Tuan Le is being accused of cheating....

[Smasharoo 0]

ould proby kick your ass in real lifeNo chance.I'm a sunglasses wearing cat who smokes cigars. I'm 40 feet tall and bulletproof, baby.

[Quagmire 0]

Aaaaaaaallllllllllll Rrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhtttt

[ChkDeezNuts 0]

ould proby kick your ass in real lifeNo chance.I'm a sunglasses wearing cat who smokes cigars. I'm 40 feet tall and bulletproof, baby.

I am a blank avatar which would make me invincible seeing as I am invisible. How can you beat that?

[Smasharoo 0]

I am a blank avatar which would make me invincible seeing as I am invisible. How can you beat that?With a baseball bat.

[ChkDeezNuts 0]

I am a blank avatar which would make me invincible seeing as I am invisible. How can you beat that?With a baseball bat.

But...but...but...but...I am invisible....

[TS Clark 0]

If after reviewing the tapes the WPT feels that there was collusion they should be banned from all future WPT events, and the WSOP should take the same action.Ludicrous.I think it should probabbly be pointed out that there's absolutely zero evidence of anything at this point and reviewing tapes is utterly meaningless and useles here. Poker's not a game that involves scoring like figure skating. Any play can be rationalized.It is, again, impossible to show softplaying tok place, impossible to do anything about, and has existed in the game for decades upon decades.

This part of Smash's argument I definitely agree with. And I think it's the root of his argument (before the semantics nonsense got introduced). If you cannot convincingly quantify something, how can you attach a penalty to it?We have a reasonable standard for determining guilt and innocence in our judicial system. The system isn't perfect, of course, but the vast majority of people accept the system as reasonable and abide by its rulings. What is the "reasonable standard" you can apply to how someone plays a poker hand? If you're going to penalzie someone, you're going to have to develop such a standard.As Smash says, you can rationalize the play of ANY hand. Everyone plays poker differently, simply because PEOPLE play poker, not computers. There may be a way that MOST people would play a hand, but that doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't play it that way is necessarily wrong in that situation. And, let's face it, a lot of judgements in poker come down to who has the balls to do what -- call, fold, raise, etc.. How are you going to turn someone's lack of nerve in a given situation into a reason to penalize them?It's an unfortunate situation and I am not advocating doing nothing, just because doing something is hard or less than clear cut. But you've got to do something BEFORE tourneys start, because letting it go and then trying to prove or disprove anything once a hand has been dealt is going to be nigh unto impossible.Shane

[princeof56k 0]

ould proby kick your ass in real lifeNo chance.I'm a sunglasses wearing cat who smokes cigars. I'm 40 feet tall and bulletproof, baby.

I am a blank avatar which would make me invincible seeing as I am invisible. How can you beat that?

I am now awaiting these two to start another argument when smash points out that being invisible does not equal being invincible.

[ChkDeezNuts 0]

Oh I agree....it is impossible to prove with video evidence...unless HH had laid down AA instead of KJs...and even then you can cook up some BS on why you laid down the AA for so little of a raise....never underestimate the power of BS.The only way is to have a real investigation...interview witnesses...other players...the parties themselves....etc...etc...you know....stuff that will never happen...

[whippedspoon 0]

Smash is just upset that he got owned by Paul Phillips on the first two pages of this thread. That's why he's spent the last 5 hours arguing with people about it. ha!

[frazwood 0]

I have four points to make...First point:I think many of you are missing the point that Paul is trying to make (or maybe not -- I don't care). Poker is now mainstream, which brings a ton of money into the game. The current popularity of poker will die out, however, if there is the APPEARANCE of collusion.Whether or not Tuan and Habib were colluding is almost irrelevant here... there was inarguably the APPEARANCE of collusion, which can only adversely affect the long-term growth of the game. This problem seems to be ubiquitous and needs to be addressed, although it is difficult to identify a reasonable solution, as Paul states in his blog. This is also the point, it seems, made by Harry.Second point:It seems that very few people are creative enough to figure out how big time collusion works. Just as most of us (Paul, Harry et al. excepted) do not understand poker strategy at the highest level, we also likely do not understand the subtleties of collusion as practiced by long-term, ethically-challenge poker players.Third Point:For some reason, Paul Phillips is one of the few voices strongly promoting ethics in a game in which the general public views it as "shady". There are a few others, but the game could definitely use more. Fourth Point:Do you read absolutely everything Paul? Good God man, I'm impressed! :Pp.s. congrats on the baby!

[Smasharoo 0]

Smash is just upset that he got owned by Paul Phillips on the first two pages of this thread.You realy think so?I think if his name was bob you wouldn't have been that impressed. He did a mediocre job of flaming an imaginary post I didn't make while quoting mine though.His replies to other people were much funnier.

[poker_bull 0]

Smash is just upset that he got owned by Paul Phillips on the first two pages of this thread. That's why he's spent the last 5 hours arguing with people about it. ha!

Enter hopeless victim #2 and a series of flames about the size of their weiners.j/k

[whippedspoon 0]

You forgot to bold the part where I stated you have been arguing for 5 hours about it. ha! must be ashamed of that.selective bolding i see.

[Smasharoo 0]

You forgot to bold the part where I stated you have been arguing for 5 hours about it. ha! must be ashamed of that. Seemed obvious it was unrelated.Sorry if hurt your feelings. You should be happy I bothered to reply to your post at all.

[whippedspoon 0]

I'm just happy to help you get to 4000 posts. I think the prize for that is...nothing.

[DKE_XP120 0]

Talk about disappointing, everytime I see a thread with 10 pages, I usually peruse through it for the random pictured of "Owned" "Pwned" and Oolong, and I guess the random girl pictures, this thread was a let down...

[DeNuts1 0]

I can't remember the last time I saw so many people spend so much time saying nothing.

don't look at this forum much do you?

[DeNuts1 0]

Um....Broken link? Not sure if first name is broken or link

[Nikki_N 17]

Um....Broken link? Not sure if first name is broken or link

I fixed the pic.

[Nikki_N 17]

Damn! No cheating. What is she best at?

[DKE_XP120 0]

pornAnd thanks for making this thread worth viewing...

[Nikki_N 17]

pornAnd thanks for making this thread worth viewing...

ok, that is correct in general.Now, specifically, what does she like best?

[ChkDeezNuts 0]

pornAnd thanks for making this thread worth viewing...

ok, that is correct in general.Now, specifically, what does she like best?

let me take a guess....does it sound like this: "She likes to truck Rick."?

[DKE_XP120 0]

pornAnd thanks for making this thread worth viewing...

ok, that is correct in general.Now, specifically, what does she like best?

I beleive she likes it doggystyle.... But thats pretty much the premise of most porn

[Vanillathunder 0]

pornAnd thanks for making this thread worth viewing...

ok, that is correct in general.Now, specifically, what does she like best?

let me take a guess....does it sound like this: "She likes to truck Rick."?

Obviously, you're not a golfer.[/thedude]