The 2025 WSOP collusion 'scandal' and investigation, explained
The World Series of Poker has had its occasional controversies over the years with some wild moments that made headlines. This time? A 2025 WSOP event might be a scandal.
Here's what we know: Their $1,500 Millionaire Maker event was down to two players, with James Carroll up on Jesse Yaginuma. But it was Yaginuma who ended up with the bracelet and a cool $1.26 million.
Advertisement
That's not the controversy. Here's what could be that's led to an investigation, per ESPN: "Many of the hands won by Yaginuma came in the form of raises or reraises that were continually not contested by Carroll. Viewers of the event's livestream, including a number of professional poker players, began to speculate that Carroll was chip dumping to Yaginuma -- intentionally losing hands to build up his opponent's stack -- so that the two could split some portion of the prize money."
Is that collusion? Let's dive in further:
What are the WSOP rules about collusion?
Per the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
WSOP rule 40b states: 'Collusion is defined as any agreement between or among two (2) or more Participants to engage in illegal or unethical acts against other Participants. Collusion includes, but is not limited to, acts such as: chip dumping; soft play; sharing card information with another Participant; sending or receiving signals from or to another Participant; the use of electronic communication with the intent to facilitate collusion; and any other act that Host Properties deem inappropriate.'
What did WSOP say about the investigation?
So the prize money and bracelet haven't been given out yet.
Why would the two players collude in a WSOP event?
There's some speculation over a prize from ClubWPT Gold: a player could win an additional $1 million if they won a WSOP event and a "ticket" from a poker summer event. Yaginuma had one of those tickets, so maybe Carroll was trying to help him out?
What did the poker players say about the collusion allegations?
Per Poker.org:
Yaginuma told us there was no heads-up deal in his post-win interview, though the two did meet. "No, not really. We talked for a little bit about poker, but yeah, that was about it."
This article originally appeared on For The Win: WSOP collusion investigation, explained over Millionaire Maker ending
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
23 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Gerry Philbin, defensive end who helped Namath's New York Jets win Super Bowl, dies at 83
NEW YORK — Gerry Philbin, a defensive end who helped the New York Jets shock the Baltimore Colts in the Super Bowl after the 1968 season, has died, the team announced Friday. He was 83. The cause of death was dementia, Philbin's family told ESPN . Philbin spent nine seasons with the Jets and was a two-time All-AFL selection.
Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Man pleads not guilty to hate crimes in attack on Colorado demonstration for Israeli hostages
DENVER — A man accused of hurling Molotov cocktails at a group of people who were demonstrating in Boulder, Colorado , in support of Israeli hostages pleaded not guilty Friday to federal hate crime charges. Mohamed Sabry Soliman was indicted earlier this week on 12 hate crime counts in the June 1 attack. He is accused of trying to kill eight people who were hurt by the Molotov cocktails and others who were nearby.
Fox News
43 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn websites
Print Close By Alexandra Koch Published June 27, 2025 The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring pornography websites to verify visitors' ages to protect minors from sexually explicit content online. Justices ruled 6-3 that requiring adults in Texas to verify their age does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, noting at least 21 other states imposed similar regulations on sexual material that could be harmful to minors online. Texas and other states prohibit the distribution of sexually explicit content to children in brick and mortar stores, but online content remains largely unregulated. 'WE WON': SOCIAL MEDIA ERUPTS OVER SCOTUS RULING DEALING 'FATAL BLOW' TO TRANSGENDER SURGERIES ON MINORS Lawmakers from the Lone Star State enacted a bill requiring certain commercial websites that publish sexually explicit content to verify the ages of those entering the site, which the justices upheld as constitutional, noting at least 21 other states imposed similar regulations on sexual material that could be harmful to minors. Those who visit sexually explicit websites will need to use government-issued identification or a "commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data." Sites can perform verification themselves or through a third-party service. SCOTUS RULES ON STATE BAN ON GENDER TRANSITION 'TREATMENTS' FOR MINORS IN LANDMARK CASE If website owners knowingly violate the law, the Supreme Court ruled the Texas attorney general can sue and collect a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day that the site is non-compliant. They can also collect an additional penalty of up to $250,000 if any minors accessed the covered sexual material as a result of the violation. TEXAS BILL PUSHES STRICTEST SOCIAL MEDIA BAN FOR MINORS IN THE NATION Justices wrote in their opinion that internet access has drastically changed since 1999, when only two out of five American households had a computer. In 2024, 95 percent of American teens had access to a smartphone, with 93 percent reporting frequent internet use. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan argued speech that is obscene for minors is often not obscene for adults. "So adults have a constitutional right to view the very same speech that a State may prohibit for children," Kagan wrote. "And it is a fact of life—and also of law—that adults and children do not live in hermetically sealed boxes. In preventing children from gaining access to 'obscene for children' speech, States sometimes take measures impeding adults from viewing it too—even though, for adults, it is constitutionally protected expression. "But what if Texas could do better—what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults' constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech H. B. 1181 covers? That is the ultimate question on which the Court and I disagree." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Pornhub and other pornography giants have stopped service in Texas and other states where regulations are in place. Print Close URL
