If you saw the World Poker Tour’s most recent broadcast (June 13), then you witnessed Barry Greenstein and Joe Sebok ruin an otherwise innovative and entertaining show.

The ending is sure to stir somewhat of a poker ethics vs. morality debate – at least it should incite this dialogue – and I wanted to be among the first to say that the “Robin Hood of Poker” and his son got it all wrong.

In the “Fathers and Sons” event cleverly cultivated by the WPT, some well-known father-son duos were pitted against each other in a single-table tournament. Whenever a player was busted or the blinds went up, the players had to switch at the table so that each received an equal amount of playing time. Other notable teams included Doyle and Todd Brunson and Barry and Jeff Shulman.

Following other similar novelty acts such as the poker authors’ tournament and “bad boys” event, this specialized show was probably the WPT’s most creative and compelling idea yet. But boy, did the winning team crash the ending.

Predictably, the Brunsons and Greenstein-Sebok were the last two teams standing. This alone provided plenty of intrigue, as Greenstein faced Doyle Brunson and Sebok alternately squared off with Todd Brunson. While Greenstein-Doyle is probably a push, it made for good suspense to see if Todd Brunson, clearly a huge favorite over Sebok, could overcome his team’s big chip deficit during his turn.

He couldn’t. The cards continued to favor Sebok and, when Sebok’s A-10 held up against Brunson’s Q-8, he and proud pop Greenstein got to walk away with bragging rights as the top father-son combo on the WPT show.

Which is all well and good, except … the show didn’t end there. Turns out the WPT had a bonus in store; that is, a heads-up match between the father and son who won the preliminary tournament. The only prize awarded that night – a $25,000 in the WPT championship and a handsome trophy – was to be awarded to the winner of this match.

This idea was sort of a nifty an unexpected twist to an already engaging show. The problem is, Greenstein and Sebok threw the game. You could see it coming since their “heads-up match” was not shown until about 2 minutes before the broadcast was over.

But in an absurd and clearly rehearsed scene, Greenstein and Sebok each said they just didn’t have the heart to play against each other and, because of this, they were going all-in dark on the first deal. Swell. Greenstein picked up A-Q and it held up against Sebok’s K-2 and, ladies and gentleman … we had our “champion.” Mike Sexton’s Hallmark-like gushing about what a great move it was only added to the ugliness of the whole scene. This was the laughable ending to the movie “Lucky You” coming to life, and this imitation of art wasn’t pretty.

And it should be noted that it’s very unlikely the WPT was thrilled with the outcome. For one, their prize was basically reduced to having zero significance. What’s more, fans watched because they wanted to see a match and – even though it goes without saying that Doyle vs. Todd Brunson would have been the coup de grace – Greenstein and Sebok were basically obligated to provide one, even if Sebok is at least a 4-to-1 underdog against his father.

If they truly had such a moral dilemma at the prospect of facing each other, then, I say, kudos and, furthermore … DO NOT ENTER THE TOURNAMENT! It’s highly unlikely these two gents were forced against their will to participate and, if you’re going to play, then you are ethically, and perhaps contractually, bound to do it right.

Come to think of it, I don’t recall a reference to this poker maxim in Greenstein’s book “Ace On The River,” but perhaps he should add a chapter on this topic for future editions. And that is, never soft play.

Fellow pro and noted author Phil Gordon has often said a winning player should be willing to check-raise his grandma if the situation calls for it, and Greenstein himself writes in “Ace On The River” that a player should be willing to bluff with his last dollar. But he shouldn’t be willing to play his son in what is essentially a free roll?

Someone, preferably Greenstein or Sebok, please explain. It would be far more understandable if this were a regular WPT event and say, the two were playing for a $500,000 difference between first and second place. That’s a huge sum that could have an effect on their professional and personal lives, and it makes sense that to cut some sort of chop behind the scenes and play hard for the title would be a viable solution.

But in the simple spirit of competition and poker, why not play hard for the father-son title? And what better stage, with no real risk involved? Even for seasoned professionals, a comped $25K buy-in is nothing to sneeze at. It’s certainly worth playing for, especially when you’ve got literally nothing to lose.

To some degree, this debate transcends all sport. It reminds me of a few years ago when a women’s college basketball player with a broken leg was escorted to the basket after tip-off so she could break a scoring record. Well, that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen and the poker equivalent shouldn’t have, either.

To use another father-son analogy, can you imagine Roger Clemens refusing to pitch to his son Koby if they happened to meet on opposite rosters in an All-Star game? I doubt it, and a word of advice comes to mind for the younger Clemens should the situation arise – duck. Unfortunately, it was Greenstein and Sebok who heeded this advice, but all they dodged was their responsibility to play a competitive game.

Comments