pick a smaller field with your friend knowing the advantage you gain if you both make a final table? She tweeted about this months ago, so they've been dreaming of, and what could even say planning, this exact thing

I still don't know if these people watched the live stream or just want to keep their friends? It's confusing to me. Watch the stream and not just the highlights

And what do you do? You ban people who cheat, who try to cheat, and who have cheated. I think we should hold pros to a higher standard especially. Amateurs may do it by accident, these pros, in my opinion, did not. When making a schedule they knew where "their" value was

So which partner plays and which partner forfeits playing in the Main Event? What if two people hook-up while still in the Main Event? Should that be disclosed to the TD? Which player should exit the event? What happens with the other's chips?

I wouldnt give a **** if Bicknell was the mother of my children. I still would have jammed that AA all over her cranium.

As I already posted, this tourney had a seven figure guarantee with 60 minute levels and 30k start stack. Please post the other tourneys in Vegas that day that had those characteristics. And my point on the odds of them being the 2 best players was asking what chances they have of finding themselves at the same table together, much less the final table? There was a very small chance of that.

Do you have any idea if they even share a bankroll, or are you just too busy with histrionics for facts? I'm engaged, and my fiancee and I have separate finances. They aren't even engaged.

If they wanted to cheat, they would have hid their relationship and/or not offered a fair chop.

Mid-States Poker Tour, baby!!!!!!!!!

Two people who hook up once are not effectively sharing a bankroll.
Two people who are in a serious relationship can decide amongst themselves who enters each tournament.

A casino implementing a rule that "two people who are in a serious relationship" shall not participate in the same poker tournament seems absurd. And I'd be very surprised if it ever happened.

How do you decide who is "effectively sharing a bankroll"?

My dad was renting a house from me. During my divorce, I moved in with him and we shared the cost of the mortgage/expenses. Could we play a tourney together?

As I said, my fiancee and I have separate finances. Can we play a tourney together?

I swap 5% with a buddy on all tourneys. Can we play a tourney together? What if we swap 10? 25? 50?

You are coming up with absurd, completely unworkable solutions for something that is simply not an actual problem in poker. So stupid to say "oh well a couple who is "seriously dating" can't both play the Main Event because OMG what if they both make the final 3????"

After thinking about it, I do agree it is unworkable for a casino to have an actual rule to this effect.

Which is why I suggested that this should become "accepted practice, enforced by reputation".

If this is not a rule but simply an informal practice, it would be up to you to decide on a case-by-case basis whether you were sufficiently financially disinterested to play fairly against the other player.

I'm just saying that if someone if a professional, they should feel a professional obligation to avoid situations where their is a significant incentive to cheat or an obvious appearance of unfairness.

+1 for Alex Wice comments.

ITT busto nits try to further rationalize external factors for their perpetual busto.

Busto nit solution: Let's further restrict the playing fields and dissuade women further from playing. Don't worry, its not a rule - just an informal practice

I was going to answer but when you said, "If they were going to cheat, they'd hide their relationship", which shows that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and probably didn't watch the stream

They're all over twitter, bragging, and they colluded heavily at the final table if you watch it. Just to fill you in. And Alex Wice seems intelligent enough to do the %'s on the chances of them being at the same table in a 200 man tournament. I'm not that intelligent. I admit

And how about a 1 year ban for first time offenders that don't tell tournament directors they're in a relationship and are moved to the same table. They should want to not play with their significant other. Playing a poker tournament should be something their proud of as a couple, not hiding. That's where I'll give Alex and Kristen credit. They weren't hiding ****. They were all over twitter. I'm sure they could of just innocently thought this would be an accomplishment


And the Wynn had a 3 day 1, $1k 1 Mill Guarantee going on that day. The next day, Planet Hollywood had a 3 day 1, $700, 1 Mill Guarantee. Seems like two professionals who are dating could avoid this situation or go for it. They went for it. And they got it.

If pros are now increasingly entering the same tourneys together, regardless of their relationship, intending to collude when at the same table, to increase their edge, it's a problem. If the relationship is so blatantly obvious, there should be an easy, or easier, solution.

COUPLES SHOULD NOT WANT TO PLAY TOGETHER, UNLESS THEY ARE INTENDING TO SOFT PLAY EACH OTHER AND INCREASE THEIR EDGE AT THE TABLE. IF THEY DO THIS. THEY ARE CHEATING.

Friends are the same thing, it's just not as obvious. If couples don't notify a tournament director they are together, in what way are they not effectively cheating? And again, friends are the same thing, but friends could be friends because you both stole some ****. A couple, is a couple to be better or some **** right? We need role models in poker. Why not couples? Step up or hide. It's on them

So we're at the point in poker where questioning face up collusion is answered by "busto nits".

Are people seriously defending this statement???

So this "practice" would keep the people who were most interested in fair play from playing together while allowing the shady people who want to push any edge to go ahead and try it?

And I agree with your second paragraph, with the insertion of the word "reasonable". I think it would be crappy for these two to reg a $1k SNG together. I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to both reg a $5k $1M tourney where you expect a field of 200-300. I think it is beyond reasonable for them to both reg the WSOPME.

Yea because women entering tournaments with their boyfriends is a strong example of Womens Empowerment. They don't need men to be good at poker. I want anyone in the game playing with integrity. Couples intending to collude, stop registering. I'm fine with it.

And I'm busto, because you're all cheating apparently