how would you guys feel if you saw an out of hand player wink at another player who was considering an all-in call?

did this happen?

Yes it did. And the video proves it.

when? between who and who?

Was this when Ivey put Farha all in? Or vice versa? Were there any other all ins?

Before I give any more info on it, I'm curious as to what your feelings would be if you found out this was true? Is this type of thing common practice, or does it stretch the rules?

On the surface it seems to be obvious cheating. The player who winked did so to just that one other player, so there's no way it was "table talk". It was a signal, and the signal was received. Regardless of who the source is, does anyone believe this type of thing is acceptable in these circles or is it as wrong as it seems?

It was probably just a harmless wink. If you were going to cheat at a TV table you wouldn't make a signal so obvious that everyone could pick up on it.

I think it's actually quite obvious what the wink meant when you look a the tape. Here's the link below:

http://www.nbcsports.com/poker/feature1.html#

Go to Tuesday Segment 6, and fast forward to about 2:25 remaining in the video. You'll see Sammy say "I think I'm being bluffed" as he looks at Matusow. At that moment, Matusow looks right at him and winks. It's clear he sees it, and he ends up acting on it.

Despite the fact it didn't work out, it was obvious from Mike's "good call" right after the call, and his prediction on camera with Shana moments before, that he felt Ivey was bluffing. It's also a virtual certainty he wanted those chips in Sammy's hands rather than Ivey's, so it's not like he's trying to help Phil.

Maybe Ivey would be okay if Sammy received Mike's reads in addition to using his own every time, but something tells me he wouldn't. I want to know whether you guys think it crosses the line, because to me there's no ambiguity around whether there was a wink and what the intent of it was. I'm certain Mike was assisting him in his decision-making.

Well if what you are saying is true of course it crosses the line. But the thing is like many other cheats in gambling it cannot be proved. I have seen players wink at each other all the time.

Fair enough, but I don't think it takes too much of a leap of faith to see that it was an intentional wink, directed at Farha, timed as he said "I think I'm being bluffed". Further, it was subtle enough to be between just those two.

My curiousity is just around whether this is cool at this level. If Ivey knew Matusow did this and knew it was intentional, would he care? It only caught my eye because it was done in such a subtle way that it wasn't just table talk.

all of these players are friends. and i think that the wink could have been to try to get the other to laydown the hand or to raise. i don't know

At worst its 2-players-to-a-hand.
Mike Matusow was completely convinced. And he was just telling Sammy what he thought.

Its greasy as hell but i think that's all it is.

I have to agree.....to me, Mike is saying, "Yep Sammy, that's what I think also...good old Phil Ivey is bluffing you...so you had better call." It's pretty obvious, and like you said, he would want those chips in Sammy's hand rather than Ivey's. I think it's exactly the type of thing Matusow would do and I think it sucks.

please - dumbest post ever

1. matasow was totally wrong Ivey had a set of 6's
2. sammy flopped the nuts - the day sammy lays down the nuts even with matasow holding a loaded gun to his head - the op will have a brain

I don't think Matusow's table image has the sort of credibility that Farha would base any of his actions on anything Mike was doing. I mean he's tried to make deals with players that if they pushed he'd call and then when they did he immediately folded. It's not like your word is your bond is particularly a hard 'n fast rule in poker.