"i Made A Mistake"

[ksean9999 0]

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.

i agree that they are "aware" of the difference between poor but legal play and outright cheating. my contention is that many amateurs are unaware of just how effective collusion can be and how to implement it.although collusion is illegal, it is a "skill" in a way that some do better than others and being given a demonstration by pros and seeing it work so effectively is serious trouble.as far as daniel being willing to collude, nobody knows that except him. my guess would be no because i dont think any pro would want to encourage amateurs to cheat against them (even though this would be difficult at the limits daniel plays)second, daniel is pretty much the face of poker right now along with a few others. anything that is bad for poker or the image of poker is bad for him.he has also been relatively outspoken about his principles regarding the game (such as the TOC exemptions) even though such a rule may benefit him in the future. i mean i could be wrong. but it would not be consistent with everything else. of course he DID scold evelyn ng for bringing him cold fries so who knows. (SW)

[DanielNegreanu 141]

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.

Well I can GUARANTEE that you are absolutely wrong. There is NO way I would have flown 12 hours across the pond to play in a small buy in event with a format like that. No chance at all.

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.

You are wrong again! Many players who enter big guy in tournaments don't realize that it's not ok to check to your buddies. It's been a huge problem for years and it's something the public still needs a ton of education. How dare you make outlandish guarantees that I would attend this event prepared to use collusion as a weapon. I had more than enough time that day to develop an advanced collusion strategy with signals and all but wouldn't do it. How much time do you think it takes to develop a collusion strategy? 15 minutes tops.

[TheMathProf 0]

While not as blatant, isn't Poker Superstars (to name an example) then guilty of promoting collusion with their format?I haven't looked at the new season format, but one of the things I would consistently hear during the Season II version is that in events like the quarterfinals, players needed to knock others out in a certain order in order to advance. Doesn't this kind of format likewise encourage collusion among the players, because it's to the mutual advantage of certain players to knock others out?I am aware that this situation is certainly more blatant and forgiving of collusion, but are places that do this more implicitly any better?

[Fanatikk 0]

This sanctity of poker stuff is getting out of hand. Umm, it's a game, not a religion. Okay fine, Daniel, you didn't know the rules when you got there, but you did before you played. What's so grand about you deciding not to collude? You knew the rules beforehand and by not colluding...ie..playing AS A TEAM, you lost. There were no rules against it. Again, it's like playing in a euchre tournament and losing because you took tricks from your partner every time.It's just another way of playing the game. I think the pros all attacking Helmuth at the High Stakes poker game would be considerred a worse type of collusion. I could be wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

This sanctity of poker stuff is getting out of hand. Umm, it's a game, not a religion. Okay fine, Daniel, you didn't know the rules when you got there, but you did before you played. What's so grand about you deciding not to collude? You knew the rules beforehand and by not colluding...ie..playing AS A TEAM, you lost. There were no rules against it. Again, it's like playing in a euchre tournament and losing because you took tricks from your partner every time.It's just another way of playing the game. I think the pros all attacking Helmuth at the High Stakes poker game would be considerred a worse type of collusion. I could be wrong.

Euchre is riggedPhil wasn't ganged up on, he was outmatched...difference

[phlegm 6]

While not as blatant, isn't Poker Superstars (to name an example) then guilty of promoting collusion with their format?I haven't looked at the new season format, but one of the things I would consistently hear during the Season II version is that in events like the quarterfinals, players needed to knock others out in a certain order in order to advance. Doesn't this kind of format likewise encourage collusion among the players, because it's to the mutual advantage of certain players to knock others out?I am aware that this situation is certainly more blatant and forgiving of collusion, but are places that do this more implicitly any better?

Completely agree. Also in any turney when big stacks soft play each other to rid themselves of the smaller stacks is another form of collusion IMO

[goose 0]

I think Daniel's point is that it's like baseball throwing a charity tournament or something, then allowing players in that tournament to take cork their bats and take steroids... but as soon as they're back to MLB, no more steroids or corked bats... which makes no sense at all.

[nutzbuster 7]

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.

