blonde poker forum

It is obviously fine to swap percentages in tournaments. Assuming no collusion, softplaying or anything underhand is it OK to do the same in cash games?

Interesting question

If the two swapping are sat in the same game I would say it is not acceptable even if we can be 100% certain that they are playing each other hard.

I have never heard of this in "live" cash games, does it regularly happen?

I've no idea I've never played in a "live" cash game.

Why is it acceptable in a tourney but not in cash?

This is not me trying to do trick questions or anything, I was thinking of a way it may be possible to make this +EV without cheating any of the other players, while out riding my bike this afternoon.

It's done in tourneys to reduce variance right? Variance is huge in tournaments. If people were to do it in a cash game also to reduce variance (admittedly not needed as much as in tourney play) but there was a slight +EV effect as well (coming from the cardroom not the other players) is this cheating in some way?

I've seen two players at Luton playing with percentages of each other at a cash game.

They have the same amount on the table at the beginning and share it equally at the end. I've seen them both in the pot togther and when they're heads up they still played but, if one busts out against the other, the other 'lends' him some chips to keep playing.

Didbn't see any evidence of colluding - but that in itself doesn't mean there isn't any.

I personally have never believed that swapping percentages under any circumstances is a good thing.  To pretend situations never arise where it compromises the integrity of the game would be naive.  It is only because of the nature of the game and people that play it that this practise has become acceptable.

 Ac

If you can figure out a way that doing this is +EV, you are either swapping pieces with someone better then you, or you are cheating in some way.

you also say this:


where do you get this idea from? expectation must come from somewhere.. the cardrooms diminish it via the rake. The money you make comes from other players, apart from the odd times they have promotions etc. The more good players at a table, the less you make.

Given that if you are both the same skill level, its really a bad idea to play in the same game as you just reduce the amount of worse players you make money from, so as mentioned before, unless you are colluding somewhere, you are probably going to reduce your winrate by playing at the same table and swapping pieces.

Surely this is the same as taking chips off the table during a game.  I can't see how this is fair as they're just recycling money between them.  Anyone else would have to stump up more cash.

Sheriff

Maybe they enjoy each others company m8, its not all about the highest EV choice!

I don't see it as a problem myself if they are not colluding, i have never done it myself.

I agree - the point I was making is that they didn't appear to be soft playing because they knew that in the end they would share.

My boyfriend and I regularly do a 10% share if we are in the same tournament - never done it when playing cash.

Anyone who has seen us playing on the same tournament table will confirm there is no soft play, the man is too much of an aggressive B****rd to let me win anything. In fact people who don't know us don't realise we are together, he studiously ignores me then stares me down before reraising my calls.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a percentage if the players truly play to win. Unfortunately in a lot of cases the money is important so there must be a conflict of interest.

i've never seen this at Luton

furthermore the guy giving his mate chips if her runs out is the same as taking his money off the table.

wtf

That's a tad harsh Mr. T :( My theory is just a thought I had while trying not to run over dogs in the park. I said it's nothing to do with collusion.


Say you and a friend wanted to play poker variance free but still make a small amount of money from it. (It doesn't really apply to winning 10/20 NL players :D )
You both sign up at a small site where you get either bonus and rakeback or a prop deal or whatever so that the site are effectively paying you to play.
You play heads up, get the sites money and just carve up the original bankroll at the end of the session. Is that not slight +EV without collusion?

In real life say you got prop deals that pay 130% rakeback. If you are paying for example $10 per table per hour rake. You could play 4 tables and make $12 per hour each + any money you would get being winning players from any other players who sit down at the table. You would not be colluding at all. In fact if you did collude you'd probably get your roll confiscated by the sites.

the honest answer is I am not sure, but I regard it as less acceptable...

I would not want to be the 3rd party in a cash pot where my two opponents are potentially/implcitly acting as a team

Of course this can happen in a torunament too. Perhaps my discomfort is just because it is far less usual in cash

lol heya B.. I was in no way saying you are a colluder, I was tryin to say that in my opine, swapping % with people on your same skill level cant be +EV.. and gave a couple examples of how it would be +EV.. hence that comment


well I guess that is collusion of the worst kind.. 2 people working together to cheat someone/something out of money....but I digress



ok, maybe I am getting it wrong somewhere.. but to me it seems like you are just harming your winrate somwhere. Your rake generated will be the same, your earnings in theory should be the same, but if you are playing against 4 bad players and 1 good player, you should win less then if you are at a table with 5 bad players. Imagine if you are at a 6 handed table, against 6 byronkincaids. You will make exactly $12 an hour. No more, no less. Against 5, you will make a little more.. so on and so forth. What I am saying is, I dont see why you have to be at the same table. SUre, it doesn't matter if you swap it around on a monthly basis, you should win exactly the same over time, but if you are at the same table, you wont win the same over time, you will win less. I think.

