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

mdwexford

i dont know the players in question and i know 5pin5 doesnt have to explain himself in public but if hes innocent of any dodgy deals then surely it would be sensible to just give his side of the story and clear his name. its not right for anybody to be pasing judgement on him before they hear his version of events imo.

the fitz seem to be at fault from whats been posted here though.

Ace2007

OT - no luck in the DC Dom?

Ace2007

mdwexford wrote:

the fitz seem to be at fault from whats been posted here though.

making statements like this is the same as saying player A or player B did this or did that - u basically contradicted urself...

5starpool

Ace2007 wrote:

OT - no luck in the DC Dom?

God no.

mdwexford

Ace2007 wrote:

making statements like this is the same as saying player A or player B did this or did that - u basically contradicted urself...

some of the stuff that has been posted about the Fitz are facts. none of the players have a ticket so something went wrong somewhere.

there have been no facts about the deal as far as i can see.
so i am not contradicting myself at all.

Cuban Son

5starpool wrote:

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.

I wouldn't know if they do browse here Dom. But they should be informed of what's being said here. They have a right to know, and be able to respond to this, imo.

Ace2007

JAMMYBSTD wrote:

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

none of the final 3 have the ticket - but a player who did play in the tourney does.

but it appear from the quote above that jammybstd was present. therefore for outsider reading the forum. what does he believe?

ditpoker

anyone who has played with Eamonn or knows him at all probably knows he not the colluding type and has my full support for what its worth. seems like sour grapes for the 3rd place finished from what i can see based on what i've read here.

kincsem

I'm a bit confused. Did Ladbrokes pay neither cash or a ticket? Did the final three get something, or did the final two get something? Or did they get nothing? Did Ladbrokes cancel the ticket because a name player did not win?

Most deals are done between the players in their seats at the final table. I can understand that if one player does not want to deal, and the other two want to do a deal, then there is no deal. But when the player who does not want to do a deal is eliminated, then the other two will probably do a deal. Did this understanding affect the play?

A few years ago I wanted to do a deal with three remaining, but one player refused. When it go down to two I did a 50/50 deal with the other player (who agreed to a deal with three remaining), even though I had 80% of the chips. There was no collusion, no ganging-up on the player eliminated.

mrflash

ditpoker wrote:

anyone who has played with Eamonn or knows him at all probably knows he not the colluding type and has my full support for what its worth. seems like sour grapes for the 3rd place finished from what i can see based on what i've read here.

some people are continuing with this players thing, thats not the real problem here. everybody entered this tournament under the impression that there was a ticket for the winner and as it turned out, that was not the case. the problem here is that everybody was playing for first place, now if two people are aware that they dont have to take the ticket and can do a deal, that changes things. it is disgraceful carry on, and the fitz is to blame. i didnt play in this 'sat' myself, but i can tell you that if i had, i would be looking for my money back, because this event was changed, and while people were playing with a strategy to win, instead of get down to the last two or three, and do a chop. that option was not an option at the start of this event, so every player who entered this event was cheated out of their entry. the honorable thing to do here as far as the two remaining players are concerened would be for the winner to enter the event which was advertised and give a cut to the guy he did a split with, this would clear up matters. as things stand it is not fair to all who played and especially those who reached the last table as they all played to win the ticket and no matter what is said now there will always be a suspicion that two players might have been aware that a cut could be made from an earlier stage. this is not fair to anyone who was involved in this tourney.

5starpool

mrflash wrote:

everybody entered this tournament under the impression that there was a ticket for the winner and as it turned out, that was not the case.

This is a stupid sentence. There was a ticket available and the fact that neither player wanted to play (which I don't understand, why enter?) doesn't change that fact. The real farce is that Ladbrokes, having suspended the ticket due to a complaint from Don, then went and sold it anyways to the player that the complaint was entered about in the first place!!!!

If I was playing in this and had been knocked out prior to any of this happening, then it is of no concern to me that a deal was done as it usually is in this situation. The deal is usually more of the type where one person offers cash/shares to one or more remaining players, but in this case it was a bit different. Although I don't really agree with it, there are loads of examples of people winning tickets and then selling them on afterwards.