What a friggin disaster that London thing. There is no way Daniel would ever knowingly partake in such a bulls h i t event such as this. But he stood by his word and choked it down anyway like the class act that he is. (Not sure how he kept it down mind you) but bravo and cudos to him for doing the honorable and standing by a committment.That said, Daniel, what did Mike Sexton or any others have to say ?Were they just as appalled?

[thatguy 0]

Well I can GUARANTEE that you are absolutely wrong. There is NO way I would have flown 12 hours across the pond to play in a small buy in event with a format like that. No chance at all. You are wrong again! Many players who enter big guy in tournaments don't realize that it's not ok to check to your buddies. It's been a huge problem for years and it's something the public still needs a ton of education. How dare you make outlandish guarantees that I would attend this event prepared to use collusion as a weapon. I had more than enough time that day to develop an advanced collusion strategy with signals and all but wouldn't do it. How much time do you think it takes to develop a collusion strategy? 15 minutes tops.

I guess that is fair enough. And the thought did cross my mind that you may have turned the offer down had you heard about it earlier, so I appologize for that. But I still don't think these guys should be praising you for what you did as if it were something saintly. Basically, refusing to collude in a game that requires teamwork because of morals is the same as going to war and saying that you are against killing people. In both cases you lose. And your morals do not apply in either case.I hope this makes a little more sense and sound less abrasive.

[goose 0]

I guess that is fair enough. And the thought did cross my mind that you may have turned the offer down had you heard about it earlier, so I appologize for that. But I still don't think these guys should be praising you for what you did as if it were something saintly. Basically, refusing to collude in a game that requires teamwork because of morals is the same as going to war and saying that you are against killing people. In both cases you lose. And your morals do not apply in either case.I hope this makes a little more sense and sound less abrasive.

no it's not. like the example I used, it'd be like if he was a major leaguer going to a baseball tournament where there were no rules against corking bats or taking steroids, and just because everyone else decided to do it to win, that he and his team should too.Your war analogy isn't remotely close.

[thatguy 0]

no it's not. like the example I used, it'd be like if he was a major leaguer going to a baseball tournament where there were no rules against corking bats or taking steroids, and just because everyone else decided to do it to win, that he and his team should too.Your war analogy isn't remotely close.

Well mine is bigger than yours. :PBtw. Not nearly as many professional poker players collude as Pro Baseball players cork their bats and take steroids in regulation games. So boo ya, your analogy sucks *** too.AND using steriods would be illegal even in an unregulation game. Killing people is legal in war. Just as collusion was perfectly legal in that tournament.Proving once again, mine is bigger than yours.

[playingtowin 0]

Well mine is bigger than yours. :PBtw. Not nearly as many professional poker players collude as Pro Baseball players cork their bats and take steroids in regulation games. So boo ya, your analogy sucks *** too.AND using steriods would be illegal even in an unregulation game. Killing people is legal in war. Just as collusion was perfectly legal in that tournament.Proving once again, mine is bigger than yours.

I don't mean to bash u, just offering my viewpoint. How is your war analogy a proper analogy to poker and collusion? Poker is not a "team" game, like bridge or other "team/partner" games. Sure, the tournament in London allowed collusion, but is this good for the game of poker? If people want to turn poker into a game of partners/collusion...then this will take away from the pureness/beauty of the game for those who love it.As DN pointed out in his reply, in the big buy-in tournament events, it is not allowed to "soft-play" your opponent. If the tournament director feels that two players are "soft-playing" each other and stops a hand in progress and finds this to be the case, the players will be eliminated from the tournament immediately I'm sure. This is the reason that when two players are all-in and there is no further action, the hands are turned face-up. In smaller buy-in tournaments which I play, there is an explicit rule that states if the action is heads-up and one player checks the "nuts" to the other player, he will be expelled from the tournament. Collusion in tournaments is still a grey area and difficult to enforce sometimes I'm sure. But multiple players soft-playing or chip-dumping in tournaments is definitely against the rules(difficult to enforce), and creates a significant/unfair edge over those who play by the rules.

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.

Exactly...an event like this should be called ________....but not poker.

