Conversa de Bryn Kenney com Joey Ingram

Mais um capítulo na saga "Bryn Kenney & acusações de batota", com a personagem principal a sentar-se com Joey Ingram para duas horas de conversa. Os primeiros minutos são dispensáveis, com os problemas técnicos a não ajudarem à causa, mas Ingram foi mais assertivo no que alguns descrevem como "an extended version of the pokernews interview".

Para os curiosos em todos os detalhes, eis o vídeo:

Algumas quotes e respostas mais curiosas:

BK: "The more than one account thing... lets clarify somthinng here... the way that GGPoker started was there were multiple skins on the site and you could use more than one platform for one than more name."

--

BK: "[Algures em 2018]...Past that day, nobody was helping anyone at any point in their tournaments. I took a super hard stance against it, because I would say at that point..."

JI: "I actually don't understand why, why would you at that point? If you're facilitating this..."

BK: "What's facilitating? It happeining once or twice in a message from someone that you're doing the most business with..."

JI: "It doesn't make any sense what you're saying, why would it only happen once or twice? Right? I have one horse saying that it's common place and you're saying once or twice..."

BK: "But where is it in his messages because you put all of his messages about me and there's nothing between me and Martin saying "you help someone else or have someone else help you in return"

Conversa entre George Wolff e Bryn Kenney:

Kenney para Wolff: "u could just let ami play take half and help later on"
Kenney para Wolff: "that's not fair either u played the whole ft so he was playing against u"
Kenney para Wolff: "of course u didn't play early stage of a 600 tourney u played every important stage"
Kenney para Wolff: "Play the 1k wcoop too If u have to go when the 500 is done for day I'll take over or someone else will"
Kenney para Wolff: "Stay on phone w him. Help him deep in the plo tourney"
Kenney para Wolff: "So u can only play 2 party accounts anyway ... U can play one being ur account and one Luke's"
Kenney para Wolff: "Like do u want 2 accounts and then 1 guy next to u and one guy on skype ... Gonna have 5 on 3 accounts for sats."
Kenney para Wolff: "Play on Arron and lb also ... U can try to even win like seat to 1k in 109 on lb or so if account short."
Wolff para Kenney: "if you were judged for all the times you encouraged this exact thing in the way you are to me how would you react."
Wolff para Kenney: "We have only 2 computers and one iPad. Can't do horse on iPad."
Wolff para Kenney: "What 3 accounts do we have? Fullflush mine and what else. Adams" ... Kenney para Wolff: "Arron and luke already have party accnts setup." ... Wolff para Kenney: "Ok I'll get the passwords from Luke then."
Wolff para Kenney: "I think it can work with Ami clicking the buttons, he won't affect my decision making and he respects my game a lot so won't try to interfere. Also in terms of timing and sizing I make all of those things very clear. I say things like wait 7 second etc."

--

JI: "I think when you look through..."

BK: "But anyway how does that mean..."

JI: "No, no, no, listen. Let's talk about this, right? On here it says "Kenney para Wolff: "So u can only play 2 party accounts anyway ... U can play one being ur account and one Luke's" it sounds like here you're telling this guy that he can use more than one account. What is this sayin? What am I reading here? This looks pretty straight forward, are you saying this is a one time thing, first time it happened?"

BK: "I never told you it was the first time it happened, I said that I've staked hundreds of people in my career, and that it had happened in the past. I've helped people before and in some instances horses of mine helped other horses of mine."

--
BK: "If I had this mastermind plan... there wouldn't be any losing, this people were..."

JI: "I disagree with that. I've been thinking about it a lot, because you mentioned that during the pokernews thing, that the accounts that were named were losing, right? But you said you invested in a thousand people and I heard that your deal was realy good in terms of the rake you're making from these games and some of tha no-cap rake in the high stakes games. You're making money from some sort of a fee... I do know that in the game you're taking a pretty big cut and so if you're staking mutiple accounts in the game... well, at some point in time, some of the accounts will be losing accounts."

--

A conclusão da troca acima foi apontar o dedo à GGPoker, não acusatório mas como os "detentores da informação que exonará" Bryn Kenney e é verdade que mais transparência nas contas entre Kenney e GGPoker seria muito útil.

Sobre Lauren Roberts, Kenney repetiu a história contada na entrevista anterior e crédito a Ingram por ter deixado a porta da verdade aberta, mencionando a necessidade de escutar as outras perspectivas da história. Tanto de Roberts como de cavalos de Kenney no mundo dos High Stakes MTT.

This sounds like libel to me. I suggest you document the alleged monies owed or stfu. https://t.co/YlRtHThRYk

— Lauren Roberts (@PlayPokerLkAMan) September 6, 2022

É importante ter em atenção que Bryn Kenney está a tentar repetir o feito da GGPoker no seu mais recente projecto, como tal a credibilidade deste não é algo só para resolver coisas do passado. Com isto em mente, estas palavras de Ingram são fortes:

"One thing I've learned living in Vegas, buddy, and being a guy who started a company is that normaly those people are liars... It's called standard in the corporate world. People only talk about what they did, they don't talk about what people have acused them of... and they try and make themselves look good. It just sounds that in this situation you're really not giving me much until I ask you about it... that's my take away on this situation."

Martin Zamani meteu a sua colherada desde o chat e Twitter:

Here is stars cheating as well as a “owner” of a site who has credit giving funds to all the players, being able to sustain this by making fields massive and having a huge chunk of everyone’s rake. I know some of screenshots are weird @PokerNews has already verified this chat pic.twitter.com/ZDwKryM1VE

— Martin Zamani (@martin_zamani) September 6, 2022

E 10 minutos depois:

Bryn claims I owe him $, he’s supposed to be giving me my rake for all 100+ players I signed up and hasn’t. Why would @GGPoker agree to give me my players if they weren’t mine. This is how he dissolved my agency and proof he agreed to be paying me. pic.twitter.com/Oyop6M7V2X

— Martin Zamani (@martin_zamani) September 6, 2022

A aparição de Zamani ajudou a levar a conversa para a relação operador, agente, sub-agente e jogador, com Kenney a deixar todas as explicações para a GGPoker.

"If I was dirty, GGPoker would ban my account"

"Not banned in any Triton event", "never incentivized collusion in sats on GGPoker",

Na conclusão do vídeo acima, Matt Berkey e amigos sentaram-se e registaram as suas opiniões sobre as duas horas anteriores para a posteridade:

Uma análise superficial dos dois chats acima, a comunidade não parece convencida por este "extended cut", com mais pressão de Joey Ingram mas insuficiente para esclarecer onde a verdade está no Bryn Kenney vs Martin Zamani.