I am not saying who is right or who is wrong as I was not there, but my personal belief here is that if it was agreed with 3 left that they would split it heads up then it was probably more through naivity or not thinking it through properly, rather than any maliciousness. I don't think I can imagine Eamonn colluding, and I don't get the impression from playing with Terry that he would either. Eamonn does play strangely at times though. I have seen him go all in on ridiculous cards because he doesn't like getting raised by a particular person, or checking down the nuts (or similiar) at times because he is having a laugh at the table. Saying this man didn't play as expected is impossible, as I don't think anyone knows how to expect him to play.

5pin5

first of all thank you everybody for your veiws .i am posting what i think happened as soon as i get home.

MickL

5starpool wrote:

This is a stupid sentence. There was a ticket available and the fact that neither player wanted to play (which I don't understand, why enter?) doesn't change that fact. The real farce is that Ladbrokes, having suspended the ticket due to a complaint from Don, then went and sold it anyways to the player that the complaint was entered about in the first place!!!!

i agree totally as i said to ya last night shame on ladbrokes they have brought poker to disrapute i would like to kno why Eamon and Terry played a ticket only event for a telivised tourney and not want to appear on TV as far as im aware it was made very public its a ticket only event and its non-transferable

On a another note it is a bit of a BAD BEAT

Fatboydim

Wow what a mess!

I'd like to make a few points based on what I heard over the weekend and have read here.

If I was Don I would be very pissed off. I think it's unfair that people think he is being bitter or that it's sour grapes. From the information available to me at this time it seems that he wanted to do a deal between the three of them and this deal was refused because of an outside interest.

That to me is wrong - surely a player outside of the the three cannot enter into the deal making process.

Collusion - I don't think collusion took place - soft playing arguably - But clearly none of this was in a malicious or intentional way. It's also virtually impossible to prove and in all honesty we're all guilty of it in some shape or form. [IE: I have aces and I know my mate has a good hand but I raise up high to warn him whereas against another player I might play it slower to realise a bigger return. Although of course this can backfire as it did against Gooner]

Tickets and deals - Those moaning about deals being done at ticket only events are just being delusional. Deals are very very common in these situations. However you have to get yourself in a position to be able to deal. That I don't think is the issue here. But there should be clearly defined rules about deal making.

For me the biggest issue here is that a deal with a player involved in the tournament should always take precedent over a deal from an outside player [even if he played the tournament - by dint of being knocked out earlier he is regarded as outside]

I also recommend that when deals are discussed that they should always be discussed in the presence of the TD - so that the TD can advise and also avoid this hear say evidence of who said what when.

IMHO what Ladbrokes should have done is insisted that the ticket should have been offered to Don by Eamon and Terry for the percentage split that they were offered by the outside party as long as this were not over the tickets actual value. So that Don had the opportunity to play.

If Don did not wish to take the ticket then Eamon and Terry should decide between them which would play and which would get the money.

This is the harsh bit - If neither wanted to play they should not have entered the tournament - I don't care how nice anyone is - that is unfair to other players who desperately want to play. I understand how the money can be attractive - I also understand how having done the deal that probably neither player would want to stump up xK to the other. But in order to preserve the integrity of these tournaments I think you have to do this.

Otherwise quite simply put - The sponsors of these events will keep all qualifiers online and therefore we as poker players will lose out.

strewelpeter

5starpool wrote:

...If I was playing in this and had been knocked out prior to any of this happening, then it is of no concern to me that a deal was done as it usually is in this situation...

I can't agree with this. Playing the late stages of a tournament where it has been made explicit that there is one, non transferable, seat and no cash alternative is radically different from playing when you expect that a deal will ultimately be done. Obviously given the explicit rules of this event there was room for any remaining number of players to negotiate, in private and among themselves, that one of them play the final in return for percentages. BTW I called the Fitz before this tourney and it was clear one guaranteed, non-transferable ticket and no cash alternative.

5starpool wrote:

...if it was agreed with 3 left that they would split it heads up then it was probably more through naivity or not thinking it through properly, rather than any maliciousness. I don't think I can imagine Eamonn colluding...

I think Don had made that point very effectively in his first paragraph:

Don Fagan wrote:

... I don't think the guy's involved intended to collude. But if you make that sort of deal, then you will naturally subconsciously not wish to get involved...

The accusation has been made numerous times here that such a deal was done and none of the people involved have chosen to deny it.

There is no doubt that this mess is the result of monumental incompetence on the part of the organisers. It would be a shame if anyones good reputations were tarnished by the almost inevitable consequence of the messing that led to the, previously very clear, rules being changed at such a late stage and without all the players involved being informed of the changes.

5pin5

Firstly, I would like to thank Don for taking the time to post in this thread. The accusations put on this board by the user DingDong via his original post are obviously quite serious. I would like to emphasise that I did not in any way soft play or collude at any point in the tournament in a deliberate attempt to short another player.


We were left three handed: Don, Terry and I.

I had entered into an agreement with Peter Roche earlier on in the night (before the tournament began) that if I managed to win a ticket I would allow him to play on my behalf in return for some cash and a share in any prizes earned. I had turned up to the Fitz for a good game of cards and under the assumption that a cash alternative would be on offer – or the tournament would not have enough runners to make up the ticket price. I had no real intention of playing the event due to a lack of available time due to work commitments.

When we reached three handed Don offered both of us a deal (while play was in progress). He would give us 6k in cash between us; give each of us a one third share of any potential prize money won; and he would play the event. At the start of three handed play, I was the low stack but was lucky to be doubled up twice by Don.

After Don offered the deal I went downstairs to check with Denise as to whether the ticket was transferable and to talk over my arrangement with Peter. Terry followed me downstairs. Denise confirmed that the ticket would be transferable. Peter was happy to allow me to back out of our arrangement. He noted that Don’s deal was very fair and that Don would have a very good chance of performing well in the competition.

However, I was ahead in chips at that stage and was not against playing on some more. I took the decision to play on three handed and provisionally stick to my arrangement with Peter. On the way back up the stairs I noted to Terry that “I would do a deal heads-up”. This is very important. I meant that I would deal with whoever got heads-up with me. Not that I would explicitly do a deal with Terry if we got heads-up. And not that we should collude or conspire in some fashion to oust Don out in third. Terry also noted that he would also do a deal. Again, I must emphasise that I understood this to mean that he would prefer to do a deal once another player was eliminated – irrespective of which player that was.

The play from that point until Don exited in third may have seemed a little mad to some observers – but was more, in my opinion, a product of my particular way of playing than anything else. I don’t like folding hands – particularly shorthanded. I reckon any two cards can hit and I just like getting involved. Terry is also a little mad in how he likes to play. However, I must stress that I did not play any hands in a different manner to how I would usually.

On a K high board I called a push from Terry with K4 when he had me out kicked. I was lucky to get running aces for a split. I called him because I thought he might be bluffing, to knock him out and to put me heads-up. The call may have seemed mad to some watching – but it is the way I play more than anything else.

The hand Don was eliminated on, I had J9 on a J95 (all diamond) board. I checked, Terry bet at the pot, Don shoved, I went all - in, and Terry called behind!! I felt that Don would try a move at some stage as he had been noting how he doesn’t bluff. Don had a Jack with a weaker kicker and no diamond. Terry also had J9!! Again, both of us calling Don’s hand all – in may have seemed odd; but it is just the way we play. As I said, I don’t like folding, and felt I might be ahead. I would like to again emphasise that I was not colluding or changing anything because of the external factors involved. I was just playing the way I do. I may also note, that I did not attack Don’s small or big blind much, if at all.

After that key hand, Terry had a decent chip lead – out chipping me by about 3: 1. Before we played another hand, I asked Terry if we could have a deal. He readily agreed. Understand that I am usually willing to do a deal heads – up, so this should not have been surprising to any onlookers.

The ticket was worth 18k. We went down to talk to Peter, who agreed to play the event; give us 12k between us – additionally giving us a one third share of any prize – money won. As Terry had more chips, it was agreed that he take 6.5k and I take 5.5k in cash.

I worked a long day on the Friday, and saw that I had missed a lot of calls during that time. I was informed that someone had made a complaint about the situation to Ladbrokes – and, under suspicion of possible collusion, they decided to pull the ticket.

This was very unfortunate as it means the extra money and overlay provided for the ticket is gone. I can appreciate that this would cause frustration for Don and others – but it is not my fault. And it is certainly incorrect for the ticket to have been pulled on the basis of collusion. As I must stress yet again – that NO collusion took place.

I apologise to Don or anyone else who may have misunderstood or misconstrued my actions. I hope that this post allays any suspicions and helps to clear up the matter.

The original post from DingDong is terribly inaccurate and only serves to damage my reputation – which I feel is very unfair.

Peter Roche has subsequently been offered a ticket by Ladbrokes. And we have agreed that I take a percentage share of any prize money he may win as per our original arrangement. Terry also gets a percentage of any prize money won.

MrPillowTalk

Doc Farrell wrote:

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.

As a matter of interest why do you post here? you dont seem to like anything about the forum and are allways complaining.

Hyzepher

However, I was ahead in chips at that stage and was not against playing on some more. I took the decision to play on three handed and provisionally stick to my arrangement with Peter. On the way back up the stairs I noted to Terry that “I would do a deal heads-up”. This is very important. I meant that I would deal with whoever got heads-up with me. Not that I would explicitly do a deal with Terry if we got heads-up. And not that we should collude or conspire in some fashion to oust Don out in third. Terry also noted that he would also do a deal. Again, I must emphasise that I understood this to mean that he would prefer to do a deal once another player was eliminated – irrespective of which player that was.

Did you inform Don that a deal was likely HU?

LuckyLloyd

If the result of all of this is that Dublin cardrooms start to make satellites must take ticket only affairs we can probably give up on the idea of cardroom satellites for large entry fee tournaments.

Such qualifiers always rely on a large amount of dead money from regular club players who are looking for a tournament on the night; have no intention of playing the target event; and fully expect a cash alternative or the abillity to deal if they get to the business end.

And I much prefer that situation - i.e. that the option of what to do with the prize is left open to those who make the final few places of a tournament. That way, if you want to treat a satellite as just that - a qualifier to a larger event - then you can simply play for the win and refuse any deals. And making it the perogative of each individual just means that the prizepool will be bigger - which means more tickets for those who want one!!

Secondly, if you get knocked out of a tournament before a final deal is done it is NONE OF YOUR FCUKING BUSINESS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE REMAINING PRIZEPOOL. You lost. And therefore you lost the abillity to influence how the remaining players choose to divide the money. If Don Fagan agrees that there was no collusion (which anyone who knows Eamonn and Terry would be 100% certain of) then he has no gripe IMO.

In my humble opinion, a large part of this issue is the product of frustration and dissapointment on the part of a well respected professional who wasn't able to see past two wayward players on the night for a very juicy prize. And some of it may have to do with personal grudges a number of well respected professional players may have against another respected professional player.

The suggestion that a deal offered by a player remaining in a tournament should take precedence over a prior arrangement a player has with a third party is ridiculous. If someone refuses a deal from a remaining player on the basis that he would like to play on and stick to something already agreed - what is the fcuking problem? It just means play continues and more players need to get knocked out. Might annoy the guy in the tournament offering the deal. So what.


I cannot honestly see how Peter Roche winning the Poke Million would drag the game into disrepute or back into the dark ages. That said, giving the seat to Don Fagan at this stage might just do that.

Fatboydim

That's some hand with the J9 lol.

Eamon I think yours and Terry's reputations are safe. The only thing I'd say is that I don't like the idea of deals being done with players outside of those immediately involved in the game. Having said that it happens in poker all the time and of course Peter sponsors players and has percentages all over the place.

What I hope emerges from all this is lessons learnt.

I think rules need to be set out more clearly so that players and organisers are protected. And players need to be a little more aware of their position.

It's easy to see how this got out of hand... and I can't blame anyone for what they did.

LuckyLloyd

Fatboydim wrote:

Eamon I think yours and Terry's reputations are safe. The only thing I'd say is that I don't like the idea of deals being done with players outside of those immediately involved in the game. Having said that it happens in poker all the time and of course Peter sponsors players and has percentages all over the place.

And Peter should be allowed to sponsor players and have percentages all over the place if he chooses. There is nothing wrong with what he does, or what he did in this specific case.

jtsuited

fair play eamon for such a detailed account of what happened. I can see absolutely nothing wrong with what you did.

Fatboydim

LuckyLloyd wrote:

The suggestion that a deal offered by a player remaining in a tournament should take precedence over a prior arrangement a player has with a third party is ridiculous. If someone refuses a deal from a remaining player on the basis that he would like to play on and stick to something already agreed - what is the fcuking problem?

There is a huge problem. Both ethically and practically. I don't know any of the players involved as well as others on here so my view is less tainted by friendship. But surely if a player has fought his way to third on the night and is offering a deal that on the face of it at least is the same as Peter's he should get that deal. As he has played for the privilege to be in that position. Say that was you or I in Don's position and we desperately wanted to play. [I know Don has more money than you and I as such but bear with me] We would be furious having battled to that position to then find that players dealt with a fourth party outside of the competition.

What would this lead to? Bidding wars on ebay for tournament tickets? Highest bidder gets to play? It's just daft and not really fair.

Eamon was honouring his deal with Peter... Fair enough. But I think the rules should disallow outside deals. After all the package is guaranteed by Ladbrokes isn't it? So doesn't any shortfall get covered by them?

LuckyLloyd

Fatboydim wrote:

There is a huge problem. Both ethically and practically. I don't know any of the players involved as well as others on here so my view is less tainted by friendship. But surely if a player has fought his way to third on the night and is offering a deal that on the face of it at least is the same as Peter's he should get that deal. As he has played for the privilege to be in that position. Say that was you or I in Don's position and we desperately wanted to play. [I know Don has more money than you and I as such but bear with me] We would be furious having battled to that position to then find that players dealt with a fourth party outside of the competition.

What would this lead to? Bidding wars on ebay for tournament tickets? Highest bidder gets to play? It's just daft and not really fair.

Eamon was honouring his deal with Peter... Fair enough. But I think the rules should disallow outside deals. After all the package is guaranteed by Ladbrokes isn't it? So doesn't any shortfall get covered by them?

Len - Don was not offering the same deal.

bohsman

Couple of points, people softplaying each other happens all the time, friends on a final table, 2 Irish people on the same table in another country will normally play that bit softer against each other, anybody rejecting a deal will get bullied by everybody.
That laddies ticket is worth around 40k to a pro.

5pin5

no i did not say it to don and that was my big mistake

snowy666

Interesting reading and for my two pennies worth, it appears that everyone involved in this can be perfectly clear of conscience and glow in the shine of their integrity, other than the Fitzwilliam Cardroom.

It's either transferrable or not. It's not brain surgery and shouldn't change during the tourny.

Hard for me to comment on the staff for obvious reasons but speaking from a players perspective, I would hope to receive rulings, tournament decisions etc. from somebody whose sole Cardroom experience does not consist of playing poker for a couple of years.

Couldn't run a p%$$ up in a brewery.

Ace2007

I don't want to keep this thread going, but as a matter of interested, if Don Fagan and Eamon were heads up - what would have happened???

Fatboydim

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Len - Don was not offering the same deal.

Just taking that from what Eamon said in his post. Understandable that a player should go for the best deal. [Just the question as to whether or not outside parties should be allowed to offer deals] Of course the main reason there is any problem at all here is because it's a specialised case. If this was a WSOP ticket no problem. But it's because it's a limited entry TV tournament - I don't know of any history between Don and Peter. I know Peter better than Don and he's always come across as a perfect gent.
And I feel sorry for all parties, that it's being discussed on here.

My main concern would be that sponsors don't pull out from live sats.

5starpool

Nice post Eamonn, and I think it clears up a few issues. There are still probably people who maintain their point about not involving outside parties. I think your post cements my view that it was just your unique style that may have created undue suspicions.

strewelpeter

If the ticket has a face value of 18K and if as has been reported here a few times it has an ...lets call it an EV of 40K in the hands of a Pro.
If both Peter and Don are assumed to be in the category of players who can utilise the added value...Well, draw your own conclusions.

I don't know the answer, but this looks mighty unfair on Don and to a small degree on anyone who played the tournament.

Fair play to Eamonn for coming on and giving such a clear account, and admitting the mistakes that were made.

DingDong

I’m glad Eamon has cleared up a few inaccuracies in my orignal post. As Judge Judy says “We always get closer to the truth when people start talking”. Eamon and Terry did talk about a deal if they get heads up unknown to Don. I wouldn’t consider this very ethical or acceptable in poker and Eamon admitted this was his big mistake. Its a massives disadvantage to the third player. Anyone who who doesn’t understand this is not a poker player. I talk to Eamon on boards and stars before and he always came across as a nice guy.

I’d love Terry to post his version of events as he clearly said a deal had already been done. This didn’t help the whole situation

5starpool

DingDong wrote:

Eamon and Terry did talk about a deal if they get heads up unknown to Don. I wouldn’t consider this very ethical or acceptable in poker and Eamon admitted this was his big mistake.

According to Eamonn this wasn't limited to a headsup deal between the 2 of them, it was whatever 2 were in volved in it. I have often mentioned to people that I might deal at a certain stage of the tournie but not before, and not told everyone else at the table if it was a conversation that happened elsewhere. However, this is never taken to mean any sort of softplay will take place, and I don't believe Eamonn or Terry softplayed each other to the detriment of Don. I will say however that both players are liable to make moves that will appear illogical and strange to any onlooking pro.

5pin5

if i got heads up with don i would have don e a deal i may be mad but i am not stupit.terry does not post on boards but he will be in the fitz tomorrow for the end of the month as i will be .

RichardB2

This whole mess can be summed up, it seems to me, as follows.

1. The Fitz advertised a tournament and then fundamentally changed the rules in a way
that those playing the event can legimately claim would have affected their play in the later stages.
This is plainly unprofessional and I cannot see this action being defended.

2. A deal had been agreed between two players where one effectively took a share in the other.
This is common in Poker and few of us are either unaware of the practice or have any objection.
The one disclaimer I would have here is to say that etically these deals should be made public if both players remain on a short handed table.

3. Don had good reason in the circumstances outlined here to be suspicious of what was happening after the table went 3 handed.
However those who know both Eamonn and Terry, and I suspect we can include Don in this,
would accept Eamonns explaination as plausible and believable.
The plays he outlines are entirely in keeping with my experiences of him on the Poker table.

If there are lessons to be learnt here they must be that a tournament structure should only be altered in the most extreme of circumstances
and secondly any deals being struck during play should be done with the full knowledge of all remaining players.

kincsem

Eamonn,
Nice post. It appears everyone behaved correctly, but that there was a small lack of communication (unintentional).

See you tomorrow night in the Fitz.

Ace2007

yea same here - hope for ur sake u don't run pocket 10's into pocket 2's

bottom feeder

DingDong wrote:

I’d love Terry to post his version of events as he clearly said a deal had already been done. This didn’t help the whole situation

Listen i think enough has been said and no need to drag this any further....


Eamon fair play for posting what actually happened and nice result too...

MickL

LuckyLloyd wrote:

If the result of all of this is that Dublin cardrooms start to make satellites must take ticket only affairs we can probably give up on the idea of cardroom satellites for large entry fee tournaments.

Such qualifiers always rely on a large amount of dead money from regular club players who are looking for a tournament on the night; have no intention of playing the target event; and fully expect a cash alternative or the abillity to deal if they get to the business end.

And I much prefer that situation - i.e. that the option of what to do with the prize is left open to those who make the final few places of a tournament. That way, if you want to treat a satellite as just that - a qualifier to a larger event - then you can simply play for the win and refuse any deals. And making it the perogative of each individual just means that the prizepool will be bigger - which means more tickets for those who want one!!

Secondly, if you get knocked out of a tournament before a final deal is done it is NONE OF YOUR FCUKING BUSINESS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE REMAINING PRIZEPOOL. You lost. And therefore you lost the abillity to influence how the remaining players choose to divide the money. If Don Fagan agrees that there was no collusion (which anyone who knows Eamonn and Terry would be 100% certain of) then he has no gripe IMO.

In my humble opinion, a large part of this issue is the product of frustration and dissapointment on the part of a well respected professional who wasn't able to see past two wayward players on the night for a very juicy prize. And some of it may have to do with personal grudges a number of well respected professional players may have against another respected professional player.

The suggestion that a deal offered by a player remaining in a tournament should take precedence over a prior arrangement a player has with a third party is ridiculous. If someone refuses a deal from a remaining player on the basis that he would like to play on and stick to something already agreed - what is the fcuking problem? It just means play continues and more players need to get knocked out. Might annoy the guy in the tournament offering the deal. So what.


I cannot honestly see how Peter Roche winning the Poke Million would drag the game into disrepute or back into the dark ages. That said, giving the seat to Don Fagan at this stage might just do that.

lylod i speak for a vast majority of people here when i say your talkin bull****e

how can peter buy the ticket and that be ok after ladbrokes null and voiding it because he bought it in the first place!!!

LuckyLloyd

MickL wrote:

lylod i speak for a vast majority of people here when i say your talkin bull****e

how can peter buy the ticket and that be ok after ladbrokes null and voiding it because he bought it in the first place!!!

Eh? Because they were incorrect to withdraw it in the first place as there was no actual collusion. It seems to me that they withdrew it because they believed his arrangement may have resulted in collusion or softplay to Don Fagan's detriment.

Now that it has been proven that was not the case - it seems reasonable that he receive the ticket.

So, if I'm talking "bull****e" - then the perception of the vast majority of people for whom you apparantly speak is wildly incorrect.

5pin5

peter was first reserve on the list so the ticket was pulled and he had first call on it

pumpkinpints

i think poker is an individual game, and you make your own decisions. If someone offers you a deal before a tournament and you accepts, i see no reason why you should have to do a deal in a tournament jeopardising it. people buy %`s of people either to support them or to profit from them, and as we all know its very common.
If i am at a final table having arranged something with a friend earlier then i should NOT be obliged to deal with people at the table later on. it would be ridiculous otherwise.

Padraig06

Fatboydim wrote:

There is a huge problem. Both ethically and practically. I don't know any of the players involved as well as others on here so my view is less tainted by friendship. But surely if a player has fought his way to third on the night and is offering a deal that on the face of it at least is the same as Peter's he should get that deal. As he has played for the privilege to be in that position. Say that was you or I in Don's position and we desperately wanted to play. [I know Don has more money than you and I as such but bear with me] We would be furious having battled to that position to then find that players dealt with a fourth party outside of the competition.

What would this lead to? Bidding wars on ebay for tournament tickets? Highest bidder gets to play? It's just daft and not really fair.

Eamon was honouring his deal with Peter... Fair enough. But I think the rules should disallow outside deals. After all the package is guaranteed by Ladbrokes isn't it? So doesn't any shortfall get covered by them?

On the ball as ever.a wise man once told me that if you put money and people in the one room the greed bastards will identify themselves sooner rather than later

Ace2007

pumpkinpints wrote:

i think poker is an individual game, and you make your own decisions. If someone offers you a deal before a tournament and you accepts, i see no reason why you should have to do a deal in a tournament jeopardising it. people buy %`s of people either to support them or to profit from them, and as we all know its very common.
If i am at a final table having arranged something with a friend earlier then i should NOT be obliged to deal with people at the table later on. it would be ridiculous otherwise.

