A bit of potinage poker in this beautiful Sunday in September. The story is simple, but is currently much chatting (for nothing?) in the poker community. Sam Trickett attended the English Poker Open with his friend Chris Sly that it purchased shares. The two friends are on the same table and involved in the same hand. The hand takes place in 3 players; Jamie Roberts, Chris Sly and Sam Trickett. Jamies Roberts revival, Chris Sly call in MP with a pair of 2 and Sam Trickett call also with a pair of ACEs (he call so he could have 3 better).
The flop brings a 2 and the action is fierce between Sly and Trickett. The two players are all-in and Sly holds up the River to eliminate Sam Trickett.
Some time after the hand, Sam Trickett tweet that makes chat something: "eliminated. This is unfortunate but I did not want to re-raise my foal with a pair of ACEs to not eliminate it... lol"
This message that was a joke for Trickett seems to have taken seriously by others.
It was then that several began to paranoier and say that there was collusion.
The French reacted quickly to leave no doubt settle explaining unless he had reraised his opponent stacke it would immediately abandoned the shot, leaving him no hope of winning a big pot.
From a logical point of view, if there was collusion on the part of Trickett, why would he have preferred to her foal wins the tournament rather than him? After all, Sam would have made more money by earning him even the tournament rather than in winner a % of her foal. Moreover, with several million dollars in tournament winnings, Sam Trickett isn't a few thousand pounds Sterling in its budget.
Sam retweet later explanation stating that his first message should not be taken seriously and that he wanted really saying was that it was no raise preflop as Sly would have then understood that he had no interest in him back on and would anyway have folder his hand.
Discuss this news on PokerCollectif forums: Sam Trickett suspected of collusion