Yeah I see what you're saying, I'm just hypothesizing.


I don't think you would be if you weren't sitting at heads up tables. Props get paid to start games, that's exactly what you're doing. You prob haven't ever played at a site that has literally half a dozen players spread out over all it's tables. I hadn't until last night when I got owned playing at a site where the majority of players I think are props. You only get 2-3 players at a table. I was concerned about collusion so I watched them play amonst themselves. they didn't look like they were colluding at all, they played hard against each other which is how I started thinking about how they may possibly be working. you sit there all day earning your $X per hour and then hope one of you wins some money if someone else sits down.

i dint play big live trnys, but it just sounds like collusion to me. I don't mind deals and will do them live or online, but if i hit the ft and the other 9, 6 ,5 ,4 ,3 ,2 have a secret deal it would concern me.


Or maybe I am just an over suspicious type ?

Shocking eh!

I will sacrafice EV for reduced variance or for fun.

Take this weekend, do i play the Brighton festival which will cost me 500+300+200 or do i go to Newcastle and play the P4C events costing me 200 in travel and 500 in rebuys when even if i win one of the events i wont be doubling my money, but will be having a damn good laugh! Bit of an extreme scenario i know but you get the point i hope.

Besides if having a mate at the table keeps you more entertained then maybe you won't get bored and so play better for longer thus making it higher EV.....

I think there's something in that idea. Nobody wants to be caught with their pants down in front of a mate who's game they respect. Be like having three inner voices (Two Good and One Evil). hmm...just read this back and it 'kinda' makes some sense and no sense at the same time but it is quater to six and I'm too knackered to alter it...lol

I'm not a big fan of % swapping in tournaments to be honest with you, let alone cash games. (where I would have less of a problem)

Very outspoken on this, so I usually stay quiet.

Just posted to agree with the idea that if it's ok in tournaments ( ;tk; ) then it should be ok in cash games too.

From my fairly long experience playing live poker in the UK, imo at least 75%

of those swopping %ages in tournaments collude and soft-play to some degree.

Most of them have been doing it for years and would not think of it as wrongdoing.

Where is this site that pays 130% rakeback?  The highest I know is 110%.  Also there are normally various rules, for example: no heads-up play with other props, which sort of ruins your licence to print money.  Let me know.

On a more general note, there is always going to be a perception of collusion when you play with your boy- or girl-friend, and/or players you are known to swap percentages with.  For example, imagine you are down to the final four in a live WSOP multi-table satellite, with three seats available and nothing for fourth.  You have 70% of the chips and the others have 10% each.  Your girlfriend/percentage buddy moves all-in on your big blind for and it folds to you.  Considering what is on the line, would you not be tempted to pass, even though there is (quite possible literally) no hand you can justify folding here?  Or, if you call with 2-3 offsuit, will you be accused of trying to double him/her up?

However, sometimes things that look like collusion, aren't.  I was sure I was a witness to collusion in a [three-person payout] cash SNG where, four-handed, the chip leader had about 25 big blinds, me and one other guy had about 6 big blinds, and one guy was truly desperate, he only had 1 big blind.  Me and the other medium guy would pass every hand, not wanting to risk running into the chip leader and bubbling.  Anyway, we assumed we would be three-way any moment soon.  But when the chip leader was the SB, he would pass and give the micro stack in the BB a walk!  This happened on every orbit!  Collusion with his mate, surely...?  Not in this instance... things are not always what they seem!  I can't remember who bubbled... but when it got to three-handed the CL had 95% of chips in play :-)

Looks to me like the chip leader was deliberately prolonging the bubble to allow him to keep accumulating chips.  Its sometimes advantageous to do this, although normally the strategy is seen in Multi table tournaments rather than SnGs.

The person who's benefitting from this tactic is the chip leader himself.  If he ended up with 95% of the chip as a result then it worked spectacularly well.

My point is that its not collusion.  I expect he was doing it for his own benefit.

Sheriff

You can find 130%+ prop deals on google in less than a minute. That bubble sng strategy is standard. You say there is always a perception of collusion. I say there is no perception of collusion when for example the Hendon Mob or Tikay and Julian (if they swap %'s??? I have no idea if they do or not) are at the same table.

I hardly ever play live although that will hopefully change next year, but from what I read on here tons of people swap %s. It's not my place to comment on that until I start playing live but I sure that the vast majority of Blondes who have a 5% saver with their friend are not cheating in any way at all. But that's not really why I started this thread. I was just trying to think about it in a slightly different way. I would still be interested to know from someone who swaps %s or thinks swapping %s is OK why it's OK in tourneys and not cash? It's something that I'm 99.99999999% probably never going to do, it's just something I was thinking about yesterday :D

lol yeah I get the point fully, but its not really pertinent to the thread, and specifically the points Byron was raising, ie the EV of  % swapping.

Nice story though