[herokid7 0]

While not as blatant, isn't Poker Superstars (to name an example) then guilty of promoting collusion with their format?I haven't looked at the new season format, but one of the things I would consistently hear during the Season II version is that in events like the quarterfinals, players needed to knock others out in a certain order in order to advance. Doesn't this kind of format likewise encourage collusion among the players, because it's to the mutual advantage of certain players to knock others out?I am aware that this situation is certainly more blatant and forgiving of collusion, but are places that do this more implicitly any better?

I was wondering more about the Poker Royale show on GSN. It is a team format that sounds almost exactly like the event in London. I think collusion is more probable in that, than in superstars.

[All_In 0]

Completely agree. Also in any turney when big stacks soft play each other to rid themselves of the smaller stacks is another form of collusion IMO

u don't know how many times i have been scolded by friends when we play tourneys for NOT checking down when a short stack is all-in.

[HangukMiguk 8]

u don't know how many times i have been scolded by friends when we play tourneys for NOT checking down when a short stack is all-in.

and that is a completely different scenario.you check it down with a dry side pot to have better chances of knocking out the short stack. more people = better chances.if there's money in the side pot, then there is a value to betting into it, but if there's no side pot with a player all-in, there's no use and no value in betting.

[The Nuts 0]

I couldn't leave.It's a team game (at least in this case). You met as a team, you should leave as a team. I know that if a great player in any sport decided not to show up for a game or event, I'd be pissed no matter what it is.

[cfinnn 0]

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off of the floor after reading this blog entry. Wow.The morality in this situation is a pretty big gray area considering it's how the tournament was set up, but what's abundantly clear is the event planners could not have been more unprofessional. What a waste.

[mosley 0]

calling this game "poker", does poker a disservice.for a friendly event, where you are getting poker stars and soccer stars to lend their names to an event, it only makes sense to treat them well by organizing it in a fashion that will allow them to enjoy themselves. Whether it is fair is important, yet in some ways, inconsequential as i am sure that some players, such as Daniel, did not enjoy themselves, did not agree with the format, and will not be returning next year, if there is a next year.it sounds like the event planners had good intentions but fell short. ANY pro could have advised them of the issues that would arise with the event being laid out the way it was.i hope that D can take a few deep breaths and carry on with biznazz as usual.

[blueodum 0]

To fanatikk,The point Daniel was trying to make is that, unlike Euchre or Bridge, which are partnership games, poker is not meant to be played as a team.I'll use the example of chess. Now, it is possible to have two against two at one chessboard, but this defeats the spirit of the game.They have had Chess Olympiads for almost a century now, on a regular basis, and players play as part of their national teams. But they play matches with 4 players going head to head against the opposing 4. During the games themselves, no one is permitted to assist a player in any way (afterwards and before they can analyse and prepare as a team).

[getarealjob 0]

"There were so many options for a team concept that would be totally void of any collusion. With 16 teams, you could have three heats where one member of the team plays in an event and is allotted points for their finish. You tally up the team's points and maybe the top 8 teams qualify for the finals. Then you could do a best 2 out of three heads up match. That's just one of thousands of clean ways to run an event like this. You simply CANNOT hold a team style tournament where two members of the same team are at the same table. It can't work, it won't work." (DN)A tag team style of play (that Daniel suggests above) would have been better for this style of tournament poker. Unless this tournament was promoted as a pure farce, a parody or a satire, condoning collusion of any form is unacceptable. It undermines the spirit of the game. There is already far too much team play going on now as it is, and it will destory the sancitity of tournament poker. Bringing this out publicly can only do good in cash and tournament games.I believe whole-heartedly that Daniel made the proper decision to criticize this tournament. I sincerely believe that when it comes to poker (and family) his heart is pure; and, empirically speaking, with poker he has the best intentions when he forms a negative opinion on the game he loves. Any form of cheating where you gain an advantage over a field by methods that involve "collusion" are unacceptable--unless the tournament was promoted as a free-for-all-no-holds-barred-battle-royale style of poker where it was pre-emptively stipulated that "anything goes". However, poker is not the WWF, it is a sophisticated far more complicated game like chess, and I think Daniel wants to elevate poker beyond some novelty gimmick--something beyond even NASCAR, darts or pool, and I'm sure his fans want him to succeed in this aim.Ultimately, if you want to turn poker into a team sport (a kind of no-holds-barred game), a formalized appropriate team style tournament structure with specific rules must be instituted that annhilates the negative effects of collusion, and the changed rules must be clearly stipulated beforehand. Even the UFC (professional cage fighting) has rules mtfckas. Hey. I'm not immune to the idea that a game where "anything goes" might be fun to watch... as long as the sponsors pay the buy-in for everyone who is playing...(along with accomodations and what not)... and promote it as an anything goes tournament)The more people are aware of cheat tactics, the better poker will be...That said, they put horses in all the time, and dependant on chipstacks who knows when a dump occurs in a big tournament especially where you are not aware of some of the alliances. All I know is that it does happen as often as you'd think. It happens, but you'd have a hard time trying to prove it. Ultimatlely, Daniel going public about his phenomenon is a good thing.

