Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Divebitch, post: 1336219, member: 39020"]
While the rule may be meant for all play, online makes the distinction, and for the reasons the rule was probably meant to enforce in the first place - collusion. Just because the rule was extended to MTTs doesn't mean it wasn't created w/cash tables and STTs in mind.

I cannot buy hook ladder and sinker some reporter's assessment that the woman looked 'suitably patronized'. She could have been confused, trying not to look stupid or like a noob, or simply to embarassed for her own bad play or not realizing she had the nuts. Maybe even just a super-tight player, satisfied to get the pot as is. Who knows. A couple months ago, I had AA and flopped an A88, nut boat, only to get beat by quads, and I was gone. :eek:

Also, we really don't know what the TD would have done. It's probably not written in stone exactly what 'look' or 'response' averts a penalty.

Bottom line, this is the WSOP, you pay 10k to get in. How likely was there collusion? I'd be surprised if there [B]ever[/B] was any in a tourney of this size and magnitude. Even checking strategies for saving a short-stack in unusual situations - it is still not collusion. Maybe rules are made for a reason, but if you can avoid consequences with a 'deer in the headlights' response, what is the rule worth? The rule should be suspended for a tournament like this, IMHO, the reason: common sense.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us