my thoughts on tuan le/hasan habib incident

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I haven't read through the thread since it is so long but I wanted people to know my position on the K-J of clubs laydown. I would have called for sure. I thought the raise was small enough that Hasan should have called. It definitely looked suspicious to me but I reserved judgement until I had a more complete picture of what happened. Hasan showed the hand. Now if he were colluding I can't imagine why he would show a hand that likely would never have been seen on TV. If he was cheating, showing the hand made zero sense. While it's easy to point to this hand and say they were colluding, I think it makes more sense to look at ALL of the hands played between the two. For example: Hasan had a HUGE stack, limped in from the small blind where Tuan was short stacked. Tuan raised from the big blind, and Hasan moved all in- Tuan folded. How is THAT condusive to collusion? Hasan setting a trap for Tuan on several occasions made it pretty clear to me that there was no funny business going on. I think it was a bad laydown, but I don't play the same way Hasan does. To assume collusion while ignoring all of the other facts is irresponsible. I personally trust both Hasan and Tuan to be honorable people. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am...

[KDawgCometh 2]

Daniel, what do you think of having visiblilty of how much a player is being staked and how many players are being stake dby a person. Now I'm not saying that the general public would need to know this, but would it be unreasonable for teh casino and Tournament director to know this information in the case of possible collusion?

[GTKID 0]

Yes, if you look at the big picture it was almost surely not collusion.

[AC BillP 0]

Daniel: The entire problem arises because it is thought that one staked the other, or they were saving more than the buyin between them. My suggestion was that if 2 competitors share interests, it should be made known to the TD and the players at the table. Then there is no appearance of a problem. By the way, I hate KJ, but then I'm a dumb $15 limit Hm player.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Daniel, what do you think of having visiblilty of how much a player is being staked and how many players are being stake dby a person. Now I'm not saying that the general public would need to know this, but would it be unreasonable for teh casino and Tournament director to know this information in the case of possible collusion?

Yes. I am all for full disclosure.

[JaysonWeber 0]

Good to hear some word from someone close to the action. This is something that certainly isn't going to stop.As far as tracking people staking each other. It's easier said than done, its largely unregulated and if you look at it from a pro's perspective. Atleast some of the traveling tournament pro's who don't have as much money as the better known Professional Players it makes sense for them to do this many times.Do I agree with it? Not really, I am not against it either.The only thing I disagree with is the result, Soft-Playing and Possibly Collusion.I posted about this on 2+2, why would Hasan have showed the hand? I also did the reports for a website and when I was watching this on PokerWire and came across this I had to look twice. Hasan was getting more than enough regarding pot-odds to call that, especially with the chip-lead he had at the time.My question is, has anyone reviewed the tape and found out what Tuan Le had there? I for one don't think this was any blatant collusion, as Daniel already said Hasan was playing Tuan Le Hard in a lot of spots so you can't be selective in your material when it comes to this type of thing.

[clashcityrocker 0]

Couldn't Hasan folding his hand face up be the ultimate in "I'm folding my hand face up so no one will suspect a thing and even if they do people will point out that I folded my hand face up and couldn't possibly be cheating" deception?

[Vade 0]

Having people who are staked known to the tournament director would certainly go a long way to erasing even the possibility of a cloud of suspicion over big time poker events.

[KDawgCometh 2]

I agree, it would be very hard to tell if there was collusion going. I think that both players would have enough respect for the integrity, but I don't know either of them and am a few years at the least of playing close to their level. This is why I value Daniel's take on this and is also why I respect Paul for having the guts to call possible shenanigans on the situation. Paul isn't a conspiracy theorist from everything I've ever read of his. He will however bring light of odd situations that don't neccessarily add up. As I said in the big thread on this topic before it got hijacked, is that I don't want poker to implode under some big scandal ala the quiz show scandals of 50s

[Meatwad 0]

i was thinking about it some more and i don't think that hand points to tuan cheating as much as maybe hasan softplaying IF there was anything dishonest going on. i think so many forum people on different sites seem to hate tuan and his playing style they want him to be guilty. the number of times tuan clashed with everyone all in and sucked out was the only thing that caught my attention until people isolated that hand.

[Vanillathunder 0]

The more I think about this incident, the mroe I'm convinced it's NOT collusion.Tuan is playing like a caged animal at this point and putting that signifigant amount of a raise while *not* pushing it should tell you he's got a strong draw, probably an ace. It would be an enticing bet to call for sure and that's what he wanted... entice a larger stack to double you up.Tuan is loose, but not stupid. You don't want to give a dangerous player those chips that late when you can trap him later into giving you his chips with a strong hand. While K-J suited is a good draw hand for that money, it's not tremendous.Think of the range of hands you'd put him on, short stacked facing a raise and a limper. You're going to put a strong hand out there or you're going to fold like a cheap suit.It also shows maxfield that you're not going to play a draw or go down easily. It's more of a gesture to Maxfield that "Hey, I'm not going to give my chips away, you will have to earn them." It also allays the collusion fears if you think about it. If he doesn't show his strong hand it looks WORSE when it airs. If he does show it, it says "Hey, you may think I'm colluding here, but no, I'm not taking a chance." It's a no-win situation for HH, but the lesser of two evils.Escaping with a relatively small loss here is better in relation to your stack than giving someone else who is dangerous more bullets to fire at you.It also makes his 7-7 push later much stronger. If he'll fold K-J suited to Tuan and then pushes later you can think he's stronger than before. He was playing the longer term game. How many times have you shown a strong fold out there hoping that it will pay later?The price is right, but I like the play more now. I'm not saying it's 100% correct, just not entirely a bad move.

