By Eric Rosenberg A bet with Gavin Smith took a back seat to a controversial email sent by a World Series of Poker champion.
Two time
WSOP bracelet winner Bill Chen recently wrote an email to the BARGE list about his experience in the
WSOP's $1500 shootout tournament.
A shootout is a style of tournament where all the tables play down to one player, who then moves on to the next level.
In the email, Chen tells about a deal that was made when his starting table was down to two players. Chen stated that with a two to one chip lead over his opponent, the two of them made a deal. In exchange for a percentage of Chen's wins in the tournament, Chen insinuates that his opponent dumped his remaining chips.
Deals are a common thing at tournament final tables, but this was not a final table. At a final table, the only players that are affected by a deal are the ones making the deal. All of the other players are out of the tournament, so they are no longer affected by what happens. Such is not the case on a starting table in a shootout situation.
Chen claims that the "deal" was approved by a tournament director, but makes no mention of what that tournament director's name is.
I always thought that it is collusion if two or more players conspire to affect the outcome of a tournament, but what do I know?
You make your own decisions.
Here are copies of the original emails sent by Bill Chen...
So I played in the 1500 NL shootout today. The way it works it that each table is played down to 1 as in a satellite.
Partway through the first round I made a 4000:2000 "must win table" bet with Gavin Smith, when I had about a 2:1 chip lead (he was on a different table). SO Gavin busts, I get heads up with a 21K:9K chip lead on my opponent. He agrees to take 25% of my equity for the rest of the tourney for me winning the table.
So here's the question, what's Gavin's financial liability? Gavin and I decided to let the list discuss this.
Bill's Second Email (in response to people saying that it was unethical)
I asked the tournament director and got approval to make the deal. We were pretty open about it. I kindaresent the implication from that anything unethical was done.
Bill
Bill's Third Email (in response to more criticism)
So with all due respect to Andy and others, what your arguments sound like is that there *should be* a ruleagainst deals in preliminary rounds of shootouts. In this particular shootout though there wasn't.
I know of several other saves and deals made which were allowed by the floor. Now, saying like saves andequity swaps are okay sounds like hair-splitting sophistry--that is the argument is that they don'tchange play enough or like it shouldn't in theory ("In theory, Marge, communism works":-).
