Carroll/Yaginuma chip dumping
The WSOP is not making prize payouts or announcing a winner pending an investigation. Seems like it will be a tough case to prove.
How do you arrive at 85%? I'm not seeing that strong of a case. I certainly see some weak predictable play from Carroll at times, but nothing that can't be explained. I also see plenty of hands that don't make sense for chip dumping.Quote: SiegfriedRoyI watched some analysis of this, and there were a lot of unusual plays that make you scratch your head. At the same time, without seeing how they both play previously from hitting the final table, it’s hard to say it was definitely collusion. If I had to put a guess, 85% collusion and 15% innocent.
link to original post
I can see a situation where Carroll is thinking he has a huge chip lead and he's got it in the bag. Perhaps he's thinking he'll just wait for Yaginuma to make a huge mistake. Slowly but surely everything he is doing is going wrong for him, then the frustration sets in and he starts playing even more poorly and predictably bad. There is one particular hand where he seems visibly upset and frustrated. I guess it could be part of the act.
Just looking at the final hand is enough to say "What the hell are you talking about, there isn't no chip dumping or colluding"
If they were colluding why would Yaginuma take that chance calling all in with Q3 off? Carroll who had A 10ss got unlucky, while Yaginuma got lucky. If you look at previous plays at the table where Carroll was shoving (with the few strong hands he had) Yaginuma folds normally. In a collusion dumping scenario Yaginuma would know to fold in that spot, especially with a Queen, 3 off.
So, unless they can find some behind the scenes evidence that they made some kind of deal, or if they can find something in the cameras that indicate some kind of signaling, I don't know how they have a leg to stand on.
I'd say there might be a 35% chance there is collusion and Chip dumping but the main reason for that is the extra amount of money they stand to gain by doing so.
He had made some big bets with strong hands previously as well, it might have been one of those things where he is hoping his opponent has a strong enough hand to call thinking in all in bet like that is weak. Perhaps he just wants to get it all in pre-flop and not potentially be outplayed on the Flop, Turner, or River, just in case his opponent Gets Lucky. I don't know, it's really hard to say. He might have just been so discombobulated by that point, he just wasn't thinking and playing correctly.Quote: SiegfriedRoyHey axle, this is just my guess. For me, the strongest tell was when he had pocket AA’s. For a 2 person, why would you bet that much ? It’s just my guess. Nothing scientific.
link to original post
If it wasn't for that last hand and how that went down, I would be much more convinced of some kind of deal. But then again, I guess if you aren't communicating with each other and don't have any signals set up, your chip dumping isn't going to be anywhere near perfect, as you're still playing poker, but instead of trying to win, you're trying to lose. That would certainly explain some of the play.
Does Joey Ingram still do his thing? That guy usually has a pretty good take on this type of stuff. If anybody finds it, please post it up.
Whatever the case, I wouldn't be surprised either way, for that amount of money, I could certainly see the motivation.
I hope they colluded. I hope they get away with it. The company that is putting the extra milli up needs to just accept that they have been had. They didn’t think one person could do what they challenged them to do and it backfired. The reason people hate these companies is because they have written these rules in about these things for their own protection even though people think it’s for them. And now they are going to possibly get away with taking prizes away from two people who most likely deserves it
Quote: SOOPOOWSOP is investigating possible interesting case of collusion. Carroll had 9-1 chip lead in heads up play. But observers surmised he intentionally lost. Seems strange since the total prize between the two of them from WSOP was a fixed number……. but…… Yaginuma was eligible for an extra $1,000,000 from an outside sponsor. Carroll, had he won, would not have qualified for the million.
The WSOP is not making prize payouts or announcing a winner pending an investigation. Seems like it will be a tough case to prove.
link to original post
I don't believe anything will come of this. People make deals all of the time in poker. With an added million dollars if one of the two won it makes a lot of sense.
I believe the company is >>> ClubWPT online social poker – Play Poker Online To Win Cash & Prizes. They seem to love this, as they are doubling down on the amount of tickets one can earn now. Someone on Twitter/X predicted this would encourage collusion when they started the promotion.Quote: heatmapI hate when people refer to pocket aces and “how people would play”… whenever I have pocket aces I play them however the hell I want because I can play them that way. Just the hand alone is NEVER enough for a pro poker player… all of a sudden aces appear and people forget about position, chip stack, etc… relative to when they get 72 … now all the hypothetical fancy play comes out.
I hope they colluded. I hope they get away with it. The company that is putting the extra milli up needs to just accept that they have been had. They didn’t think one person could do what they challenged them to do and it backfired. The reason people hate these companies is because they have written these rules in about these things for their own protection even though people think it’s for them. And now they are going to possibly get away with taking prizes away from two people who most likely deserves it
link to original post
Someone mentioned this could be a NV gaming violation. What say you?Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOOWSOP is investigating possible interesting case of collusion. Carroll had 9-1 chip lead in heads up play. But observers surmised he intentionally lost. Seems strange since the total prize between the two of them from WSOP was a fixed number……. but…… Yaginuma was eligible for an extra $1,000,000 from an outside sponsor. Carroll, had he won, would not have qualified for the million.
The WSOP is not making prize payouts or announcing a winner pending an investigation. Seems like it will be a tough case to prove.
link to original post
I don't believe anything will come of this. People make deals all of the time in poker. With an added million dollars if one of the two won it makes a lot of sense.
link to original post
Quote: AxelWolfSomeone mentioned this could be a NV gaming violation. What say you?Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOOWSOP is investigating possible interesting case of collusion. Carroll had 9-1 chip lead in heads up play. But observers surmised he intentionally lost. Seems strange since the total prize between the two of them from WSOP was a fixed number……. but…… Yaginuma was eligible for an extra $1,000,000 from an outside sponsor. Carroll, had he won, would not have qualified for the million.
The WSOP is not making prize payouts or announcing a winner pending an investigation. Seems like it will be a tough case to prove.
link to original post
I don't believe anything will come of this. People make deals all of the time in poker. With an added million dollars if one of the two won it makes a lot of sense.
link to original post
link to original post
i saw a single post in the corner of my eye somewhere on my screen that they took the money away
https://www.pokernews.com/news/2025/06/wsop-hands-out-punishment-48978.htm
Quote: AxelWolfSomeone mentioned this could be a NV gaming violation. What say you?
No, I don't think so, Almost every poker tournament that I have been in has had some sort of a deal. Many casinos encourage it as it ends the tournament quicker. I have personally probably been involved in close to 50 poker deals.
You are confused. That has nothing to do with this, which is an allegation of "chip dumping" collusion during play. Those "deals" you've seen are commonly referred to as agreeing to "a chop" of prize money, and they involve open negotiation, typically in proportion to remaining chip stacks, require the OPEN voluntary consent of ALL who are affected, and yes that's common - especially in some very small buy-in little tourneys. But collusion during play of hands is an extremely pernicious act which is, must be, and always has been explicitly prohibited by the fundamental rules governing the game subscribed to by every poker room (as well as something that's rightly universally despised by real poker players).Quote: DRichQuote: AxelWolfSomeone mentioned this could be a NV gaming violation. What say you?
No, I don't think so, Almost every poker tournament that I have been in has had some sort of a deal. Many casinos encourage it as it ends the tournament quicker. I have personally probably been involved in close to 50 poker deals.
link to original post
About ten or twelve years ago several "players" at Planet Hollywood were jailed for collusion along with the sleazy poker room staff who participated for a cut of the money, and I'm pleased to say that around that time I was personally involved as a player in helping to get a little group of several similar obviously colluding dirtbags frog-marched out of The Palms as a result of their obvious (and rather stupid) collusion. Folks who don't get this really shouldn't be going anywhere near a poker table, for the good of all, please.
Quote: DrawingDeadWithout trying to delve into the specifics to make any judgement about this particular incident...
You are confused. That has nothing to do with this, which is an allegation of "chip dumping" collusion during play. Those "deals" you've seen are commonly referred to as agreeing to "a chop" of prize money, and they involve open negotiation, typically in proportion to remaining chip stacks, require the OPEN voluntary consent of ALL who are affected, and yes that's common - especially in some very small buy-in little tourneys. But collusion during play of hands is an extremely pernicious act which is, must be, and always has been explicitly prohibited by the fundamental rules governing the game subscribed to by every poker room (as well as something that's rightly universally despised by real poker players).Quote: DRichQuote: AxelWolfSomeone mentioned this could be a NV gaming violation. What say you?
No, I don't think so, Almost every poker tournament that I have been in has had some sort of a deal. Many casinos encourage it as it ends the tournament quicker. I have personally probably been involved in close to 50 poker deals.
link to original post
About ten or twelve years ago several "players" at Planet Hollywood were jailed for collusion along with the sleazy poker room staff who participated for a cut of the money, and I'm pleased to say that around that time I was personally involved as a player in helping to get a little group of several similar obviously colluding dirtbags frog-marched out of The Palms as a result of their obvious (and rather stupid) collusion. Folks who don't get this really shouldn't be going anywhere near a poker table, for the good of all, please.
link to original post
The problem in this scenario is that no other player was affected, so no harm no foul. WSOP agreed and paid the full amount to the two players but they did withhold the bracelet.
Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOOWSOP is investigating possible interesting case of collusion. Carroll had 9-1 chip lead in heads up play. But observers surmised he intentionally lost. Seems strange since the total prize between the two of them from WSOP was a fixed number……. but…… Yaginuma was eligible for an extra $1,000,000 from an outside sponsor. Carroll, had he won, would not have qualified for the million.
The WSOP is not making prize payouts or announcing a winner pending an investigation. Seems like it will be a tough case to prove.
link to original post
I don't believe anything will come of this. People make deals all of the time in poker. With an added million dollars if one of the two won it makes a lot of sense.
link to original post
Then I think the right remedy is to ban that kind of sponsorship, where it makes a difference to the sponsor who wins. When somebody not at the table has an interest in the game it defeats the integrity safeguards built into poker.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: DRichQuote: SOOPOOWSOP is investigating possible interesting case of collusion. Carroll had 9-1 chip lead in heads up play. But observers surmised he intentionally lost. Seems strange since the total prize between the two of them from WSOP was a fixed number……. but…… Yaginuma was eligible for an extra $1,000,000 from an outside sponsor. Carroll, had he won, would not have qualified for the million.
The WSOP is not making prize payouts or announcing a winner pending an investigation. Seems like it will be a tough case to prove.
link to original post
I don't believe anything will come of this. People make deals all of the time in poker. With an added million dollars if one of the two won it makes a lot of sense.
link to original post
Then I think the right remedy is to ban that kind of sponsorship, where it makes a difference to the sponsor who wins. When somebody not at the table has an interest in the game it defeats the integrity safeguards built into poker.
link to original post
I think what you're advocating is to ban people and companies from offering other financial rewards based on the outcome of the tournaments. However, this kind of thing is universal in sports - contracts for coaches and players routinely have incentive clauses that reward them for meeting performance goals or (in the case of coaches) when their teams achieve certain levels of success. And any rule passed by WSOP that tried to ban such behavior would be impossible to enforce - because they have no authority to control the behavior of third parties. Conceivably, they might be able to require participants in their tournaments to disclose any third party financial incentives associated with the tournament as a condition of their participation - but that would create a very messy and burdensome system.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: DRichQuote: SOOPOOWSOP is investigating possible interesting case of collusion. Carroll had 9-1 chip lead in heads up play. But observers surmised he intentionally lost. Seems strange since the total prize between the two of them from WSOP was a fixed number……. but…… Yaginuma was eligible for an extra $1,000,000 from an outside sponsor. Carroll, had he won, would not have qualified for the million.
The WSOP is not making prize payouts or announcing a winner pending an investigation. Seems like it will be a tough case to prove.
link to original post
I don't believe anything will come of this. People make deals all of the time in poker. With an added million dollars if one of the two won it makes a lot of sense.
link to original post
Then I think the right remedy is to ban that kind of sponsorship, where it makes a difference to the sponsor who wins. When somebody not at the table has an interest in the game it defeats the integrity safeguards built into poker.
link to original post
I think what you're advocating is to ban people and companies from offering other financial rewards based on the outcome of the tournaments. However, this kind of thing is universal in sports - contracts for coaches and players routinely have incentive clauses that reward them for meeting performance goals or (in the case of coaches) when their teams achieve certain levels of success. And any rule passed by WSOP that tried to ban such behavior would be impossible to enforce - because they have no authority to control the behavior of third parties. Conceivably, they might be able to require participants in their tournaments to disclose any third party financial incentives associated with the tournament as a condition of their participation - but that would create a very messy and burdensome system.
link to original post
No I don't mean a ban on a financial award for winning, or sponsoring a tournament. But it would have to be equitable for all players, or else you end up with a Black Sox problem where winning might not be your best outcome.
A sponsor can simply offer an additional bonus to whoever wins the tournament, in exchange for having their name all over the tournament. Then everyone is equally incentivized to win. Just like in a World Series game a player's own team might have a performance incentive as part of his contract, but players on the other team likely have that too and that is between him and his team. If an outside sponsor wants in on it he has to buy spots and that money goes to both sides.
What makes a poker game honest is that everyone in the game at any time has an equal financial interest in the pot or sidepot. This other system is too close to a casino letting a high roller use promotional chips or rebating his losses in a cash poker game, which is taboo.
