"i Made A Mistake"

[stevel999 0]

Interesting blog. As a person new to poker I am not sure what to make of it. The thing that scares me the most about playing online for money is the possibility of collusion. I don't see how poker sites can be confident of detecting it. Certainly the format of this tournament seems ridiculous and kudos to the Canadians for sticking to values.

[Edenfield 0]

I may be wrong but it sounds like a TV event involving poker organised by TV execs trying to cash in on the poker boom and the fact the World Cup is coming up. There are millions of ways of running a poker team event that exclude colusion, I'd be interested to know who the organiser's poker consultant was.At least Daniel got to watch the cricket!!!!

[playingtowin 0]

Bravo to DN for his approach to this poorly organized and mockery of an event. DN said, "this was not an event worth winning"...this is so true...winning isn't everything. One should conduct himself/herself w/ class and respect and preserve the integrity of the game. Everyone has different ideals...that's nice that Tony G. said that he would be playing a "team" game, but it still kind of goes against preserving the integrity of the game...In regards to cheating/collusion in poker, there is collusion in b&m and online poker. As a player, u have to try and be able to spot when u suspect collusion and report to the appropriate authorities. Some games where u think cheating is going on and u can't really control it ... don't play.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I wonder what its gonna look like for the team that ultimately wins. Its like, congratulations, you're the best colluders in poker!You think that'll have a negative impact on the image's of the winning team?

[getarealjob 0]

Good blog. Good content. Well-written.You should have walked out, but I suppose that would be supererogatory. The mere fact that you wrote about your dispappointment publicly is enough, primarily because I think every poker player in the world eventually reads your blog and respects what you have to say about poker.Again, you should have walked out, but good blog.

[WhiteSpade 0]

After reading the blog, I instantly thought how proud I am to be Canadian. I know, I know... I dont want to get all sappy or anything - but Daniel's decision to play straight up seems like the stereotypical nice-guy Canadian thing to do. Sure he could have walked away, but he committed himself to playing in the tournament.Hopefully when this event is televised, it will be evident in the style of game team Canada played that they did not collude, but I'm sure the average watcher wont catch this. It was probably a good thing that they didnt make it to the following round.It's also great that Daniel uses his voice, using his blog on Cardplayer and FCP to explain his stance to the more avid poker community. Daniel should hold his head up high, as he will keep or gain respect from those that know how he felt playing the event and the way he went about.Great job, Daniel.

[LadyGrey 6]

I couldn't help wondering if it was the infamous trash-talking Tony G leading the Australian team? If it was surely Daniel would have had something to say about that...Either way, you can't blame them for taking advantage of the rules (or lack thereof) but I think it spoils the game when collusion is allowed. Daniel was right to take the dignified route, even though it meant losing.

[stevel999 0]

I couldn't help wondering if it was the infamous trash-talking Tony G leading the Australian team? If it was surely Daniel would have had something to say about that...Either way, you can't blame them for taking advantage of the rules (or lack thereof) but I think it spoils the game when collusion is allowed. Daniel was right to take the dignified route, even though it meant losing.

It was Tony G leading the team, but DN made it very clear that he wasn't blaming the Aussies. Interesting to read Tony G's blog:http://www.tonygpoker.com/

[The Czar 0]

Clearly in Tony's blog he admits to playing as a unit. My first response to Daniel is, Why didn't you know the structure before you flew all the way to London? Then again, poker is all over and there is no excuse for a structure like this. They didn't need to consult Mike Sexton, all they had to do was turn the tv on. This is just common sense and I think proves the organizers weren't out to supply a good tournament, but were in it for the dough. Someone should have told them beforehand that they could do both. Sorry excuse for a "World Cup".

[Fanatikk 0]

I hardly do this but I'm going to actually disagree with Daniel on this one. I guess I'm not actually disagreeing but maybe don't understand why Daniel is so offended by this format. This team concept to me is just another form or way of playing poker. If you are playing for your country and for a team win, why would you not collude? I mean collusion in this aspect is the same as teamwork, like passing the ball to an open player for a lay up instead of shooting the contested three. If I played euchre, I'm not going to trump a trick my partner is already going to take, because our goal is to win as a team...not for me to have the most tricks. If the goal of this poker event was to have a team win/country win then it makes no sense to just play for yourself. It's almost like being selfish or a ball hog. Now if Daniel doesn't like this format because he believes it will influence others to collude in nonteam poker tournies and live games than I can see some validity. Still, I don't see this event justifying cheating. I just see it as another type of poker game. I actually think it's a neat concept and can spur some new ways of playing poker. For example, how about a two on two tournament. It would be like the national headsup tourney, only with teams of two going against each other trying to move up the pseudoNCAA tourney bracket. There would be new concepts and strategies from the individual style of play. Very interesting to me. Anyway, thats my two colluding cents. Let the flaming commence.

[SunDrop 0]

With 3 people teams, why not have three heads up matches. It's an odd number and would prevent ties in terms of what team won the most matches. You could randomly draw names to see who plays who. Seriously, its not that hard to create a tournament with a different format that is still interesting and fair.

[LadyGrey 6]

It was Tony G leading the team, but DN made it very clear that he wasn't blaming the Aussies. Interesting to read Tony G's blog:http://www.tonygpoker.com/

It was interesting to see Tony's blog (didn't know he had one). He didn't really mention the format though, I guess he thought it was acceptable.

[Big Mike Watters 0]

Meh...I just asked him in the blog. We'll see.I kinda agree that for the format as it was...the collusion is acceptable. Just don't call it straight up poker. Call it something else.

[kingpin 0]

Congrats Daniel , its nice to see someone with morals and do the right thing. it especialy makes me proud to be a canadian.

[BNH77 0]

thx for the link to Tony's Blog... Very Cool.

[Trail Boss Mitch 0]

It's simple enough to organize a team tourney and still protect the integrity of the game. Those idiots in London just didn't know what they were doing. DN and Mike Sexton should have been aware of the format prior to the trip.If a collusion-type game is organized, where more than one team member is at the table, then call it something else other than poker...and make it clear to everyone that collusion is part of the strategy.

[myenemy 0]

I agree with this being a strange and bastardized form of poker, but I also think that within the confines of this tournament it was okay, maybe even fun. Lets face it though, this was a publicity stunt...they had soccer players playing. Could this legitamately be called the World Cup of Poker? And give me a break on all the Canadian chest pumping here. I have nothing against the Kanucks but you can certainly find a better reason than this to be proud. TonyG made it sound as though the only reason that the Canadians lost was their lack of preperation...maybe thats true. Had Danny known about this format would he have played? He says 'no' now, but.... he might well have just prepared like everyone else. Finding out the day before might not have been enough lead time to do so. I think the biggest concern here is the worry that this event could promote collusion among the masses of fish who think TV poker is king. I hope this thing doesnt even air in the US!

[PairTheBoard 0]

Looks like this was an April Fools Joke of a Tournament. I guess from now on when you're invited to a Poker Tourny you'd better double check that they actually plan on playing Poker there and not some kind of Poker-Bridge-Chinese Checkers Mutation. Maybe next year they can add Marked Cards as an additional Fun Feature for the Tourny. KUDOS to Daniel for keeping his commitment but playing it straight up. PairTheBoard

[Big Mike Watters 0]

Straight from Tony G...

Tony G Says: April 5th, 2006 at 12:38 pm Knocking out Phil Ivey during the 100k buy inn Speed Poker event in Melbourne, Australia was much bigger feeling.Its not collusion just the set up was to play as a team so you play soft against your team mates. A bit strange I do feel for Daniel as his team was not as organized.

There you go. That says to me he DID know about the structure...or he's good at collusion.

[gilbertology 0]

I asked a question in the ESPN chat about the future of poker, and Daniel replied that one of the big problems he sees is all the crappy poker shows out there. I don't think this event is going to be televised, but it is the same kind of thing. I agree that poker events in general should not be so sleazy, and the rules have to be published before everyone agrees to participate. It would be unreal for me to fly halfway around the world, only to learn an hour before the event, that the rules would be totally different than what I expected. Especially these rules that promote colluding. That is just not what poker is about. The individual competition, such as in golf, is what makes the game so fun to play and watch.

[thatguy 0]

I can guarantee you the only reason Daniel is getting angry and talking about morals and stuff is because he didn't know about the structure beforehand. If they knew it was going to be this way he would have had his team colluding just as well as Australia. I don't understand how you can complain about something being unfair when there is no rule against it, written or implied.

[HangukMiguk 8]

I'm not sure. Is this one of those things where you really WANT to keep your commitment?This was poorly done, and Daniel knew that playing in this event would only put him closer to the sucker punch this event gave to poker?Or was it that you decided to keep the committment, just to prove you're above collusion, Daniel?

[ksean9999 0]

i dont think daniel is saying that the tourney organizers are "BAD" or that the other players who appeared to be colluding are "BAD." his point is that this type of tournament IS bad for poker. it's bad for the image and it sends the wrong message - especially in the wake of recent well-publicized incidents of online collusion and cheating.his problem isn't so much with the tournament - just the fact that he was a part of it and thereby PERCEIVED as "endorsing" it through participation.while this may seem obvious to some of you, i read many post that clearly missed the entire point of the blog.i actually think that in the future, many pros will boycott an event such as this. and i disagree with daniel when he doesn't blame others for playing a team game. how about playing for the team of "professional poker players" all around the world or going to bat for the game of poker. it may sound like i'm being a little melodramatic here but trust me...i'm not. this program is basically an advertisement for the rewards of cheating and a seminar of how to do it, endorsed by top professionals. all it needs are ratings and there will be other tournaments like it.look at how TV influenced poker... why do you think amateurs go all-in so much? because they saw players on TV win millions of dollars doing it. why do think so many young players play every hand with crappy cards?because gus hansen did it.and if they see the effectiveness of collusion where a top professional like daniel can be rendered virtually helpless.....

[thatguy 0]

ilook at how TV influenced poker... why do you think amateurs go all-in so much? because they saw players on TV win millions of dollars doing it. why do think so many young players play every hand with crappy cards?because gus hansen did it.and if they see the effectiveness of collusion where a top professional like daniel can be rendered virtually helpless.....

This is a better explaination than most people gave, but I think amatuers are well aware that going all in and playing crappy cards is perfectly legal. And I'm sure they are aware that collusion is cheating in regular tournaments. I still think that DN would have had no problem colluding if he knew about the rules early enough to prepare.

[LadyGrey 6]

This is a better explaination than most people gave, but I think amatuers are well aware that going all in and playing crappy cards is perfectly legal. And I'm sure they are aware that collusion is cheating in regular tournaments. I still think that DN would have had no problem colluding if he knew about the rules early enough to prepare.

If DN had been aware of the rules allowing collusion beforehand and prepared and played accordingly then fairplay to him I guess. But like someone else said- if you're playing by those rules, don't call it poker, because the rules of straight up poker don't allow collusion.