blonde poker forum

13 left in a MTT.

Button and SB both have roughly 4 big blinds. BB has 2 big blinds.

Button is thinking about acting, SB announces that he is to go all-in while Button is still making desicion.

Iz this ok in your books???

Not in my books but I'm no expert

Nope

It breaks no rule that I can think of.

What is the objection?

Well thats poker it is about lies but the button has prolly allready made up his mind on what he is going to do, but if the sb has affected the buttons decsision then he has won the bluff game even if he wasent fibbing but i think it sounds normal :)

what about if the BB also declares they are all in. Does this make the SB's action incorrect but the BB's correct? does it make them both incorrect? correct?

Kev does that all the time :)

I was the BB here.  I didn't take particular exception until a couple of people pointed out to him that it was a bit out of order.  Not the sort of game I'd play though.  But there are different rules for girls apparently :)

totalise - my comment that i was all in too was kind of tongue in cheek.  Having posted a BB of 10,000 leaving only 7,000 behind I was going to be all in whatever I had.

tongue in cheek or not isn't the point, its a $5 tourney, people fold their BB there. My point is, if its incorrect for the SB to declare his actions (maybe he was tongue in cheek as well?) then its incorrect for the BB (you) to do it as well.

as I said, I didn't really have a problem with it.  I didn't say 'I am all in', I said 'me too' after the SB had said it.  I would never have said anything otherwise.

Imagine the same thing, but on the bubble, and everyone else has much larger stacks.

The button is stuck with a marginal, he knows the SB might fold. He really doesn't want to let the short stack get a walk. While pondering, SB says he has it covered, decision over.
The two short stacks have increased their EV by communicating their hand strength, at the expense of the micro stack.

My objection is the precedent it sets.

Something totally needs to be done about that Claw woman, she's dangerous and a law onto herself. That's kinda a seperate issue though.  ;)

;yellowcard;

Precedent is the objection. Players shouldn't be communicating their hand strength with one another to increase their mutual EV.


Satellite bubble, 6 seats available, 5 left.

Everyone has 50,000 chips except BB who has 10,000 chips. Blinds are 4k/8k

Player on the Button has KK, announces to the table that his hand is very strong and he intends to play it, before anyone else has a chance to act.

Would you be ok with this?

the 1st problem??

if it happened live?

would this be speechplay and part of the game?


or still out of order?

bad ettiquette..yes for sure


but against the rules...i don't think so

It's worse live, it's deliberately acting out of order to gain an advantage.

You can't act out of order on-line and rules on speech play are much more blurry.

I see nothing wrong

is it any worse than checking in the dark ?

World's apart from checking in the dark.

If one is first to act on the flop, checking in the dark is fine. You're acting normally and in turn, just without the information the flop gives.

At what point do you draw the line?

Everyone turning their cards face up and discussing what would be the best mutual strategy to get rid of the short stack?

Bit of an over exageration mate!!
What people say and what they do are not necessarily the same thing are they?
Nobody named cards or colluded at all, live it is a verbal declaration and as such is a different thing entirely. Online it means little or nothing.

Yes it is worlds apart, its late :blonde:

Ok, I've looked up collusion in the dictionary. Apparently a pre-requisite is that the plotting needs to be secret.

So the term open collusion is somewhat oxymoronic. I concede that it should not be used here.

Having said that, I'm still not happy about exchanging information with other players as to how you may act when a hand is in progrress. What you say and what you do may be different, but there are frequent tournament situations (such as this one) wherby doing the other thing from what you've said would gain you no advantage. (Unless you were colluding with the shortstack) I therefore find that argument irrelevant. If the SB intends to fold, he wants the button to raise, and would not say anything to discourage such an action.

Pokerstars stopped all chat whenever a tournament player is all-in to help combat the problem of players unfairly exchanging information to help "team" the short stacsk. A good move on their part (unless you've typed a big long irrelevant sentence in the chat box and press enter at the wrong time)

At least we know you're the one and only Tank now...

Let's say it is illegal.

How can you prevent it? (On-line)

An unenforcable rule is pretty useless...

Ive read how the threads progressed and think that the most important thing is the context in which it was done.

Many times ive said to a prospective raiser in late position with the blinds or just bb left to act" if your going to raise get ready to put the rest of your chips in" this usually indicates that ive got a limping hand or just feel like gettting on the guys case a little and have got rags that i'm about to chuck.

If it was my mate and i said "dont raise here cos ive got a monster and will be re-raising so dont waste your chips" and was serious i wouldnt leave the room alive.

 :tikay: talk about blowing our cover.

 :D

Love the ambiguiy, I'll choose my own way to percieve these comments..



A very good point. You can't really distinguish in the T&C's about situatins wherby it is only profitable for a player to be telling the truth etc.

Howzaboot summit like.....

"Any player who openly conspires with others, by giving away their intent to act, or hinting as to the value of their holecards, in the game chat window to try and increase the chances of knocking another player out of the tournament will be deemed to have been naughty"

The problem with this, I suppose is that it involves a certain amount of arbitration on the part of who decides when it is and isn't applicable. Some jobsworth deems that innocent Kev been in violation, and slaps a chat ban on the poor fellow.

Free the Colchester One?

It's not a huge problem really, I just felt that Claw gotta bit dikked tonight is all.

in live play people used to know whats allowed and whats not.

You've got so many new people coming into the game now with new ideas that i think its inevitable that a generic codified set of rules will soon be constructed.

7-8 years ago 95% of players knew what was allowed, thus the they were afforded a certain amount of autonomy.

They followed the "rules" and soon pulled up anyone who didn't.

the problem now as i see it is that the internet players dont know the previously established rules/etiquette for live play and with these guys making up a vast amount of the players you see playing live they're unable to govern themselfs because there not in possesion of the necessary experience to do so.

In the same tourney depending on which table your seated a significant transgression of table etiquette could just as easily result in a complaint to the TD on one table as it could go unnoticed on another.

With such exasperating inconsistency in the application of playing conventions I'd like to see a memorialised set of rules formulated sooner rather than later.

I think (as an online player who hardly ever plays live) that declaring ones' intentions out of turn in the chat box is not on and I wouldn't do it.

If you act or declare your actions outside of "your turn" it is wrong, this applies to any card game, not just poker. Whether this is enforced or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that if you play or declare your play before "YOUR TURN" your are not just breaking the rules of the game but the spirit of it too.
That is the whole idea of the phrase "your turn"!

 ;scarymoment;

I'd move the smallstack.

Is it too much worse than announcing that the next person that raises your BB will be RR'd allin ?

very good point!

I voted yip by accident.

Ho hum ::)

Thats not binding though