Thursday 19th July Fitz - Ladbrokes Poker Millions Satellite (ticket Guaranteed)

HeeHawsCantona

If so this is a very strange situation indeed but unless the 2 players involved confirm it its still heresay and eventhough I'd like to comment further I wont.

5starpool

My information is that it was not a 5:1 chip advantage or anything like that or an even money split at the end, but I was not there so I can't say for sure.

sickpuppy

If a deal is done between 2 players without the third party knowing this is cheating plain and simple.Collusion sounds too soft if this was done its adisgrace and shame on the two players involved popular and all as they are if it was agreed heads up then its no problem, who in the right mind gives a 50 50 deal witha 5 -1 chip lead? can the two players involved say that no deal was done between the two of them 3 handed if so i personally would believe Eamon.
He is one of the nicest guys around but until all the facts are heard a blemish nay a black cloud hangs over him.

JAMMYBSTD

Dont think there was any problem about a deal being done but it had to include one of the players playing in the Poker Million.The problems arose when a couple of the big cash game players very shrewdly abeit illegally decided to offer to buy the $25k ticket (considered to be worth at least 50k in the hands of a pro) from whoever won.Indeed a deal was discussed with 3 left whereas Don was to play the ticket for 3 way split (the boys could have sold their shares to don if they wanted cash).Eamon then declared he was reluctant because he had an offer from big playerfor cash.TD now correctly announces no sale of ticket to outside parties.there then is time out whilst players (not don) went downstairs,came back and announced that the ticket could be sold,play on.LOng session as described by don earlier don gets knocked out.
Now because of the confusion Don has missed out on a third of a seat in the poker million(deal agreed by 2 of 3 players) which could be worth in equity$15 conservatively.
Who is to blame?
Cant really blame TD as he made the correctruling only to be overuled by a mystery person from downstairs.
Ultimately it was a very sloppy way to run a $40k tournament and id imagine ladbrokes are not very happy

-=B.A.D=-tony

who was the 3rd party who was goin to buy ticket from the final 2 players?
anyone know?

nicnicnic

-=B.A.D=-tony wrote:

who was the 3rd party who was goin to buy ticket from the final 2 players?
anyone know?

there's a hint here

Don Fagan wrote:

I wish to post to this thread to clear up any confusion over the incident. I don't think the guy's involved intended to collude. But if you make that sort of deal, then you will naturally subconsiously not wish to get involved with the other player. I did query both player's why they were playing soft on one anothers blinds on numorous occasions. Also why the raises were coming into my spot only all of the time. I felt I was playing two cards against four.

I blame the club for causing the incident by changing the terms of the tournament when it reached the final 3. Its was clearly announced the ticket was non transferable(same as last year). I find this unfair to all the players who competed. I'm sure all players would have played the tournament differently, if they knew a cash deal could have been done at the final table. I would also like to know, who overruled the tournament director and allowed the ticket to be transferable at a later stage.

The club has not even returned my phone calls. The ticket was never transferable(Ladbrokes rules) and yet players were told they could sell it . The bottom line is the fitz was at fault for causing the confusion and the players should not have been put in this position.

5pin5

there was a 20percent difference in the chips and the cash was split that way

Lafortezza

Everything about this sounds dodgy, especially the soft playing by 2 players who may or may not have had a private deal with each other excluding the third player.

Until the 3 players involved each give their side of the story, it's hard to know who is in the wrong. We've heard from Don Fagan, who said there appeared to be some softplaying.

BigCityBanker

JAMMYBSTD wrote:

big cash game player

Cant really blame TD as he made the correct ruling only to be overuled by a mystery person from upstairs.

-=B.A.D=-tony wrote:

who was the 3rd party who was goin to buy ticket from the final 2 players?
anyone know?

ahem..

Lafortezza

5pin5 wrote:

there was a 20percent difference in the chips and the cash was split that way

Out of interest (and I don't think anyone has asked it directly yet), did you make a deal with 1 other person when there were 3 players remaining?

