Xmas cracker free ticket

a-k-47

i just played in this and **** did i play with calling stations!!!! muppets! :mad:

mewso

Joined a table. 7 disconnected, 1 guy on his own with 18k. A joke.

jd

a-k-47 wrote:

i just played in this and **** did i play with calling stations!!!! muppets! :mad:

ye fecked off saying g2g

Fatboydim

Maybe next time it should be by password only... 483 entries and I bet some aren't even in Ireland

mewso

I'm still in there though

jd

i think my kq ran into your pocket aces fbd :0

mewso

Out in 35th. Bit of a struggle against huge stacks that had been gained through raising into disconnected players ad infinitum. Uphill battle. Toss a coin - you lose and get a table with actual players.

Lafortezza

Tribeca problems or just PPP?

ullu

My guess would be players registering and then forgetting about it.

I checked the tournament info and saw players from Russia, Hungary and the US to name but a few. I wonder if they had a clue about what they were potentially going to win

Imposter

Players need to be removed after a level or 2 if they are not playing. Why is it so difficult for sites to realise this and program it into the software? Prima is ridiculous for this too.

careca

I have to admit, I registered and when I saw over 400, I thought no way and logged off. I didn't unregister as I thought it would be an early xmas pressie for someone.

PPP-Pit Boss

you would not have seen players from US they cannot play on PPP.

Yes I know we try not posting giveaways too long in advance as people do register and then not show up which is a complete pain in the rear end! Nought we can do about it though. What I would like to do is Emulate live play. After a circuit of sitting out / discon. We take a BB. This however would mean that a geniune disconnection woud be treated in the same way which would undoubtedly cause mayhem.

Anyway we have put another giveaway up for tonight, same time.
In for a penny.................

karlh

just so you all know. you were beaten by a girl.

that is all.

PPP-Pit Boss

karlh wrote:

just so you all know. you were beaten by a girl.

that is all.

And it wasnt me...... again

BigDragon

karlh wrote:

just so you all know. you were beaten by a girl.

that is all.

At least some of the Gimps on there didnt have to pay for their beating like they normally do......:p (no names to protect the guilty....)

BigDragon

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

And it wasnt me...... again

Wheres me handcuffs....:mad:

ionapaul

BigDragon wrote:

Wheres me handcuffs....:mad:

Candy in the SE mentioned last night that she needed to return them to you...! Very insensitive of you though, don't you know the rest of us are truly, madly and deeply in love with her

PPP-Pit Boss

BigDragon wrote:

Wheres me handcuffs....:mad:

One of these days. I am going to walk right up to you in the middle of a tournament and hand you a pair see what that does for you table image!

Culchie

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

One of these days. I am going to walk right up to you in the middle of a tournament and hand you a pair see what that does for you table image!

No-one will be surprised, he should have been in handcuffs long before now !

Dub13

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

One of these days. I am going to walk right up to you in the middle of a tournament and hand you a pair see what that does for you table image!

I look forward to seeing the look on your face Dave.:eek:

ollyk1

I look forward to seeing the look on your face Dave.

I believe the phrase is "chick raise" BigD!!

BigDragon

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

One of these days. I am going to walk right up to you in the middle of a tournament and hand you a pair see what that does for you table image!

Promises. Promises. :rolleyes:

PPP-Pit Boss

lol

karlh

ahhh Candy.

i honestly busted out of a tournament on Sunday due to distraction.

Wisesmurf

Just a quick one folks to let you know we're still awake!!

I'm a supervisor on PPP and have up to this point resisted the temptation to post at the risk of everything I say being blown entirely out of proportion etc...

I'm sure 1 or 2 of you may have been awake and watching the giveaway for the Christmas Cracker ticket.

Before the threads start reading FIX, COLLUSION, CHEATING.....
We have been monitoring the events that took place on the final table of tonights tourney and have acted accordingly with relation to the players who finished first and second (I wont name).Both will no longer be playing on the Tribeca network.

Our 3rd place player will now take the ticket

If you have seen this you will know what I am on about, if not it does'nt matter lol.

GL
Wisesmurf.

latenia

Well, as PPP's loyal employee has stated, I have been banned and lost my ticket. I'm going to start the ball rolling by saying that what we did was absolutely correct, logical and ethical. 2 players heads up, 1 ticket, non-transferable, (despite the nonsense I have just heard on the phone.) See PPP rules copied below:


Any player who wins an entry to any subsequent tournament via a qualifying single or multi-table feeder tournament must take that seat. No cash payouts will be made, except where a player has already registered for the target tournament. In the event a player wins more than one seat for any given tournament, cash will be paid as the prize beyond the first seat won. Seats are non-transferable, including seats in off-site tournaments.

Apparantly, they gave someone the green light to give away their seat in last night's qualifier, although it didn't matter as an Irish player won in the end. It would appear that their rules are bendable when they feel like it.

Myself and the other player agreed to let me win so that the ticket wouldn't go to waste. There was no other player involved; we didn't discuss our hands; he just let me win. What is the problem, apart from it looking dodgy to observers? This is poker, not tiddleywinks. Deals are done all the time. Did their poster boy Andy Black not do a deal at the final table of the WSOP so that everyone took home at least $1M?

As for coming on here and insinuating that what happened was dishonest and that 2 bad apples have been removed from the network, well I'd be barred if I expressed fully my feelings in writing. A bookmaker/on-line casino operator taking the moral high ground with me? You obviously have a sense of humour/irony!!!

bohsman

I honestly dont see anything wrong with this.

wyndham

i have been caught in the crossfire here and banned from ppp for no reason, other than having set up my account from the same ip address as latenia. I was not involved in this "collusion/cheating" (careful now!) and having spoken to them they have assured me that my account will be reinstated in the morning. I was also kindly offered the opportunity to clear all the funds out of my account.
This was very disconcerting, to say the least. Why wisesmurf has declined to name those involved is beyond me as anyone can go to the site and just look at the finishers to find out who was involved. Thus they have effectively been named and accused of cheating on a public forum.
Wisesmurf, do your views represent those of Paddy Power Plc?

De Deraco

If the deal was made when it was heads up. i dont see the problem its their ticket if one player wants to give it away by not playing that should be his choice. as if it happenned in a fitz freeroll.

5starpool

Did the dodgy play only start when the 2 players were heads up? If so I don't really see why this action has been taken, seems a bit harsh to me tbh. If PPP have evidence thought that chips were being dumped earlier thats a different, but since PPP has not (I believe) a deal facility then why is this an issue if one player didnt want to play in it when they got heads up.

Of course this begs the question, why play in somwthing you have no interest in winning............

De Deraco

some sick people play for fun

5starpool

not me Shane............. I play for the inevitable pain.....

Daithio

What is the problem? As long as the collusion started when it was heads up there can't be one. If one person decides to lose and let the other win when it is down to two this is not harming anybody. UL latenia, you should be playing in the SE for sure.

Lafortezza

Wisesmruf post seemed to imply (in my opinion) that the shady shenanigans started when there were 3 players left, that wyndham and latenia may have made their deal before it got to headsup somehow and that the third player was unfairly played.
That's how I read it anyway.

I see nothing wrong with how it was played and how the deal was done once headsup.

wyndham

Laforte. You seem to have misread my post. I made no deal and was not involved in this tournament.

RoundTower

Wisesmurf wrote:

Before the threads start reading FIX, COLLUSION, CHEATING.....
We have been monitoring the events that took place on the final table of tonights tourney and have acted accordingly with relation to the players who finished first and second (I wont name).Both will no longer be playing on the Tribeca network.

If you have seen this you will know what I am on about, if not it does'nt matter lol.

GL
Wisesmurf.

I didn't see this either, but it does matter to me. I would be more inclined to play on PPP if they prevent cheating, and less inclined to if they over-zealously punish players for making an agreement like this. If there was a deal done headsup that sounds perfectly fair. Were there really unusual events on the "final table" (not just heads up)?

latenia

I'd be happy for the hand histories to be posted here. I was very low stacked with 4 or 5 left then tripled up with qq vs jj and aks. I then got A2d in the BB. 2 diamonds on the flop and a cheap look at the turn gave me the nuts and a double up vs the biggest stack, who was subsequently eliminated by the player with whom I'm accused of colluding. That left 3, one of whom was from Cork and was wavering about whether he could go or not. The largest (by some way) stack was from Nottingham. I had enough chips to play with.

At this point I could see the seat going empty so I typed in the chat box about whether they would be interested in a deal, either for me to buy the seat, or to arrange for a cut of potential winnings. I gave out my msn. We continued playing as normally; as you'll see there were plenty of hands involving me and the big stack which he won by playing aggresively. I was playing away as normal, stealing blinds and even calling an all-in from the (by now short stacked) Corkman and losing.

The leader then eliminated the other player with aj vs a9. Here he contacted me and agreed to just let me win; we didn't discuss terms or anything. It was quite clear what was going on, both through the chat, and the way we were playing. Collusion implies underhandedness; this was obviously the exact opposite.

White Knight

(a) latenia why did you give out your msn??

(b) If you were making a fair and honest deal with all parties why did you not proceed with the deal in the chat area?

(c) Why did you not contact a manager and see if it was ok (as the rules do actually say no collusion what so ever)?



I am all in favour of deals, dont get me wrong and even in this position i would gladly see someone take a seat and hopefully prosper from it. No offence meant to any player that played but to my skeptic mind something is not quite right?

latenia

White Knight: a and b answer each other. I wrote in the chat to discuss this in the lobby. The other players didn't know what I meant. I was getting panicky that the seat was going to be wasted pointlessly when I was the only person who was 100% definitely going to be able to take it. The 4th last player to be knocked out (who had also been discussing arranging something) came into the observer chat and said that he had checked with the manager and that the seat was non-transferable. A quick check of the rules confirmed this.
At this stage the player from Cork was also interested in arranging something; to quote him: "It's a long way to go for a game of cards." Any deal was open to everyone still playing; I had to make sure that we could all communicate properly and the chat facility isn't the ideal place to do this. As it happens the Corkman went out about this time, so it became a matter between me and the English guy, who let me win hands uncontested.

PPP made a decision on this instantly at 2AM. They not only took the seat and banned me completely from the Tribeca network, but also closed my brother's account as he plays from the same PC. Can they really have given this proper consideration within 5 minutes without the presence of a senior manager? It looks more to me like an action taken just to create the impression of being tough and to satiate the moronic railbirds who were crying 'disgrace'. (These are the same people who had just spent several hours playing a tournament where they couldn't use the prize.)

I actually got a call from them this morning to arrange going into the SE as the winner of the tourney. I had to explain to the guy what happened, which shows how good their communication system is and that I'm an honest person. Maybe I could have kept my mouth shut, let him put my name down, and just showed up anyway.

This is just turning into a spleen-vent so I really don't think there's much point discussing it anymore. The sites will always stand behind their rules, no matter how illogical they are.

One positive from this:you can all take note of what happened and bear it in mind if you end up in a similiar situation.

mewso

I played this free qualifier last night and the night before. I should say it's good of PP to do this but as I said I was somewhat dissappointed with the amount of players disconnected giving an unfair advantage to some lucky players who found themselves alone with 8 "inactives". Last night yet again I found myself early on meeting huge chip stacks that could only have been gathered in this way. To compound this several players were asking what the prize was etc. Now I hate to be nasty about this but these freerolls really bring out the idiots en masse and in my opinion the organiser bears some responsibility.
I think latenia has been mistreated here but of course not having been there I am not claiming to be an expert or a witness to the circumstances just forming an opinion on the testimonials. It smells very much of PR this decision in particular the post here by a PPP representative who had not risked posting here up to now.
I was eliminated by a player who after winning the hand declared the prize was no use to him. Pretty galling to me and no doubt even worse for latinia who had the fortune to be headsup against someone good enough to do the decent thing. Something I think PPP need to consider doing themselves allthough the damage has been done. If I'm mistaken then fair enough but I think PPP need to address this and not just be posting here to advertise how great they are.

Imposter

Just from what latenia has posted here I think PPP were correct with their decision. This could have been discussed in the chat window or in the lobby but under no circulstances should it be discussed elsewhere. Whether the winner had no intention of playing or whatever makes no real difference imo.

In saying that I also agree with Muso that PPP should take responsibility for the number of players who played but had no intention of taking up the prize should they have won. As for the no-shows I've made my views on that known yesterday.

mewso

There was mention of msn but no mention that it was used. I assumed the idea would be if someone wanted a percentage they could discuss that on msn after the fact and it is clear that the chat at the table did discuss the idea and did not attempt to hide what was going on so I think some understanding is required. We would need to see the hand history for the chat but it seems clear to me it was discussed openly in the chat of the table. Was somebody robbed?, cheated? latenia maybe.

bohsman

Maybe PPP were hoping for a non dub winner so that they could use the monkey for a christmas party?

Imposter

Aye, we need to hear more from PPP on this! Why were they disqualified? Was it something you seen in the HH's or because of MSN usage or what?

latenia,
I don't mean to be seen to be accusing you of being a cheat or anything, as i'm not saying that, but mentioning the use or MSN or another way of communicating is at the very least very naive and silly.

White Knight

I just heard that the guys were giving mobile numbers as well as msn address on the last table BEFORE it got to heads up.

White Knight

when i have made FT deals on pokerstars, we always discuss it in chat, everyone agrees clearly and then email a manager to sort it out.

Is this not common sense, courtesy etc.

How can deals be properly discussed whether in chat/msn/phone if not ALL players have actually AGREED to it?

califano

bohsman wrote:

Maybe PPP were hoping for a non dub winner so that they could use the monkey for a christmas party?

lol
not to mention the toll bridge saving.

Lafortezza

wyndham wrote:

Laforte. You seem to have misread my post. I made no deal and was not involved in this tournament.

Oops, sorry about that. When you said you were banned I made an assumption.

hotspur

Latenia was the player who let you win the head up the same player who promised to let you win in the chat when I checked in with 5 players left?

mewso

hotspur wrote:

Latenia was the player who let you win the head up the same player who promised to let you win in the chat when I checked in with 5 players left?

Who is this addressed to? Latenia won so it makes no sense.

hotspur

The sentence is a question, sorry about the lack of punctuation - should be a comma after Latenia. I saw a player promise to let Latenia win if they ended up HU when there were at least 5 players left, and this player rightly considered it wrong that anyone who couldn't go should win it, I was asking if it was the same player who ended up HU with Latenia, to right hand seat, beginning with "C" maybe?