bad backing
How many players in any given tournament are backed by other players also in the tournament?
I’m not talking about merely swapping small percentages with others to smooth out results a bit. I’m referring to people who are at least half (and often, wholly) backed.
There are obvious conflicts of interest that come from backing other players. To think those conflicts are immaterial is to be naïve, people are people, especially where large sums of money are involved. Backing a lot of horses and playing in the tournament yourself is bound to lead to ethical dilemmas for many concerned. Maybe we should just openly declare tournament poker as a team sport and have done with it.
Recently, one player owned 50 % of another and both of them were at a WPT final table, competing 3-handed. I was at this party, a major part of that event was watching the WPT final and discussing it. Paul Maxfield, the 2nd place finisher, was also there. He gave a lot of 1st hand account of the tournament. He was excited to have finished so well, but as the show wore on and everyone was questioning various different poker situations that occurred, he seemed gradually more crestfallen. At one point Paul M. recalled that during the final table he had walked over to his brother-in-law, a spectator, and said, “It feels like I am playing against both of them together.”
There were a number of poker decisions made by Hasan Habib that could have been affected by his backing of Tuan Le. Habib is smart enough to have thought of those considerations, given that, he has to have at least done so some of the time. And then, once a thought like that is in place, it can’t be completely ignored. I question anyone who thinks that a (better) poker player could do any less. How much did those "extra" considerations affect Habib's thinking? It would hard to be certain that it was an important factor, but definitely those considerations meant more than nothing.
He did think about it. He had to.
I am friendly with quite a few members of the tournament community, at this year's wsop I spoke with a number of them about different aspects of tournament collusion/softplay/teamplay, mainly cause Casey Kastle got me worked up about the issue. Probably I'll discuss more specifics another time, but for now, there wasn’t a single one of those top players who was totally unconcerned. The potential for softplay (or worse) in tournaments is too great to ignore. I don’t know how anyone can believe that a backing relationship won’t affect people’s thinking when they are at tables together.
How can it NOT affect thinking?
(crossposted in a few places)
I’m not talking about merely swapping small percentages with others to smooth out results a bit. I’m referring to people who are at least half (and often, wholly) backed.
There are obvious conflicts of interest that come from backing other players. To think those conflicts are immaterial is to be naïve, people are people, especially where large sums of money are involved. Backing a lot of horses and playing in the tournament yourself is bound to lead to ethical dilemmas for many concerned. Maybe we should just openly declare tournament poker as a team sport and have done with it.
Recently, one player owned 50 % of another and both of them were at a WPT final table, competing 3-handed. I was at this party, a major part of that event was watching the WPT final and discussing it. Paul Maxfield, the 2nd place finisher, was also there. He gave a lot of 1st hand account of the tournament. He was excited to have finished so well, but as the show wore on and everyone was questioning various different poker situations that occurred, he seemed gradually more crestfallen. At one point Paul M. recalled that during the final table he had walked over to his brother-in-law, a spectator, and said, “It feels like I am playing against both of them together.”
There were a number of poker decisions made by Hasan Habib that could have been affected by his backing of Tuan Le. Habib is smart enough to have thought of those considerations, given that, he has to have at least done so some of the time. And then, once a thought like that is in place, it can’t be completely ignored. I question anyone who thinks that a (better) poker player could do any less. How much did those "extra" considerations affect Habib's thinking? It would hard to be certain that it was an important factor, but definitely those considerations meant more than nothing.
He did think about it. He had to.
I am friendly with quite a few members of the tournament community, at this year's wsop I spoke with a number of them about different aspects of tournament collusion/softplay/teamplay, mainly cause Casey Kastle got me worked up about the issue. Probably I'll discuss more specifics another time, but for now, there wasn’t a single one of those top players who was totally unconcerned. The potential for softplay (or worse) in tournaments is too great to ignore. I don’t know how anyone can believe that a backing relationship won’t affect people’s thinking when they are at tables together.
How can it NOT affect thinking?
(crossposted in a few places)