4 months>>>1 day in terms of preparing to collude. More time to buy a guy off, find out which guy needs money, create signals to collude, etc..

Yeah true, but there are hole-card cams and Harrah's could inact some super strict policy where a player shown to be colluding forfeits all prize money.

These people most likely will not know each other and won't be professional swindlers. In all likelyhood they wouldn't want to risk millions of dollars on trying to pull off some shady scheme right in front of a bunch of ESPN cameras and millions of viewers. Not to mention most people wouldn't want to ruin their reputation and look like a scumbag on national TV, even for some extra equity.

I don't think its easy to use collusion to your advantage in front of cameras, from what I've heard its actually difficult to pull off effectively at a full table under normal conditions. An amateur, or even experienced honest player is not going to want any part of it IMO.

All this talk about collusion being a guarantee and ruining the event sems a bit paranoid to me, but I could be wrong.

Making them give up all moneys isn't a super-strict policy, I think it's actually just policy. (See Stars WCOOP)

They have 4 months to get to know each other.

I doubt it's going to happen, just that it's much more likely with 120 days over 1.

If it's at all possible, this is going to make the final table bubble even more of a grind.

You make the final table - are you really going to ask two or three random other finalists that you don't know to "chat later" then ask - "hey - you don't know me and I don't know you, but I have this great idea that may net us a few more millions, let's collude!" no way. Still - a bit silly to delay it that long.

Poor choice of words and bad phrasing. I was trying to emphasize the point that in this case the prize money is multiple millions of dollars, so the severity of forfeiting that is greater than normal, that's all I meant.

I still think making collusion a focal issue, or acting like it's a certainty as I read Todd Brunson had said, is going overboard. If we can't spot/prevent collusion by a bunch of strangers on poker's biggest stage then what chance do live/online games have and why are we playing in them?

Lara, I think you need an updated quote from Roy Winston.

I heart Lara Miller !!!

well hopefully the 3 months would give him enough time to heal...











seriously though why do people keep asking this ******ed question? what if one of the players from last years final table would have been hit by a bus on his way to harrahs to play at the final table? what difference does it make?

winner!

I can't see any way ESPN would carry the FT semi-live for the 8, 10, or 12 hours it might take to get to HU. Then HU might take 1 hand or it might take several hours. A tv programmer's nightmare. What coverage they do show is going to kill the casual fan. They're just going to be bored out of their skulls.

what about events being made 11 or 12 handed?

I think they are showing it the next day as a 2 hour show, its not live.

I think that Brandi has proven that this isn't neccessarily true.

Yep you went there!!!

For ten million, how about one of the guys goes all Tonya Harding on the asses of the other 8 guys.

People have been killed for alot less.

I think that might smell a little fishy to the rest of the world.

Mikey.

AJ Green might try it anyway

Frankly, with all the time to study opponents, get mentored, etc, might actaully make the play better. Guys thinking deeper about the game, taking into consideration what their opponents know of their play, and countering it, could make play fun to watch. Momentum will be neutralized( at least for the moment), and maybe, just maybe, the best player at the final table will win.









Maybe not tho.....

I think this is the point. With only one day before the final table, this is pretty much what you would have to do. With three months, there is ample time for the players to meet and feel each other out, groom each other, decide whether they are on the same wavelength.

Suppose two of them meet the night before another tournament a few weeks after the WSOP. One suggests that they take 10% of each other's action in this other tournament. If the other says he would rather not - that's the red light. If he agrees, that's sort of amber. But suppose he says 'How about 20%'?' That's pretty much the green light right there. Neither of them mentions the WSOP.

In a later conversation, perhaps at the WSOP Europe, they discuss the other players they are going to meet in the final table in a few weeks. They exchange notes. At some stage, perhaps after a couple of drinks, they start talking about whether there is more collusion online than in live poker. They discuss what can be got away with live, and what cannot, purely in hypothetical terms.

By the time the WSOP final table comes around, they have 50% of each other's action, and a basic agreement on how they are going to play the table.


In my view, it is likely that there will be players with pieces of each other's action at the final table. And while I think it is still unlikely that actual collusion will take place, I think the possibility is far less unlikely than it would be with only one day for like-minded people to seek each other out and make deals.

And if anything untoward does happen, can you really see Harrah's turning around and saying 'It was a rigged game'? They are in the PR business now. I think they'll say it was clean, pretty much come what may.

lol at dq without prize being super-strict. dq no prize is super lenient. dq, no prize, prosecuted for fraud (or whatever crime is appropriate) fined into bankruptcy, and jailed, would be standard. summary execution would be super-strict.

This is a scarily believable scenario. Whatever happened with all those extra chips in the '06 ME anyway?

lol

I already addressed this and said my phrasing and choice of words was poor. Its too late to edit it now.