Poker couple Alex Foxen and Kristen Bicknell recently took first and
second place in a major live poker tournament. The tournament was streamed
online with hole cards shown, and there have been accusations of them soft
playing each other, a type of collusion, made in the online community. I
haven't watched the entire final table, and a few of the hands people have
complained about seem fine or at least defensible to me, but the JJ vs AA hand
is the most blatant collusion I've ever seen. I don't believe there is a
reasonable argument otherwise. My hope is to raise awareness to this issue and
encourage an honest and meaningful discussion which will lead to tournament
organizers taking action in determining an appropriate penalty.
First, I want to explain what soft playing is and why it’s a problem.
Soft playing occurs when two players with a personal relationship play hands
differently against each other than they would against other players because
they feel bad about taking each other’s money. Typical examples include never
trying to bluff each other in a big pot, betting smaller than usual or not
betting at all with a value hand, or in extreme cases outright telling the
other person they should fold. This may not seem like a big deal at first, but
in tournament poker it’s especially problematic because players are paid out
according to what place they finish in, not how many chips they have in front
of them. The two players soft playing each other are unlikely to ever bust each
other from the tournament, and that hurts everyone else’s chances of moving up
a spot in the payouts. It’s especially problematic at a final table, where
outlasting one extra player is usually worth a significant amount of money.
It’s a form of collusion because the two players soft playing each other
increase their combined equity at the expense of everyone else in the
tournament. They are effectively working together for their own benefit,
whether that’s their intention or not. It’s important to note that soft playing
need not be openly discussed or premeditated. It may not even be a
conscious decision. In a poker game decisions are not always made rationally.
When faced with a close decision players often speak of playing on instinct or
“trusting their gut”, referring to listening to their subconscious mind in some
way. If your subconscious is as concerned about another player’s feelings or
success as your own, this may influence the decisions you make against that
player.
Before I get to discussing the hand I’d like to provide some background.
I regularly play high roller events, where a large percentage of the player
pool consists of some subset of the same group of pros. They often have pieces
of each other, and there are many groups of close friends among these pros.
Collusion is a very serious concern in this environment where the stakes are so
high, the player pool so tightly knit, and financial incentives for an
individual are potentially not completely aligned with their own performance in
the tournament. The final tables of these events are usually streamed with hole
cards shown, and yet over a fairly large sample now I’ve never seen a hand I
felt was conclusive evidence of collusion. This hand between Kristen and Alex
is the first. I would go further to say that if this hand between the couple
played in this context is not viewed as sufficient proof to result in them
being penalized, then I don’t know what realistically could be. That would be a
severe problem for the integrity of poker tournaments going forward.
For the purposes of full disclosure, I have played with both Kristen and
Alex a moderate amount, enough to have some basic perception of how they play.
I don’t know them personally but have only ever had positive interactions with
them.
The hand takes place 3-handed in the $5k MSPT event at the Venetian Las
Vegas. Kristen and Alex are 1st and 2nd in chips with 2.4M and 2.2M
respectively. Kahle has around 700k, short stacked but hardly out of it.
25k/50k blinds and 25k in antes.
Alex opens to 115k on the button with Jh Jc, Kahle folds, and Kristen
reraises to 400k in the big blind holding Ah Ac. Alex calls.
(850k) Flop: 5c 4h Js. Kristen bets 200k, Alex calls.
(1.25M) Turn Kd. Kristen checks, Alex bets 375k, Kristen calls.
(2M) River 3c. Kristen checks, Alex bets 600k, Kristen folds.
If there was no soft play the money should go in here preflop most of
the time, especially given these are generally pretty loose and aggressive
players preflop. But just calling JJ there could be defensible, or at least an
understandable mistake. Some people do really tighten up in big money
situations. I have no reason to believe Kristen or Alex is one of these people
given their recent successes, but it happens. Even at the highest levels there
seem to be vastly differing opinions about how ICM strategy works in these
spots.
The turn action is fine. Again, not the the most probable line, which
adds some suspicion, but it's fine. Kristen’s snap call is extremely suspicious
though, like she wants Alex to know she's really strong.
The river bet sizing from Alex is very suspicious with only two thirds
pot to play, but I can imagine someone thinking "my opponent probably has
QQ and is going to fold if I shove", or at least having some general
concern of them making a big ICM-related fold if he shoves, and betting this
smaller size. I don't think Alex would choose this size against a player he
respects, but it's not impossible. Folding AA as Kristen did is obviously a
completely nonsensical play though. You wouldn't fold to the biggest nit in the
world there, and anyone who knows Alex's game well knows he's definitely not
that. Her statement from the PokerNews article is problematic: "I thought he
probably had aces, ace-king, kings or jacks. I don’t really do well on the
river against those hands. I thought he had zero bluffs."