HeeHawsCantona

I dont think that any of that is really relevent Tony except for showing how one individual offering big money for a satt ticket can ruin a competition. Whats relevent is what happened between the two players involved!

If they done a deal when there were 3 players left that they would attempt to knock the other player out and then do a 50:50 split no matter what their stacks were then this behaviour should not be tolerated and the players in question should be excluded from ever playing in the club again (poker period if the sport had a governing body with these powers).

If they (the 2) said at the stage where there were 3 of them remaining that if they ended up heads up they would deal (based on stacks) then I dont see a problem.

If either of the players come on here and say that the first of these did not happen then I personally will believe them and others owe them an apology - I do think that the thread should be closed to posts from the rest of us at this time as nothing good can come out of it IMHO.

-=B.A.D=-tony

reason i thought the 3rd party is relevant, it the mysterious temp. change in the rules as to transferablity of the ticket...did the 3rd party have influence on such?

Padraig06

Money doesnt grow on trees.The 15000 or so added per player in the ladbrokes event is most generous and deserving of the gratitude and respect of players and organisers alike.Im not the greatest ladbrokes fan on the planet but they deserve a lot better than theyve got here.As far as i know ladbrokes (and the tv people) didnt feel theyd got great value for their money by piling it into a tv event dominated by a bunch of internet stiffs who dont get out often so had given real players an opportunity to get a piece of the added value.in that light moving goalposts near the end of an event is ridiculous and deserving of an explanation.the sad fact is that a load of free money has vanished and aint coming back.

HeeHawsCantona

Of course that is relevent on the running of the event and if they did then it shows how poorly the event was ran.

BigCityBanker

OT - Padraig. are you running a charity tournament later in the year? Would you care to start a thread on it and start spreading the word to the poker community?

mrflash

i personally think that this has been well explained, and its clear to me that the change in prize structure is the big problem here. and that falls in the lap of those who were running it, and i personally feel that other organisations who run tournaments are more deserving of my support following this ridiculous situation. if a decision is made that a ticket is available, then it should stay like that, its not just the three people who were involved at the finish of this tourney who were cheated, its every decent player who entered, as they were playing with strategies which were based on one winner only. if i was in fourth or fifth place in this tourney, i would not be happy because i was playing to win, whereas if it was known that there might be an opportunity to split, my game would more that likely be played with a more patient approach. this shows a major lack of respect for the customer.

Padraig06

yes.Simon poker day will be the last day of the EPT Dublin( thanks to Charles of the Merrion and mr Duthie).We should be posting full details here in a week or two if I survive the galway races.Ciaran OLeary(a worldclass drink buyer) has kicked us off with 500 bucks.Green Joker poker have promised enthusiastic support as have 888.Lots more in the negiation stages.Oh yeah.Mad marty and spivver bringing 30 from Bridge north.Wherever that is!

BigCityBanker

Padraig06 wrote:

yes.Simon poker day will be the last day of the EPT Dublin( thanks to Charles of the Merrion and mr Duthie).We should be posting full details here in a week or two if I survive the galway races.Ciaran OLeary(a worldclass drink buyer) has kicked us off with 500 bucks.Green Joker poker have promised enthusiastic support as have 888.Lots more in the negiation stages.Oh yeah.Mad marty and spivver bringing 30 from Bridge north.Wherever that is!

good man - look forward to hearing more. To be fair to O'Leary - he wasnt shy of the bar over there alright!!

pppspecial

unfortunatly don has been cheated out off a very valuable ticket here imo. this is a farce and there is only 1 party to blame.... terms are terms and the bar should never be moved.

al10pin

There have been alot of assumptions here. Don was the first to offer a deal to the other two players, offering cash and percentage which I think was fair. Does this mean that he cheated as eveyone else in the tournament was playing for one ticket? I don't think so. This happens, and the only issues was that the rules changed, not that a deal was done. This is not the first time as this also happened in Merrion days for WSOP packages, which were ticket only, but I swapped for cash, and a fifth placed person was bought out by the remaining four ticket winners, so it is not just the club.