[JaysonWeber 0]

Allinbluff just linked me to Paul Phillips take on this thing... If nothing else this can help us all try to understand Tournament EV a little more... But it basically re-itterates everyones thoughts on the matter when it first happened. That Being "Why In Gods name did he fold?"Its a good read, here's the link.http://extempore.livejournal.com/Paul states that he isn't accusing anyone so let's not run with this and say One pro is accusing two others of cheating... He simply went by the numbers with this.

[faketree 0]

Couldn't Hasan folding his hand face up be the ultimate in "I'm folding my hand face up so no one will suspect a thing and even if they do people will point out that I folded my hand face up and couldn't possibly be cheating" deception?

That.

[faketree 0]

 Hasan had a HUGE stack, limped in from the small blind where Tuan was short stacked.  Tuan raised from the big blind, and Hasan moved all in- Tuan folded.  How is THAT condusive to collusion?  Hasan setting a trap for Tuan on several occasions made it pretty clear to me that there was no funny business going on.

Did this hand happen when it was three handed?Because if it didn't, Hasan interest in Tuan is different than it is when its three handed. Like I believe it says in PaulPs blog, they were essentially playing a new tournament where 3rd place gets $0. If there were more players, it changes the value of Hasan's stake in Tuan.Its hard to look away from this and say there was nothing wrong with it. I doubt this is collusion in its strictest definition but it certainly is unethical. There is no way Hasan could fold that hand based on any range of hands he could have given Tuan. He literally would have pushed with anything.

[extempore 1]

Hasan had a HUGE stack, limped in from the small blind where Tuan was short stacked.  Tuan raised from the big blind, and Hasan moved all in- Tuan folded.  How is THAT condusive to collusion?  Hasan setting a trap for Tuan on several occasions made it pretty clear to me that there was no funny business going on.

Let me first reiterate here that I'm not accusing anyone of anything. That said, this argument is not convincing to me. The EV loss to Maxfield due to Hasan playing non-optimally on the KJs hand is real and measurable. It doesn't matter what they did on other hands. And if I were going to play differently against someone because I owned part of them, I'd be very selective about when I did it. Don't want to be obvious about this. And if I was going to pick one critical moment to do it, it'd probably look a lot like the moment Hasan folded KJs.If I said I saw someone run a red light you couldn't logically respond with "look at all these red lights he didn't run."

I think it was a bad laydown, but I don't play the same way Hasan does.

The style does not exist where this is a good laydown.

To assume collusion while ignoring all of the other facts is irresponsible.  I personally trust both Hasan and Tuan to be honorable people.  I could be wrong, but I don't think I am...

As far as I have observed them, I agree they are honorable people. The insidious thing about a conflict of interest at the poker table is how it may be able to swing a decision without your even knowing it. In poker there are almost always reasons to play a hand differently.

[faketree 0]

Would any type of corporate sponsorship in tournament poker, therefore eliminating the huge buy-ins the players must dish out, alleviate any of the problems with players selling percentages of themselves?In other words, if tournament poker was run like golf tournaments, where the players are playing for a prize pool made up of corporate money instead of money from their own pockets, would it still be necessary to sell a piece of yourself? Is there any other motiviation for sellings a piece of yourself besides lowing your initial stake in the tourney?

[HowMuchIsIt 0]

Don't think being staked really applies in this case because for those of you who don't remember, Tuan won the Foxwoods tournament and had his buy-in taken care of, so where was the stake?

[KDawgCometh 2]

Don't think being staked really applies in this case because for those of you who don't remember, Tuan won the Foxwoods tournament and had his buy-in taken care of, so where was the stake?

Hasan had 50% of Tuan from Foxwoods, so it carried over

[tskillz187 0]

Hasan had a HUGE stack, limped in from the small blind where Tuan was short stacked.  Tuan raised from the big blind, and Hasan moved all in- Tuan folded.  How is THAT condusive to collusion?  Hasan setting a trap for Tuan on several occasions made it pretty clear to me that there was no funny business going on.

