From the pages of Bluff - did Jamie Gold admit to collusion?

[Dooxtab]

I recently posted this on another forum, so I'll copy/paste it here. I originally typed this by hand after reading it in Bluff Magazine.
**************************************************

I'll manually type in the section from the interview that I read. Let me just say, this guy sounds like a total tool, but I'm guessing most of the people here already have that point of view, except for Jack Harris. This is taken from the point where he was talking about amassing a huge stack and how people would be upset when he got moved to their table:


"So every day I'd come to the table and everyone would freak out, and there'd be this guy sitting next to me who was practically in tears because he knew could never raise a hand. So I said, "No, listen, think about it like this: No one can raise you, because they're raising me after you. You're in a great spot, and here's the deal. In return for this protection, every time I tell you to lay down your hand, you lay down your hand. And they all said okay. So I would look at my cards before the guy to my right, and then I'd say, 'OK, you're cool; proceed...' or 'Nope. Lay it down.'

So I never had anyone to act before me - at all. And so it would always come down to me and the guy on my left - my small blind; his big blind - and I'd say, 'That's my money!' (laughs) I'd tell them, 'Here's our deal: I'm going to raise you every time. If you come over the top and you don't show me your cards to prove you had a better hand than me, I'm going to take you out.' It was a friendly thing, not a mean thing, and every single person went along with it."

***********************************************

Ok, now obviously the 2nd "deal" isn't necessarily wrong - it's just him being a bully with a big stack. But the first "deal" he made with the people to his right? Tell me that isn't collusion that he just admitted to in this interview. Anyone else think that's legit?

[x searcher]

Wow, #1 does sound like collusion. Did the article in Bluff pick up on it at all?

[Dooxtab]

Not at all. From there, they tossed up softball questions like "Who were you most scared of" and "What kind of food did you eat?" To me, this is obvious collusion, but I don't know why there isn't anyone making a big deal of it.

[GoldBoar]

... every time I tell you to lay down your hand, you lay down your hand. ...
I guess Harrah's had no problem with it... from page 8 of the PDF with the rules:
72. Verbally disclosing the contents of your hand or advising a player how to play a hand [my italics] may [my bold] result in a penalty, in Harrah's discretion.

[Deak_ea]

Doesn't seem very realistic to me, but then also can't see why anyone would make it up either. I have to wonder more about if the media report of this was accurate.

So what if there was this huge stack at the table? He can't take you out just by SAYING "I'll take you out." So I guess I can't see WHY any decent players would go along with this. If you got a good hand, then just push all-in and let him double you up or take you out.

[HP - Stu]

It's not actually collusion. Basically he was just intimidating them mentally, as well as with his chips.

As Deak says, it just means you would have to modify your style a great deal.

I'd probably look to play something out of late-ish position and push pre-flop. It would probably be with anything 9-9 or higher.

[Dooxtab]

It's not actually collusion. Basically he was just intimidating them mentally, as well as with his chips.

As Deak says, it just means you would have to modify your style a great deal.

I'd probably look to play something out of late-ish position and push pre-flop. It would probably be with anything 9-9 or higher.

Tell me this, then: How can someone direct someone else at a table on what to do, based on the cards that they are holding? If I sat with my buddy at the same table, looked at my cards and signalled for him not to enter the pot, i'd be thrown out of the casino. That's 2 people acting together and can't possibly be legal.


I compare this incident with "checking it down" when 3 people are in a pot, with one of them being all-in. It's usually an unsaid thing when both players with chips left check it down, as there is no benefit in bluffing a dry side pot and they have a chance to eliminate someone to go higher in the payout levels. Thing is, as soon as you both TALK about doing this, it's illegal. It's fine as long as you don't communicate that you're doing it. How can Gold's actions be legal here?

[HP - Stu]

I think the difference lies (and I think this is probably all somewhat semantic) in the manner in which Gold was saying it.

Now, I haven't seen any video of this, but to me it seems like Gold was "trash talking" and the other players were simply afraid to call him on it.

I guess the question really becomes whether he was saying what he was saying specifically to the person to his right, or whether this was a table wide intimidation.

[appers9]

I have asked the same questions Countless times, Doox ... Is it not "collusion" becuz they are verbalizing and not using hand signals (as an example)?

col‧lu‧sion  /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME (< MF) < L collūsiōn- (s. of collūsiō), equiv. to collūs(us) (ptp. of collūdere to collude) + -iōn- -ion]

—Synonyms 1. intrigue, connivance, complicity.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

[Dooxtab]

I agree even non-verbal agreements are collusion, appers. But until you 2 actually acknowledge that you're both going to do it in one way or another, it's fine.


To me, this is what Jamie did, Stu. Here's the text that I took from the article again:

So I said, "No, listen, think about it like this: No one can raise you, because they're raising me after you. You're in a great spot, and here's the deal. In return for this protection, every time I tell you to lay down your hand, you lay down your hand. And they all said okay. So I would look at my cards before the guy to my right, and then I'd say, 'OK, you're cool; proceed...' or 'Nope. Lay it down.'

Yes, I'm being overly **** by bolding the above words, but I'm not sure how much more clear it can get that he was verbally making deals while out of turn, which would affect another player's decision, based on his own cards!

[Dooxtab]

I didn't realize that was a naughty word...how about rectal?

[Skallagrim45]

Doox, I read the same article and wondered the same thing at first. Then I realized that it was all done out in the open and management (and the other players) was obviously aware of it.

