blonde poker forum

Provoked by the Monte Carlo this weekend, I thought I'd get a thread started about this.

It's commonplace by now for backers to put their horses into comps they themselves are playing in. Often a backer will have many horses playing in an individual event. If the backer goes deep then there's a reasonable chance one of his horses has gone deep too and they end up on the same table.

Now there's plenty of scope for intentional and indeed unintentional collusion.

The most basic scenario is the horse shoves and the backer has a hand strong enough to call and potentially knock out his horse. I don't know what the rules say about collusion but I imagine if caught folding aces, this would be penalised in some way. What about kings? What about more marginal situations where it's close either way?

Where do you draw the line?

If affected in any way by the fact that the player allin is a horse, does this make it collusion?

How is it proven? With the hole card technology used in the MC it makes things more transparent, but even with that, what can be done about it?

There was a big tourney in '05 I think it was, possibly the Bellagio $25k job that flushy just qualified for.

Anyhow Paul Maxfield from Stoke ended up on the final table three-handed with Tuan Le and another guy who had a piece of Le due to the fact that he had staked him into the tourney where he won his seat(these things can get complicated).

There were a few hands where questionable holdings were folded and aspertions were subsequently cast although having read through the hands at the time I didn't see anything that seemed obviously out of line. However I am a nit of some standing so you may have a completely different opinion if you look up the hands.

You can do zero about it


I want to fold AA on the bubble because I want to cash the fact that i'm folding to someone who I bought into the tournament can't be proven to be the reason, it may be bad but I can do what I want.


I am a live pro so I think that I 'might be racing' with my QQ so I make a disciplined fold.


How can you condemn people for cheating if they are just playing bad + especially if they don't know just how bad what they are doing is. Where do you draw the line is KK a bad fold if they are 'running bad' etc

With hole card cams and shared knowledge of who has backed who then it can lead to some very questionable spots. As usual there is no real way to police the game to the most ethical way. How many times do we need to have threads where people say "I know it should only be me playing my online account"..... and then say "but I don't think it's that bad/care that much etc" and so they let their mate play when their in the toilet, whilst they go to majorca etc.

There are alot of douschey people in the gambling/poker world (and in the world in general) so there are always going to be issues with stuff like this.

The TD always has the option to DeeQ people for not playing within the spirit of the game etc etc however without hole card cams they could never see the issues, and even with them they can only retrospectively punish someone, if they've already increased their equity then you can only punish them by stopping them from playing in the future.

It's hardly feasable to have everyone make known who has what pieces of what and even then poker is so 'situational' it's really hard to condemn the play someone makes. Especially preflop when everyone has equity obviously it's a different story on the river with a nut hand and just folding or something but those sort of spots are so much more obvious and clear cut.

You could say that someone who jams utter rags like jack and two over a limper is colluding with the limper...... xx :p

Nothing can be done about it as 99% of the time no ones going to see the hole cards anyway. Plus pretty much no-one who's smart enough to have a stable playing in a big live comp would fold aa/kk pre or anything with good equity anyway to their horse as they will always have a bigger incentive financially to win the tournament themselves than to in essence soft-play to their horse.

Similarly, more marginal spots that might be passed up could just be attributed to the lack of point in getting in higher variance spots with capable opponents in a field full of weak droolers.

Such a fascinating topic.  I think at the point at which you are willing to allow staked players to enter a tournament (and it is obviously very hard to stop it) then you have to expect players to seek to maximise their own personal EV and I don't see why that is a problem so long as it is transparent.  I do think that transparency should be overt though ie. at the beginning of a tournament maybe some kind of list could be provided of those staked into a tournament and who is staking them assuming both parties are playing then players can take possible soft play etc into consideration....that way it just simply becomes another skill element to the game.

Le went on to win it lol.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xklztx_hasan-habib-vs-tuan-le_videogames

Thanks for finding that.

Having watched it again a few years later I find that play fairly questionable myself now.

Things were different in 2005 obv, but still that's pretty dodgy.

It's more of an issue when horse has say 200k, Backer has 1m. Horse reships over an open, backer is the big stack and finds AQ/99-JJ. Taking the 200k won't increase his equity in the comp hugely, but taking out the horse will obv reduced the horses equity to 0, so it becomes +EV financially speaking to fold and keep the horse in.