No one is saying u are obliged, but put it this way for simplicity.

u get to the final 3 - one offers a deal and u rejected(because of the other deal), but u have no intention of taking the ticket, but the other 2 would like it. what then???? rules are u can't sell ticket (u know this before you started, but you have an arrangment with a friend), you get heads up - again the remaining player offers you a deal and you say no?

Is it fair to the other player , who could be playing for 7/8 hrs that someone whom you have a deal with - would get the ticket - no its not.


Please note that my example has nothing to do with the ladbrokes ticket that was given out last thursday or the ppl involved..

cardshark202

OK well in my opinion I know Eamonn well enough to know he would never do anything to intentionally collude or softplay, so I'm sure the players involved didn't mean to make Don feel like he was being ganged up on. I think you explained the situation very well Eamonn
I certainly don't think outside deals should be allowed in situations like this. And if they are to be allowed, I think the tournament director should be made aware of any beforehand so he can notify the players.

And Doc, what was the point of your stupid posts in this thread? You are coming across as a moronic whinger.

5pin5

we did not screw don out a ticket he was beaten fair and square and i did nothing wrong

cardshark202

Sorry eamonn post edited to come across a little better

MickL

5pin5 wrote:

we did not screw don out a ticket he was beaten fair and square and i did nothing wrong

eamon may seem like im havin a pop at you but im not your on e of the first people i knew an like very ell when i first came on the scene 4 years ago and respect your integrety what im sayin in this thread is shame on ladbrokes as i dont think peter should have recivied the ticket from them after them pullin the ticket he bought from yous!!!

Doc Farrell

this thread has nothing to do with me so i'm not going to dignify personal comments (too much). I'm glad Eamonn has had a chance to clear his name (although i would still like to organise a witch hunt of some kind...)

mr. pillow talk i thought it might be obvious that i follow boards to see how people i like are getting on, not very complicated really. i don't think i whinge too much or start threads like this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055076430&referrerid=&highlight=

as for reggie's comment, well, i see you are back to your old ways. its not really worth my time and i hope the mods will simply delete personal attacks as i don't have the energy to read them.

i have a sentimental interest in poker as the years i spent grinding gave me the deposit to set up my own business but having to respond to these kind of comments really isn't worth my time. i trust you understand.

nice win eamonn.

Don Fagan

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Eh? Because they were incorrect to withdraw it in the first place as there was no actual collusion. It seems to me that they withdrew it because they believed his arrangement may have resulted in collusion or softplay to Don Fagan's detriment.

Now that it has been proven that was not the case - it seems reasonable that he receive the ticket.

So, if I'm talking "bull****e" - then the perception of the vast majority of people for whom you apparantly speak is wildly incorrect.

I didn’t want to post anymore on this subject but I feel somethings are not clear to certain people( who really don’t have a clue). I did not ring Ladbrokes at any time to complain about this event. The ticket was not pulled on the basis of possible collusion!!!. Here’s a couple of the rules of why the ticket was pulled.

“Seats for the televised stage of Poker Million VI are not transferable and there is no cash alternative. Should a player win two seats then he or she will forfeit one of them.”

“Any player who wins a seat in the televised stages of the tournament has the right not to participate, but there is no cash alternative and in this instance, Ladbrokes will usually pick the runner-up as the replacement, subject to their total discretion.”

Here’s a link to the full rules which were sent to the Fitz prior to the tournament.

http://poker.ladbrokes.com/Poker-Million-Terms-and-conditions

In response to Eamon post, the reason a deal was offered was the TD announced the ticket was non-transferable. Eamon and Terry declared they didn’t want to play on the TV. I offered a full third each or sell it for the full value (no 6K between them was discussed). I didn’t look for any discount on the ticket. This was the only solution to their problem. Denise should have read the rules and condition before she overruled the tournament director.

I want of thank everyone for taking time to post to this thread, bar a few who obviously are clueless to what’s going on.