The fact she doesn't believe he can have even KJs is concerning. Maybe
she just forgot to say it. She has 50% equity against the range she listed
getting over 4:1 pot odds. By her own analysis she has a slam dunk call. No one
with an intimate knowledge of Alex's game could ever face a river bet from him
and think he has zero bluffs in his range in almost any situation if you were
playing honestly. This quote reads like a rationalization she came up with
after the fact, not her actual thought process during the hand. Maybe she just
choked under the pressure but happened to make a correct fold in this instance.
Maybe they both truly believe that correct ICM strategy involves never bluffing
in this spot and making huge folds despite the fact that your opponent is aware
of the same. I have to believe they are better players than that. Regardless,
any reasonable Bayesian analysis of this hand suggests it's a near certainty
they were colluding: the probability of them playing the hand this way honestly
is remote. For an unbiased observer with a solid understanding of poker and
tournament strategy, the mental gymnastics required to believe all these
decisions were arrived at fairly are simply not reasonable. Compared to the
obvious possibility that their relationship may make it difficult for them to
play a big pot fairly against each other, that perhaps they both knew they
wouldn’t make big bluffs against each other regardless of the situation, one
explanation is overwhelmingly more likely.
Now that collusion is established, there are two main questions of
interest: how should Kristen and Alex be penalized, and what does this say
about the couple ethically? The two questions are related but different, and I
think conflating the two is giving people trouble understanding what to think
of all of this. I believe there is room to think they are not necessarily
"bad people", while at the same time understanding a serious offense
has occurred and should be punished appropriately. I suspect there are many
people who know at least one of the couple and generally like them and think
highly of them, and are having difficulty bridging that opinion of their friend
with the clear evidence they colluded.
The biggest piece of evidence in favor of the possibility that they
weren’t intentionally colluding is simply that folding AA in this hand as
Kristen when everyone is going to see your hole cards is comically ridiculous
if you are knowingly cheating. If Kristen called the river they could maybe
keep some shred of plausible deniability and both still be in the tournament,
but as soon as those cards hit the muck it's gone. Whatever your opinion of
Kristen and Alex, they certainly aren’t stupid. So that leaves two
possibilities: Kristen doesn't fully understand soft playing or is unaware on a
conscious level that they are soft playing each other, or she does and is aware
but doubts that she can or will be punished, and so folds anyway. The latter
possibility would be particularly brazen, to an extent that makes it less
likely. In terms of potential punishment, ignorance is not a defense. Given
that there are no clear written rules about what an appropriate punishment is
for this type of situation, any punishment will be subjective, and perceived
intent can be factored in to some degree. However, the ethical issue depends
entirely on this distinction. This is either a case of a very clear and
deliberate transgression against Kahle (and potentially everyone else in the
tournament by extension), or it's a disappointing display of ignorance or
cognitive dissonance in a situation where Kristen and Alex should know better.
Simply as professional tournament players in general, but more specifically as
players in a relationship who have even made a final table together before,
this is a contingency they should have considered carefully. Yet it's possible
that they didn't fully grasp all the nuances of this situation.
Ultimately, what you take away from this about Kristen and Alex as people comes down to how you interpret the intent behind their actions. It's a
subjective judgement and I can't tell you what to think. I like to believe the
best in people, and I hope they will prove to be worth giving the benefit of
the doubt in the long run. The possibility that they don't realize they have
done anything wrong despite the fact they almost certainly have seems
plausible.
As stated above, ignorance may be a valid moral defense, but not a legal
one. So let's move on to punishment. I assume the Venetian has already paid out
the players, but Kahle deserves money closer to the 2nd place payout. The
collusion doesn't really affect his chances of winning the tournament, but it hurt
his chances of laddering up to second place, and indeed given the JJ vs AA
cooler that was dealt he should have been unlikely to finish in third place. I
don't think it's unreasonable in the slightest for Kristen and Alex to rectify
the situation with Kahle directly now after the fact, even as the Venetian may
no longer have any recourse. However, I think the more crucial question is what
should the penalty be going forward?
In my opinion, Kristen and Alex should be banned from playing
tournaments together for six months. I understand this would be a considerable
inconvenience to their lifestyle, but this needs to be correctly viewed as a
serious offense. It is tempting to say they should perhaps only be banned from
smaller field tournaments where they would be more likely to play at the same
table, and then if they did happen to draw the same table just change the seat
assignment. This compromises the integrity of the tournament in a fundamental
way however, and what do you do if they make another final table together? Even
if you believe there was no malicious intent, this ban gives them time to
analyze the situation, learn how to play against each other fairly, or perhaps
accept that they aren’t capable of playing hard against each other when the stakes
are high, and that playing different tournaments is for the best. It's
important that we monitor the integrity of tournament poker, and it's important
that every player believes they are getting a fair shot in any tournament they
decide to play. In order to protect the players and the game, a legitimate
punishment must be enforced in this case, even if Kahle Burns and others at the
final table are not directly compensated. I hope the organizers of major poker
tournaments view the integrity of their events seriously enough to take action
here. It's justified.
Mike Watson