My conclusion is that while collusion does not have to be by secret signals, it does have to be secret - in other words, had Gold made this deal with the player out in the hall, thats collusion. But to do it out in the open at the table was more intimifdation, everyone heard him say it, everyone could do what he said or not do it. As Stu said, if he had done this to me with his huge stack, I would have played along everytime until I liked my hand - then done something surprising depending on the hand, # of other players, and Gold's demeanor.

Skallagrim

[Dooxtab]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. We don't know for sure who knew and who didn't know about the deal that was being made.


Also, look at it this way: If you were playing online and pushed all-in on the button with pocket 10's and both blinds were left to act, would you have a problem with the BB telling the SB what his cards were? Say, if the BB had AQ and told the SB (who was considering a call or not) that unless he has something better, he can fold since the BB was going to call you. The SB could then claim that he had pocket jacks, so the BB should go ahead and fold. I mean, everyone at the table would know about the deal that was going on, so it'd be fine according to your standards, right?


Collusion does NOT have to be secret.

[Skallagrim45]

Almost doox: In the magazine he never said anything about saying exactly what his 2 cards were, and in your example of course I would not be happy if in fact things played out that way frequently with the same 2 players - but thats not what's described by Gold, exactly. My point is, absent a real agreement, just saying these things at a table is trash talking - he may be lying, I may be lying, etc...

You have to answer this question - if he did this as he said he did (right out in the open, and it was collusion) then why didnt a single player complain?

Skallagrim

[Dooxtab]

Perhaps, he just talked to the players in question before the play that day began. Maybe everyone else really didn't know about it. Nothing says he announced this to the entire table.


And whether or not you tell someone else the exact cards you hold are, you are still colluding if you tell them the strength and whether they should play or not. If Gold had ever told the guy to his right to go ahead, and then either played himself or came over the top, that little "deal" would no longer be honored. Since he said that he never had anyone "at all" act in front of him, that tells me that he kept his end of the deal and never lied about his cards. So...collusion.

[x searcher]

. So I would look at my cards before the guy to my right, and then I'd say, 'OK, you're cool; proceed...' or 'Nope. Lay it down.'[/b]



I'm guessing that as long as no one complained and management didn't object, it doesn't matter. But, it still seems like he is discussing a live hand which I believe is against the rules of most tournaments. I'm too lazy to look up the WSOP rules.

[appers9]

I'm really curious and surprized that the Poker Coach hasn't chimed in here yet .. Would love to hear their take on this. :what: :what: :what:

[GoldBoar]

I'm guessing that as long as no one complained and management didn't object, it doesn't matter. But, it still seems like he is discussing a live hand which I believe is against the rules of most tournaments. I'm too lazy to look up the WSOP rules.

Or to read this whole thread -poke- ;) I posted the relevant rule at the top of this thread. It seems Harrah's had no problem with what happened.

And I agree with those saying this ISN'T collusion. It's discussing a live hand for sure (which I've recently seen refered to as "coffeehousing"), but it's not collusion.

[yurNemisis]

sounds like collusion to me.

[BrendanEff]

After watching how Jamie acted and talked at the tables shown on the ESPN coverage, I think a lot of what he said at the tables was very borderline at best, and I can't believe nobody mentioned it at the time.

[Desertrex66]

Gold Talked throught the entire last day on PPV. But just like life, the person with all the chips makes all the rules.

[DBMiller]

I saw an earlier situation with Gold where I thought perhaps he broke the rules. Three, maybe four tables left in the tournament.

Gold: AxJx, Opponent: QdJx (Gold's opp has the only diamond)

Flop: Jd, Xd, Xd

Opponent: All-in

Gold: Dude, I've got top-top!?!?

Now, if he just told his opponent his actual hand before announcing call or fold, doesn't that make his hand dead? Or were you allowed to do that at the WSOP once you were heads-up and/or your opponent is all-in?

[Faybio]

After watching how Jamie acted and talked at the tables shown on the ESPN coverage, I think a lot of what he said at the tables was very borderline at best, and I can't believe nobody mentioned it at the time.
Exactly, B. Nobody at the table had the stones to speak up and verbalize what everyone must have been thinking? I would have voiced my concern over his actions once to the dealer, then again to a tournament boss if Gold kept it up. If the rules-makers do nothing, at least I tried. Silence is the worst choice here.

On the topic of collusion: it seemed to me, if I recall correctly, that Gold was offering advice to his opponents on how to play hands in pots against himself. He said things that I percieved as over the line, such as a reference to his hand being "top-top", meaning top pair and kicker, but none of his opponents seemed to have any reaction to his commands/advice. Since no one "colluded" with Gold, collusion is out. He sure was acting like an ***, though. Someone should have spoken up.

[bowhunter7x]

Tell me this, then: How can someone direct someone else at a table on what to do, based on the cards that they are holding? If I sat with my buddy at the same table, looked at my cards and signalled for him not to enter the pot, i'd be thrown out of the casino. That's 2 people acting together and can't possibly be legal.


I compare this incident with "checking it down" when 3 people are in a pot, with one of them being all-in. It's usually an unsaid thing when both players with chips left check it down, as there is no benefit in bluffing a dry side pot and they have a chance to eliminate someone to go higher in the payout levels. Thing is, as soon as you both TALK about doing this, it's illegal. It's fine as long as you don't communicate that you're doing it. How can Gold's actions be legal here?

i don't think its any different than what negraneau does when he tells what he has so if its collusion then negraneau does it all of the time :eek: :eek: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

[bowhunter7x]

Collusion does NOT have to be secret.[/QUOTE]


OMG did you even read the definition of collusion


IT HAS TO BE A SECRET AGREEMENT BETWEEN 2 OR MORE PERSONS


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: