• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Mike Leah Pays Off Heads-Up Opponent For WPT Title (2 Viewers)

I would call what they actually did, making a deal - above board and out there for the TD to rule illegal (if it was, and I'm positive it's not). To have them hide it all and then Yu chip-dump (no matter how cleverly), I'd call that collusion.... which is against the rules, and would likely result in some type of disciplinary action.
 
I also expect the WPT to address the points/extras issue formally in some fashion. Not splitting the points in an obvious chop is insane.
 
Here's part of the write-up from the WPT web site:
The heads-up match saw Yu’s 10.8 million in chips taking on Leah’s 4.715 million. The lead didn’t last long, though. Leah quickly chipped up and moved to the front before sealing the deal on the eighth hand of heads-up play.

On the final hand, Yu was eliminated with the
Jd.gif
8s.gif
when Leah’s
9h.gif
5s.gif
hit a five on the river. Yu, a native of Toronto, Canada, earned C$301,217 for his second-place finish.
Click to expand...
 
Way I see it, if Elon Musk entered the WSOP ME, and then on day one said, "I'll give every one of the other 6000 players $10m dollars to let me just win now," that would make a mockery of the game.

This isn't so far from that.
 
Wils said:
Way I see it, if Elon Musk entered the WSOP ME, and then on day one said, "I'll give every one of the other 6000 players $10m dollars to let me just win now," that would make a mockery of the game.

This isn't so far from that.
Click to expand...

Wow really? IMO this is miles and miles far away from that.
 
Whether they hid it or did it blatantly doesn't change my reason for deeming it wrong

My issue is with the buying of the title, regardless of how they went about it

Ok, what if the Patriots paid off their opponents to throw the Superbowl. The Yankees paid off their opponents to throw the World Series. The US paid off opponents to throw Olympic matches and give us gold medals. A boxer or UFC fighter paid off their opponent to take a dive.

It's the same damned thing to me, allowing the well-heeled to buy titles is wrong in any competition.
 
He didn't pay the other guy anything; hence, no buying of the title. Talk to Matt.
 
Anthony Martino said:
Ok, what if the Patriots paid off their opponents to throw the Superbowl. The Yankees paid off their opponents to throw the World Series. The US paid off opponents to throw Olympic matches and give us gold medals. A boxer or UFC fighter paid off their opponent to take a dive.

It's the same damned thing to me,
Click to expand...
If you’re really bringing sports titles into something like this let’s look at the other ways chopped tournaments plays out.

Last two minutes of the Super Bowl the team that happens to be winning is declared the winner.

Extra innings of game seven in the World Series, the two teams flip a coin to determine the winner.

Top six scores going in to the last round of the Olympic figure skating competition all flip coins until someone wins with a goocher.
 
BGinGA said:
He didn't pay the other guy anything; hence, no buying of the title. Talk to Matt.
Click to expand...


He negotiated the other player to take a dive and punt off an over 2:1 chip advantage in exchange for a monetary agreement the other player favored. You can argue semantics all you want, he bought that title.
 
It was an equity chop, dude. The money had nothing to do with it. Nothing was bought; the other guy basically just GAVE it to him, because he didn't care.

Don't get me wrong; I think they should have played it out for the title and points. But it wasn't illegal, and your arguments are getting pretty silly.
 
BGinGA said:
It was an equity chop, dude.
Click to expand...

That Mike Leah wasn't willing to agree to unless his opponent took a dive and awarded Mike the title


The money had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

For his opponent it had everything to do with it

Nothing was bought;
Click to expand...

Except the title

the other guy basically just GAVE it to him
Click to expand...

in exchange for a monetary chop that was favorable to him


because he didn't care.
Click to expand...

Because he cared about locking up the money


Don't get me wrong; I think they should have played it out for the title and points.
Click to expand...

Finally we agree!


But it wasn't illegal,
Click to expand...

Matt savage has confirmed via Twitter that the WPT no longer has a "no deal making" policy. However, the responses I've found from him so far only address the monetary nature of this situation (which again, I agree with, I don't mind players chopping the money)

But I haven't found him addressing the core issue here, the POY race and points, the TOC and how that impacts the field others who win have to compete against, or how it tarnishes the WPT brand to have a title bought in this manner


and your arguments are getting pretty silly.
Click to expand...

I was always runner-up class clown
 
The money chop was favorable to neither player. It was, however, agreeable to both players.

If Leah had offered him a favorable chop, then I'd agree it was 'bought' --- but that didn't happen.

It is accurate to state that it tarnishes the series by having a title ~determined~ in this fashion, but it is highly inaccurate and inflamatory to say that it was bought. To insist so is either stubbornness or ignorance. Maybe both.
 
Last edited:
BGinGA said:
The money chop was favorable to neither player. It was, however, agreeable to both players.

If Leah had offered him a favorable chop, then I'd agree it was 'bought' --- but that didn't happen.


It is accurate to state that it tarnishes the series by having a title ~determined~ in this fashion, but it is highly inaccurate and inflamatory to say that it was bought. To insist so is either stubbornness ignorance. Maybe both.
Click to expand...


Fine, change "bought" to "negotiated", "haggled", "bartered". Whatever prettier word makes it sound less egregious. At the end of the day, that title certainly was not "earned" or "won"
 
Ronoh said:
Besides that, by all accounts it doesn't appear to have been premeditated. Last year at SQM when we got to HU, chopping hadn't occurred to me. He asked if I wanted to chop, my first reaction was to say I wasn't chopping without getting the first place trophy and he said that was fine. In seven seconds flat the game went from no talk of a chop to being chopped and over. It appears this went down in a similar fashion... they got heads-up, Yu asked if he wanted to talk chop to which he replied I'm not chopping without talking first. The moment Yu said he was fine with that I am not seeing a scenario where it doesn't happen as they both now know they can each have what they want without breaking any rules.
Click to expand...

Wait, you chopped the SQM - I'm going to revoke your coconut ;)
 
While I don't think this is "disgusting," because it's apparently within the rules, I think the better course of action would be to allow players to chop for money, but to force them to play it out for trophiess and points and whatever else goes to first place, aside from cash. But if that creates a situation like that last article mentioned (where everybody just shoves and shoves until it's over) then it's a meaningless gesture. I don't know if there's a perfect solution because there's no way to force guys to play it out to a finish legitimately. So the only imperfect solution I can come up with is a "no deals' rule. But deals are such a part of tournament poker - I don't like that solution.
 
The WPT -- and other similar organizations -- are the ones responsible for maintaining the integrity of their product. If they chose not to do so, then they willingly accept any consequences.

The players are blameless, so far as they follow any applicable rules, guidelines, or restrictions.
 
BGinGA said:
The WPT -- and other similar organizations -- are the ones responsible for maintaining the integrity of their product. If they chose not to do so, then they willingly accept any consequences.

The players are blameless, so far as they follow any applicable rules, guidelines, or restrictions.
Click to expand...

The banks and local police are responsible for maintaining the safety and security of your deposits.

The robbers are blameless, BLAMELESS I TELL YOU!

Who could pass up a bank with no security guard or cameras and tons of unmarked cash lying around? Anyone of you would have done the same!
 
Anthony Martino said:
The banks and local police are responsible for maintaining the safety and security of your deposits.

The robbers are blameless, BLAMELESS I TELL YOU!
Click to expand...
Definitely blameless, provided:
BGinGA said:
...they follow any applicable rules, guidelines, or restrictions.
Click to expand...
Or laws, in your example. You're getting silly again.
 
Better example is the bank has a big basket of lollypops sitting in the lobby with a sign "FREE".

A woman walks in, sees the sign and candy, and scoops them all into her purse.

Bank officials say nothing, because she broke no 'rules' - it was their fault for not having appropriate rules (or sign, in this case) that protected the interests of the other patrons.

One might question the ethics of the woman, but she cannot be blamed for the actions that occurred.
 
Anthony Martino said:
The banks and local police are responsible for maintaining the safety and security of your deposits.

The robbers are blameless, BLAMELESS I TELL YOU!

Who could pass up a bank with no security guard or cameras and tons of unmarked cash lying around? Anyone of you would have done the same!
Click to expand...

Fear and greed always has been, is now, and always will be prime motivators when it comes to amassing things of perceived value. That it often trumps the duty to act in a moral/ethical manner in a free choice is to me very lamentable, but hardly surprising. It is easy to determine how much you paid for something, but far more difficult to determine how much it cost.
 
BGinGA said:
Better example is the bank has a big basket of lollypops sitting in the lobby with a sign "FREE".

A woman walks in, sees the sign and candy, and scoops them all into her purse.

Bank officials say nothing, because she broke no 'rules' - it was their fault for not having appropriate rules (or sign, in this case) that protected the interests of the other patrons.

One might question the ethics of the woman, but she cannot be blamed for the actions that occurred.
Click to expand...

Of course she can be blamed for the actions that occurred, because they are her actions. (She can also be lauded for them, too.) The sign may say "FREE", but it certainly does not say "FREE FROM CONSEQUENCES." But her level of "guilt" would necessarily factor in the knowledge of her "intent", which we know nothing of.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom