grocery_mony 9 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/artic...uit-final-table Link to post Share on other sites
TravisG 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/artic...uit-final-tablehahahahahahahahaa. i think they took the flames about their behaviour with jamie gold serious. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 10 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 bizzare. Hopefully this makes the WSOP fun to watch on TV again. Link to post Share on other sites
HollywoodAFD 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/artic...uit-final-tableLESLEY S. THORNBURG OF RICHMOND , VALifetime Winnings: $19,026 * 2008 POY Rank: 418Most Recent Cash: $19,026 : No-Limit Hold'em Event 1Im sure alcohol had nothing to do with this Link to post Share on other sites
mhoward29 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Being a douche > Thousands of $ Link to post Share on other sites
fatman 1 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/artic...uit-final-tablelol Link to post Share on other sites
Vtlaxer09 4 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I think I would be pissed as **** if I were one of the remaining players after the disqualification because all of his chips were removed. This event probably turned into a crapshoot at that time w/ a very poor chip/blind ratio.Thats what I took out of it. Link to post Share on other sites
Abbaddabba 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 lol?him being removed is obviously in the interest of all the remaining players.i cant see how anyone with even an elementary understanding of how poker and tournaments work would think otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites
Vtlaxer09 4 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 lol?him being removed is obviously in the interest of all the remaining players.i cant see how anyone with even an elementary understanding of how poker and tournaments work would think otherwise.Im not saying its not.... but as you put it... anyone with even an elementary understanding of poker and tournaments would think that playing a tournament minus at least 1/4 of the chips in play with the same blind structure is ludicrous and unfair. Link to post Share on other sites
Cappy37 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 lol.. Did the Tournament Director cite the "Lance Funston" rule? Or the "Ellix Powers"? Link to post Share on other sites
mhoward29 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Where's Jerry Lesley S. Thornburg??? Link to post Share on other sites
aucu 3 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Im not saying its not.... but as you put it... anyone with even an elementary understanding of poker and tournaments would think that playing a tournament minus at least 1/4 of the chips in play with the same blind structure is ludicrous and unfair.Nothing unfair about it they all still have the same M as they did befor the chips were pulled.Best thing they have done in a long time. Link to post Share on other sites
freak2304 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Nothing unfair about it they all still have the same M as they did befor the chips were pulled.Best thing they have done in a long time.Word. Also, 20% (or whatever the actual # is) less chips they have to accumulate and one less player to knock out to win the tournament. Link to post Share on other sites
Vtlaxer09 4 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Nothing unfair about it they all still have the same M as they did befor the chips were pulled.Best thing they have done in a long time.are u kidding me???1. He's obviously a terrible player so I would be pissed that so many chips were taken out of play that would be pretty easy to pick up imo.2. Sure you have the same M... but a few levels from now..............3. A tournament with little to no play in the later stages to begin with is no an absolute luckfest.There is noone that sees my reasoning here? Link to post Share on other sites
freak2304 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 are u kidding me???1. He's obviously a terrible player so I would be pissed that so many chips were taken out of play that would be pretty easy to pick up imo.2. Sure you have the same M... but a few levels from now..............3. A tournament with little to no play in the later stages to begin with is no an absolute luckfest.There is noone that sees my reasoning here?I see what you're saying, but I think the other side's argument is a bit better, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
Vtlaxer09 4 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I see what you're saying, but I think the other side's argument is a bit better, IMO.I agree that the douche should have been dq'd... but something should have been done about blinds... or redistributing chips.. etc. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,323 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 are u kidding me???1. He's obviously a terrible player so I would be pissed that so many chips were taken out of play that would be pretty easy to pick up imo.2. Sure you have the same M... but a few levels from now..............3. A tournament with little to no play in the later stages to begin with is no an absolute luckfest.There is noone that sees my reasoning here?We understand your reasoning it's just that the value of removing the chip leader and his chips and bumping you up one spot at least is way way way way way way way way way way more important. Link to post Share on other sites
bdc30 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 i can't access the article at work - can someone pm it to me or just copy/paste it here? Link to post Share on other sites
freak2304 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 i can't access the article at work - can someone pm it to me or just copy/paste it here?Player Gets the Boot for Unsportsmanlike BehaviorThe first event of the World Series of Poker Circuit series at Caesars Atlantic City attracted a whopping 1,056 players, and the final table was marked by a bit of weirdness when a player, who was the chip leader at the time, was disqualified in fifth place for “unsportsmanlike behavior.”The $300 buy-in no-limit hold’em event, which attracted one of the largest fields in the Circuit’s history, was won by Frank Panetta, a 76-year-old former real estate developer from Brick, New Jersey. He won $76,104. But Panetta’s victory was overshadowed by the antics of Lesley S. Thornburg, who, according to a tournament report written by Nolan Dalla, the WSOP media director, received two warnings for unsportsmanlike behavior during the event’s first day for “a ceaseless display of loud comments and baiting tactics lasting several hours.” With seven players left, Thornburg ended up all-in against Andy Santiago, who had Thornburg dominated with A-Q versus A-7. But a 7 on the flop gave the unorthodox Thornburg the chip lead, to the dismay of the remaining players, who were forced to further endure Thornburg’s tactics.Two hands later, Thornburg again caught lighting in a bottle when he called an all-in raise by Edward “Yank” Sullivan, who held pocket sevens. Thornburg held pocket fours, but a four flopped and knocked Sullivan out of the tournament. He earned $15,855.This is when things turned weird. Here’s what Dalla wrote about the situation: “Then, all hell broke loose. Literally. Holding onto a perilous chip lead, Thornburg lost self-control and began jamming chips into the pot with reckless abandon. Warned by tournament officials (repeatedly) to stack his chips properly and obey the rules, Thornburg crossed the final demarcation of everyone’s patience when he shoved half of his stack into the pot and then later announced, “all in.” Fed up with the annoying and confusing antics, officials announced Thornburg’s immediate disqualification. Lesley Thornburg, a general contractor from Richmond, Va., earned $19,026 in prize money.”Thornburg’s chips were then removed from play, and the tournament continued fourhanded.The top nine finishers and their payouts follow:Frank Panetta — $76,104 Andy Santiago — $42,824 Todd Rebello — $25,368 Lee Ervin — $22,197 Lesley S. Thornburg (disqualified) — $19,026 Edward “Yank” Sullivan — $15,855 Donald Mercer — $12,684 “Karate” Mike Santoro — $9,513 Francis Snyder — $6,342 Click here for the complete schedule of the WSOP Circuit event at Caesars Atlantic City. Link to post Share on other sites
Chicago99 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 are u kidding me???1. He's obviously a terrible player so I would be pissed that so many chips were taken out of play that would be pretty easy to pick up imo.2. Sure you have the same M... but a few levels from now..............3. A tournament with little to no play in the later stages to begin with is no an absolute luckfest.There is noone that sees my reasoning here?I agree with your reasoning regarding the blinds in a couple of levels, though its hard to say people aren't better off with the chipleader d/q'd.Maybe you are trying to say that his chips should have been split proportionally among his opponents? That would make the most sense. Link to post Share on other sites
freak2304 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I agree with your reasoning regarding the blinds in a couple of levels, though its hard to say people aren't better off with the chipleader d/q'd.Maybe you are trying to say that his chips should have been split proportionally among his opponents? That would make the most sense.I think that would be WAAAAAY more unfair than just pulling the chips, as, say 20k in chips means alot more to a shortstack w/ 40k as a big stack with 400k, for example. Link to post Share on other sites
Chicago99 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I think that would be WAAAAAY more unfair than just pulling the chips, as, say 20k in chips means alot more to a shortstack w/ 40k as a big stack with 400k, for example.I said proportionally. So, if there were 100k chips to split up and the staks were 40k and 360k (to make the math easy), the guy with 40k would get 10k more chips and the guy with 360k would get 90k more chips. Link to post Share on other sites
freak2304 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I said proportionally. So, if there were 100k chips to split up and the staks were 40k and 360k (to make the math easy), the guy with 40k would get 10k more chips and the guy with 360k would get 90k more chips.Gotcha. My slow brain saw you say proportionally and thought, example: DQ'd guy has 200k w/ 5 other players left = 40k to each player. Link to post Share on other sites
EStormOk 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I think his prize money should have been split up among those left and let him walk away with nothing for being such a douche bag! Link to post Share on other sites
psujohn 0 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 I have to imagine that his behavior was far worse that what was described. I don't think you DQ someone for being sloppy with their chips or trying to string bet. My guess is that he was slowing the game and probably talking trash.Does make me long for the day when Hellmuth gets DQd for his patented insta-shove move. "I'm sorry sir but you were told repeatedly to put your chips into the pot in an orderly way. You've been disqualified" Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now