Don had agreed that there was no cullusion, and as far as I am aware no deal was done until the heads up was reached with the other two. Eamonn has already corrected the posting regarding the 5:1 chip lead and has said that cash split was based on stack size. That should be good enough for everyone unless you are prepared to call him a lier, with proof.

It is true that the two other than Don announced that they didn't want to play in the Ladbrooks, and at least one indicated he culdn't take Don's offer as he was involved in another deal. Is this the real problem, or have percentages of one another not been declared before?

The issue for Don is that he wanted the ticket, would probably utilize it better than the others, but didn't win it. He maybe able to confirm a that a hand was played when the others were all in but split the pot he was not involved with, again rumour but if true would rule out collusion.

Please be fair to all individuals involved, as we all know at least one and I think we truly believe that none would be involved in something deliberate, and please don't tarnish good names.

I believe all have been caught in something quite simple as bad blood somewhere which is the real issue.

Mark

Padraig06

Maybe in the interest of fairness Mr Roche should be encouraged to give his version of events here.

5starpool

That was subtle

JAMMYBSTD

there was DEFINITELY a deal done previous to the HU as when asked why he was doing an even split with a 5-1 chip lead player replied "we had already agreed a deal"
there was DEFINITELY an even split of 6k each and a piece of the player as i was there when that was agreed

White Knight

al10pin wrote:

Please be fair to all individuals involved, as we all know at least one and I think we truly believe that none would be involved in something deliberate, and please don't tarnish good names

The general consensus is, and most rulebooks dictate, that soft-playing in tournaments is not allowed, and any occurrences of it are subject to penalties and punishment up to disqualification.

Ace2007

JAMMYBSTD wrote:

"we had already agreed a deal"

The above statement is where the main problem lies, was the deal between the 2 when there were 3 left or when they were headsup. If you read from start to finish of this thread it appears that it was done when there were 3 left, hence all the complains...

LuckyLloyd

I spoke to Eamonn earlier today. I believe that he will post his version of events in full tomorrow.

pumpkinpints

I dont see why the guys doing a heads up deal are being bashed, we often swap %`s of each other in tournaments and this is no different.
I know at least 2 of the players well and wouldnt doubt their integrity, although i think Eamon may have been misadvised before making this deal and possibly didnt think throught he possible consequences of it. I doubt they were out to screw Don and i dont think even Don would think it. I think that the tournament organisers should rarely be allowed to change the tournament rules, if ever, and sometimes when someone wins a ticket they dont really want to play/would prefer the cash i dont think its a bad thing that they give it to them, but imho this should be done AFTER the tournament so it doesnt affect the running of the tournament.

Lafortezza

I don't think anyone has a problems with players doing a deal when it's headsup. The question here is if a deal was done (and what kind of deal) between 2 players when there was 3 players remaining.
Don Fagan's post hints that this may have been the case.

DingDong

It was advertised as a Ladbrokes poker million ticket Guaranteed, non-transferable (Ladbrokes rules) . It was the responsibility of the Fitz to play to these rules. As it transpired how can you have ticket guaranteed tournament with no ticket. In effect the tournament collapsed. It was the Fitz responsibility to have an inquiry why no player is going forward to play the poker million. Especially as it was non-transferable. No prize money should have been paid out until a full inquiry was completed. If the player's didn't want to play on TV, they must play or forfeit the ticket(Why even enter the event?). You don't just cash it in for them. The rules should have been enforced it was a must play ticket. By not enforcing the rule's the outcome of the tournament was altered.

I can't see Ladbrokes giving a tickets to the Fitz next year.

dub24

i see peter roche has a ticket in the poker million....is that the same ticket from the fitz

Ace2007

where u c the names - and yes i think so...

dub24

hes 50/1 in the betting on ladbrokes site

Doc Farrell

Can we keep this going, its great craic!
Can i organise a lynch mob to hunt down 5pin5?
he puts too much starch in my shirts anyway.

(in case no one can read between the lines its probably best to put this one to bed, Eamonns game is so entertaining he can do whatever he likes with full immunity)

Lazare

Doc Farrell wrote:

(in case no one can read between the lines its probably best to put this one to bed, Eamonns game is so entertaining he can do whatever he likes with full immunity)

I agree Des, as interesting as this thread is, I find it a little strange how this 'incident' is being aired over a public forum with posters acting as judge and jury. I feel bad for Eamonn, some caustic comments so far.

MickL

i dont agree i think the ticket should have been awarded to don on the basis of this thread alone its pretty clear what happened

shame on ladbrokes for sellin the ticket to peter roche after they null and voided the ticket he bought in the first place

ill give you an example in the belagio a few weeks ago a sattelite where there was one ticket to the winner 3 way one guy offers to buy the two players out one refuses as he states he wants to play the tourney the guy who refused to sell goes on to win the ticket!!?!
he later ask's the management can he sell the tickets or is there a cash alterintive the management so no ticket only he claims that he is flyin home that morning the management say your chips will be on the table when the first card is dealt of the tournament and that was final!!!

why do people play a satt for a tevivised tourney when they dont want to appear on TV!!?

MICK

BigCityBanker

MickL wrote:

i dont agree i think the ticket should have been awarded to don on the basis of this thread alone its pretty clear what happened

are you deluded? or trolling? or drunk and have taken leave of your senses?

MickL

none of the above noel!!

ok so your playin a satt online the same scenario you complain to the site as don did the website is gonna look into the play an disqualify the the first two and award the 3rd the prize!!?!

Padraig06

Lets hope Rochey wins.Im fed up watching floods and stuff on the telly.This one will be the biggest scandal of the year and put poker back where it came from.I cant believe Ladbrokes set themselves up for this one.

BigCityBanker

MickL wrote:

none of the above noel!!

ok so your playin a satt online the same scenario you complain to the site as don did the website is gonna look into the play an disqualify the the first two and award the 3rd the prize!!?!

online collusion is quantifiable and examinable by the powers that be
. Whether we like it or not this is currently heresay - there is a stark difference.

Padraig06 wrote:

Lets hope Rochey wins.Im fed up watching floods and stuff on the telly.This one will be the biggest scandal of the year and put poker back where it came from.I cant believe Ladbrokes set themselves up for this one.

Interesting that you said above how Laddies wanted real players and not interweb geeks. Now u say your sick watching flood. Kinda ironic considering he qualified on the internet

Lafortezza

Doc Farrell wrote:

(in case no one can read between the lines its probably best to put this one to bed, Eamonns game is so entertaining he can do whatever he likes with full immunity)

That's just silly, there's a discussion going on here about what happened with 3 players left with just 1 ticket guaranteed, where there may or may not have been a shady deal made which excluded 1 of the 3 players.
If Eamonn comes on here and gives his full side of the story I don't think anyone will doubt him. We've heard from Don Fagan, and from that alone it does sounds like there was something going on.

Nearly everyone who posts here plays live to some extent in Dublin, so it's good to know what is happening in tournaments, and how card rooms are running things.

Padraig06

because of my involvent with Simon Poker Day ,my longstanding friendship and respect for Paul and Colette and interest in irish poker in general Ive both kept quiet about what Scott and Don told me about what happened and far more importantly have asked a few journalists whove phoned me to do so as a favour.
Itd be nice if those who can sort this out do so before it gets out of hand and reflects terribly on Irish poker in general.

Doc Farrell

Padraig06 wrote:

because of my involvent with Simon Poker Day ,my longstanding friendship and respect for Paul and Colette and interest in irish poker in general Ive both kept quiet about what Scott and Don told me about what happened and far more importantly have asked a few journalists whove phoned me to do so as a favour.
Itd be nice if those who can sort this out do so before it gets out of hand and reflects terribly on Irish poker in general.

well of course its all a storm in a teacup and nothing will happen no matter who says what because in the end its only poker players.

the only thing i can see happening here are a bunch of computer nerds getting a false impression about a great guy like Eamonn. No matter what happened he has my full support. most of the lads here wouldn't support their grannies if she was falling down the stairs, i'd like to be proven wrong but haven't been so far.

Padraig06

Sorry for upsetting you Doc.I havent and wouldnt say a word against either of these two lads.Its what happened off the ball thats the disgrace here.one of Irish pokers finest players and greatest ambassadors has got stuffed for serious dough here and Pontius Pilate wouldnt get a lookin if he felt like washing his hands.In fact he probably wouldnt be bothered.

LuckyLloyd

Doc Farrell wrote:

the only thing i can see happening here are a bunch of computer nerds getting a false impression about a great guy like Eamonn. No matter what happened he has my full support. most of the lads here wouldn't support their grannies if she was falling down the stairs, i'd like to be proven wrong but haven't been so far.

I have discussed the matter with Eamonn and would like to say that he did absolutely nothing wrong IMO and deserves far better than some of the rubbish posted so far in this thread.

The idea that he would collude in any way is just wrong.

jtsuited

Doc Farrell wrote:

No matter what happened he has my full support.

really? even if it it turned out that the initial account (OP) was correct? I have no idea what happened but I couldn't give my support to any player who would do something like that. Not that we know yet.
Obviously these are all allegations (and could be true or false), but it can be resolved if either one of the 2 players who ended up HU stating definitively whether the deal was done with 3 players left, or when they got HU.

And des, going on about immoral computer geeks (which apparently most of us are) is slightly ironic given your post count and your continued association with this forum

Doc Farrell

you're right jt, i surely am a nerd and proud of it, never said i wasn't one of them.

when you've played against people dozens if not hundreds of times you know who they are and heresay on the internet isn't going to change that.

i love positive rumours, i love good stories like Luke opening his own cardroom but negative rumour mongering, if it gets out into mainstream media, does great damage to the game and its future regulation. We need more people like Padraig and his Simon charity game and less faceless internet heresay.

(and not to be melodramatic, but there's also a thing called 'innocent until proven guilty', which is why i find it so easy to support Eamonn unreservedly)

Ace2007

right well tbh, i'm not here to say anything against anybody, but when u say "innocent until proven guilty", it is true, but nowadays most ppl are assumed guilty until they prove there innocent, just for the record, Don Fagan posted on this thread on 23-07-2007 at 16:50. the longer it takes for both of the other players to post their side of the story - the longer this thread as well as all the bad publicity for poker and the players will continue. It takes 2 mins max and then this thread can be closed and everyone can be happy

DingDong

DingDong wrote:

It was advertised as a Ladbrokes poker million ticket Guaranteed, non-transferable (Ladbrokes rules) . It was the responsibility of the Fitz to play to these rules. As it transpired how can you have ticket guaranteed tournament with no ticket. In effect the tournament collapsed. It was the Fitz responsibility to have an inquiry why no player is going forward to play the poker million. Especially as it was non-transferable. No prize money should have been paid out until a full inquiry was completed. If the player's didn't want to play on TV, they must play or forfeit the ticket(Why even enter the event?). You don't just cash it in for them. The rules should have been enforced it was a must play ticket. By not enforcing the rule's the outcome of the tournament was altered.

I can't see Ladbrokes giving a tickets to the Fitz next year.

To quote myself these are the known facts. Would you considered the fitz guilty of mismanagment of the tournament and operating outside of the rules.

Cuban Son

I was just thinking about the above post. Maybe now would be a good time for someone from the Fitz to come forward and explain how the ticket got transfered to someone not in the comp.

5starpool

I doubt anyone who is allowed to post on behalf of the Fitz reads this tbh. I can't see Dave Hickson or Paul Cryan for example as people who browse here, unless you have reason to think otherwise Paul.