Let me first reiterate here that I'm not accusing anyone of anything. That said, this argument is not convincing to me. The EV loss to Maxfield due to Hasan playing non-optimally on the KJs hand is real and measurable. It doesn't matter what they did on other hands. And if I were going to play differently against someone because I owned part of them, I'd be very selective about when I did it. Don't want to be obvious about this. And if I was going to pick one critical moment to do it, it'd probably look a lot like the moment Hasan folded KJs.If I said I saw someone run a red light you couldn't logically respond with "look at all these red lights he didn't run."

I think it was a bad laydown, but I don't play the same way Hasan does.

The style does not exist where this is a good laydown.

To assume collusion while ignoring all of the other facts is irresponsible.  I personally trust both Hasan and Tuan to be honorable people.  I could be wrong, but I don't think I am...

As far as I have observed them, I agree they are honorable people. The insidious thing about a conflict of interest at the poker table is how it may be able to swing a decision without your even knowing it. In poker there are almost always reasons to play a hand differently.

For not throwing out an overt accusation Paul certaintly seems to still entertain the thought that collusion could have been going on and may also think that it was, good points Paul glad to see you are still voicing your honest opinion

[Landon_McFly 0]

forgive me if im wrong cause i don't know him personally or anything, but... Isn't Hassan somewhat of a "Baller"?I'm sure he has enough money as it is, and he wouldn't risk looking like the pete rose of poker, just for a few more bucks.In my opinion that'd be like Steve Nash being involved in a point shaving scandal.(Notice I didn't say Michael Jordan, because I'd save that analogy for someone like say... Phil Ivey... or myself.)

[JaysonWeber 0]

Very interesting Post.

It doesn't matter what they did on other hands.  And if I were going to play differently against someone because I owned part of them, I'd be very selective about when I did it.

Thats a very good point.. You've done more than enough of your own research on this topic... I guess a very good way to find out if this was one of the most optimal spots to fold would be to look at the other hands in question.

If I said I saw someone run a red light you couldn't logically respond with "look at all these red lights he didn't run."

Metaphorically speaking, Perhaps Habib just Ran the Red Lights when it was needed the most then?One thing that would help bring this to light is by Looking at the Chip Counts in relation to the bets and decisions that were made. If Habib Goes over the top of Tuan Le when Le has a healthy chip-stack it won't hurt Le as much. Unlike the KJs hand where Tuan Le would have been left with less than 5x Big Blind.Here is one hand I remembered writing about.Habib took 1.2 Mil off of Tuan Le on this hand, But the chip count had Tuan Le at 7.5 Million, second place. After the hand Tuan Le had 6.3 Million to Maxfields 6.8 Million. This was a minimal amount as the Blinds were 80k-160k with a 20k ante. The difference between Le and Maxfield at this point is only 3x Big Blind so Habib's playing Le hard was not nearly as Detrimental to Le's stack.This was the closest hand to the end, and the only other hand that was relavent that I could see from that point on in the tournament. I certainly have a minimal look at the tournament only being able to view what was reported online though.All in All.. I think that this is certainly something that is going to be looking in to, poker needs to pretect the integrity of the game.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Couldn't Hasan folding his hand face up be the ultimate in "I'm folding my hand face up so no one will suspect a thing and even if they do people will point out that I folded my hand face up and couldn't possibly be cheating" deception?

Sure, maybe. But that doesn't explain Hasan limping in from the small blind as the chip leader, Tuan raising as a short stack, and then Hasan stuffing it in his face.

[KingAustin 0]

Is it at all possible that Hasan maybe miscalculated in his head the pot odds for calling with the KJ?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

 And if I was going to pick one critical moment to do it, it'd probably look a lot like the moment Hasan folded KJs.

Would you show it? This doesn't prove anything, but I'm curious. If you were going to do something "shady" in a spot like that would you show it? If you don't show it, you KNOW the hand's not going to make TV.

If I said I saw someone run a red light you couldn't logically respond with "look at all these red lights he didn't run."

That's a very unfair anology. How about this: if a 50 year old man was accused of running a red light his lawyer would have every right to point out that his client has never had any previous traffic violations.

I think it was a bad laydown, but I don't play the same way Hasan does.

The style does not exist where this is a good laydown.

You know this and I know this, but do you pretend to know what goes on Hasan's mind? He doesn't approach poker the same way you do. It's akin to TJ calling a raise with Q-9 off suit and justifying it by saying, "Haven't you seen the way's nines have been runnin'" You get my meaning :wink:

As far as I have observed them, I agree they are honorable people.  The insidious thing about a conflict of interest at the poker table  is how it may be able to swing a decision without your even knowing it.  In poker there are almost always reasons to play a hand differently.

I agree with that statement 100% and it's definitely something that needs to be addressed.

[ddudley 0]

This whole debate just shows how dangerous it is for players to back or take a large percentage of another player who is playing in the same tournament. As as outsider of sorts, I still can't believe this is legal under the WPT and WSOP rules. IMO, it's just bad practice and opens the whole game up to governmental regulation. I think it's time to do what's right here and ban this practice from professional poker before there is a huge scandal.