blonde poker forum

Red Dog and I are on the same Crypto table last night in the £10k gtd

Just before the tournament starts, in the chat box:

Player 1: I'm going all in first hand, who'll join me?...He's seat 5

Player 2, in Seat 3...Yes, I'm up for it, LOL

Third party: If you do that I'll report you to support, it's cheating.

Player two....swear word swear word swear word with *** mixed in

First hand:

Player 2...All in

Player 1...All in

Player 2 has  As Qs
Player 1 Has  Jd 3c

Player 1 is eliminated

I reported the players


Any comments?

I'd be amazed though if support did anything seeing as anything appears to go on that site, swearing racist chat, homophobia etc etc.

This is surely a clear case of chip dumping. Why mention it before hand ? Strange and very dodgy, definately an email to customer services. Proving it is a problem you cant enforce rules that tell people how to play their cards.

I was the third party

thank you Red, I wasn't going to say it was you unless you volunteered it.

Is this collusion? Paul Phillips says he would happily do this first hand of WSOP in a folded round to SB BB situation. Is Paul Phillips a colluder?

if he announces his intentions before then yes he is

this was early position versus mid position

I don't get this. You're saying you can't go all in in the dark? IE these guys hadn't seen their cards yet

OK I'm genuinely confused. I'm pretty sure I remember the Paul Phillips post correctly because it gave me a lightbulb moment about gambling early in MTTs. I can't find the post now but are you saying that on the first hand of the WSOP you are in the SB and it is folded round to you. Both you and the BB have not looked at your cards and you both agree to go all in in the dark ie a true 50/50 gamble. Are you saying this is collusion? If so I'll email Paul and see if I can get him to respond. I may of course be remembering his post incorrectly. If this is not collusion then how is it different to what these online people are doing? The OP says they decided this BEFORE the tourney started ie all in in the dark.

i must be missing something too ???
i don't see it as colluding if they don't know their cards, just gambling.
I'd be surprised if anything came of it.

This is what I am wondering you see


Reporting for the terrible swearing etc to Red is fine on one level, chat can be banned etc

but is there anything else wrong?

Yes  it should br reported cause of the swearing - most of you know my stance on chat boxes in poker sites, and the terrible way they are managed.

As for the all in's .. before they have seen their cards - get out of the way and look at it from the point of one person less to deal with an a stupid muppet who has lots of chips for you to remove from them.

I'd always be wary of playing anything unless it was spectacular the first couple of hands anyways - you want to know what is going on at your table.

Heid
xx

i sometimes raise the first few hands exactly for this reason :D

Hang on folks lets look at it this way. Tighy and I are on the same table at the start of the comp. I phone him and say " lets both go in 1st hand , a early double up will give us more of an edge than we have at the moment " He agrees . Then the situation tighty described occurs. Still missing somthing?

then why say it in the text box ???
nah, don't wash

they say it in the text box so it looks like they have done it blind and are not colluding.

Am I just too suspicious?

before the cards are dealt they ARE doing it blind :D

The point of the exercise is to get one of them doubled up so yes they are doing it blind cos they havent seen their cards. This does not mean collusion has not taken place. The fact they havent seen their cards is completely irrelevant because they set it up before hand.

What they're doing is almost certainly not +$ev though, even in a sng I think. However is it as simple as saying if they have 50% of each other it's collusion if they're genuinly doing it for the gamble and have no piece of each other it's OK?

If they are just doing it for the gamble then there is no problem. Is having double the chips of your opponents after one hand a -ev play? I dont know but would be very interested to read peoples thoughts.

I mean if there're playing off the same roll ie if they genuinely are colluding this is a pretty poor way to do it I think. Not that I have given a lot of thought to what is the best way to collude. If you are playing normally then of course it's good to double up.

Lets take an example of say a £50 ten hand STT. £500 in the pool first pays £250 2nd £150 and 3rd £100 pretty standard online payout.

I suppose the question is would you be willing to pay £100 to start the comp with double the chips against 8 players? Does this give you enough of an edge over the field to make it worthwhile?

I actually dont know but i think you have a much higher chance of cashing than the rest, and will cash a lot more of the time.

Chip dumping in STT's is -EV


As for this situation i don't see anything wrong with it, i have done it both live and online, although always in a rebuy comp.

i dont think it is wrong. if they did have 50% in each other then they are better off playing until later on in the tourney then dumping. having double chips after 1 hand in a 400 runner tourney doesnt guarentee you will cash does it. i reckon it was just an idiot who won a £3 sat to get in and tried to gamble. anyway whats to say 1 or 2 other people wouldnt call the all in

Some of my comments in this thread seem a little strange now because it seems that someone has deleted a couple of their posts.

and considering they are seats 3 & 5, it's pretty dumb if it is collusion, as they have a few people still to act after them, any of whom could hold a strong hand

Lol - was player 1 lucky to find a real hand here or what? Would he have done it if he hadn't?

Player 2 was duped! :blonde:

PLayer 3 finds aces in the hole and you are both knocked out, tough luck :D

Why ?

I can't do the maths but you're effectively paying £110 to get 2000 chips say, but if you come 3rd you lose money. having 2000 chips obviously doesn't guarantee 2nd place.

Exactly, i mean chip dumping is always -EV as each chips you gather is worth 1 less to the previous chips, unless its a winner take all prize.

Now in a multi this is easy to overcome, however in an STT there is a very limited number of chips in play, any player that can overcome this initial -ev purchase is good enough to win anyway so would never bother.

Thanks

im must say flushie has come out with some great posts today in this and in brian's thread

np jezza and ty dan.

I don't for a moment think they are colluding, what I object to is the fact that they announced their intentions out of turn, thereby affecting the decision of other players

If I am on the button with 88 and the big blind says he is going to go all in, I may fold, he may have no intention of going all in but he is breaking the rules by declaring that he will do so before his turn

I saw actionjack do it at Luton and it was ruled ro be a moody

now that makes perfect sense, i understand completely.........defo report 'em.
i was thinking from the collusion side of things

I guess the difference is if you do this live your verbal declaration is binding? I was more concerned about the swearing etc, seems to be a given on Crypto to act like an ass clown in chat

I was wondering about this.... If someone says "I'm going all in next hand" and someone else announces they would call this all in would both players be bound?

live they would, online obviously not