[PotemkinCity 1]

after reading the blog he summed it up perfectly in the last sentence...it wasn't an event worth winning.

[myenemy 0]

Im surprised no one has brought up the idea that maybe Danny shouldn't have even played. I know he's getting a lot of 'grace' for fulfilling his commitment here but if he was 'so appalled', wouldn't his statement have been louder had he not even sit? Just wondering what you guys think. Also I think that comparison of big stacks in tourney play to collusion is way off-base. Anyone knows that you take and leave certain risks based in large part on stack.

[elkang 0]

There have been horrible mistakes like this before and will happen again. I can think of big buy in tournaments where they purposely put all the big name marquee players at one table for TV coverage (yeah, you heard that right) and other sillyness that destroys the concept of poker or fair play. Even well run poker rooms occaisionally do stupid things like arrange seat assignments by first name - I mean, can you all imagine a table full of Phils?As poker matures I hope to see less of this, but as long as there's a glut of shows, and decisions are being made by outsiders this is what will happen. My hope is that this event gets buried under the wealth of quality poker shows out there (or at least gets mixed up with the crappy shows).For a silly but better run tourney look out for the USA vs the World shootout coming to FSN by Full Tilt... this was supposed to air already but I think I missed it. I wonder if they got hit by delays like FSN's PokerDome. ??Anyway, my big thing is, DN... seriously, your agent/mgr/coach should have seen this coming. If you're big enough to drop a junior suite just for a few hours convenience, you should be looking for assurances and research done for your events.I'll be glad when this all disappears. But, it may turn out to be a decent program. I'll Tivo and check it out when it airs.

Im surprised no one has brought up the idea that maybe Danny shouldn't have even played. I know he's getting a lot of 'grace' for fulfilling his commitment here but if he was 'so appalled', wouldn't his statement have been louder had he not even sit? Just wondering what you guys think.

Not playing broadcasts another message too. People can view that as flakyness, snobbery or all sorts of things. I for one am glad for people who keep their promises despite the cost or mistake. Not an absolute rule, but definitely worth striving for. And it seems that this desire to not break a commitment is what drove Daniel to play.There's lots of options and outcomes, the best one I could have seen is that Team Canada did not collude, played 'straight' tournament poker and actually won the event. But, even that doesn't mean much.As a small aside, there are standard tournament strategies that I've seen that have been accused by neophytes as 'cheating' or 'collusion'. Ridiculous things like players checking down when an elimination is possible, and in the same situation, the reverse where a player makes a raise when he doesn't have a winning hand.My point here is that most people out there don't get poker and there's certainly legitimate worry about misunderstandings or misrepresentations about poker hurting the Game (i.e. big picture). If a big cheating scandal ever hits and gets taken over by sensationalist (and ignorant) media... ugh. It could turn off sponsorships and everything else we're heading towards.Anyway, well done Daniel. Sticky situation and well handled IMHO.

[gkunit20 1]

An event like this could have been done with a random draw with one player from each country at a table, and play a shoot out structure, and award points like in Pokersuperstars.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

wow daniel seemed very pissed off, its understandable i'd be pissed if someone said that if given the chance i'd cheat, very pissed