You'd rather have two stacks in play than amalgamate them into 1 stack so there is always going to be issues in this kind of shiz.

This has been an issue for years and years. Pre-internet in the festivals in Vegas loads of staking went on.  Every now and then it resurfaces as a point of discussion.  The only solution is that any financial interest between players should be declared, but this is very difficult to enforce.

Andrews is a good post

When this happened, I posed the question about the incident to Paul Phillips on his blog  

http://extempore.livejournal.com/91375.html

Lol Alex.

Have nice Christmas and new year.

Btw jack got around 275k and still 4 people to

Act after me.

FTR, this thread was inspired by that hand Frankie, but it's not aimed at you AT ALL, just sparked a debate/discussion which interested me.

<3 CHIPPYMAN

i personally just think you should treat them as any other player; you wont be necessarily going out of your way to get involved/exploit them (because you bought a piece so i assume you rate their game). Play hard imo. Saves all the nonsense.

Not flaming u Frankie cos its still a tough spot but u were in the big blind

If i was playing against my mum id of stuck the JJ right in her eye!

I'm pretty sure he was SB as I was BB, The open was in the HJ/CO and Jack had shipped the Button. So he had me and the original raiser left to act.

This thread isn't about that hand though, it's about the issues it sparked.

Well you can look at it from the other side too, what if the horse starts jamming wider into the backer because they know they can't call?  Collusion?  Deliberately screwing the backer?  Or just playing well?

There was a hand in San Remo where I 3 bet a guy simply based on the fact I'd sold action to him and he couldn't really play back without a monster.  Scumbag?

Yeh :)

Regards,

Team Bowl

My view would be that it corrupts the game absolutely and completely if players have multiple undeclared financial interests in their competitors/opponents.

lol some solid hyperbole here.  What about if a guy folds AA on the bubble because the money means a lot to him because he's broke.  Is he meant to declare how busto he is pre tournament?

Would you want to play a tournament where all of your opponents played from the same stable/backer? Not trying to be argumentative by the way, just seems to me like it is bound to create situations where collusion is almost unavoidable.

yep

Well yes, there is no incentive between horses to battle each other so that would just be business as normal.  If it was a conglomerate of 50 backers and 50 of their horses in the tournament and I couldn't identify who was a backer and who was a horse but everyone else knew it would be a bit odd.  But I probably still wouldn't mind.  Especially if I get to bust some of Keys' horses

OK cool, I´m sure you´ve thought this through in a fair bit more depth than I have (we´ll probably agree to disagree a little). Back to the christmas celebrations for me. Congrats on all the success in the last year, very impressive.

lol  Ahrt

I think this is a great thread and opens questions about where we want our sport/game to go in the future. If we want poker to be anything but a niche sport then this kind of thing needs to be discussed throughout the game. It is not good for major events to be seen in this light. It has always been my opinion ( my opinion which I am entitled to ) that deals should not be allowed in European ranking events as they devalue the event.
      As staking is widespread in the game I think that at the start of a final table in a European ranking/major event any such relevant financial involvement should be stated as it will have at sometimes but not allways have a bearing on the dynamic of the play at that final table.

how is that realistically possible?


If I have a well known staking agreement with a horse and he is on the same ft it will be easy enough for people to know about, if an utter random I put in happens to luckbox his way there and not a single person except the two of us know then why should we tell anyone. At what point does it become collusion.


In the poker world I really cant imagine you'd get people being 'that' honest about who stakes who, it'd be so funny to hear who truly actually has money and which large proportion of the field is put in by other people. When someone is listed as anonymous do we get to know what financial deals they have done if they FT etc etc?

Rupert made an excellent point in his post in that it works both ways. When I sit down at a cash game with a close friend even if no word has been spoken between us there would be a shared knowledge that we are most likely to win more money off other people than each other, and that there is no point us playing super aggressively against each other and trying to push small edges. For that reason we often end up absolutely spacking it off with weak holdings and then look like utter goons (this deffo didn't just happen in prague with K high sigh). Is it collusion that we are going to showdown with terribly weak holdings in large pots,or is it just that were both utterly terrible?!


Similarly imagine I am playing in a 9 handed game of liveaments. To my right I have my favourite poker player Stuart Bopkin, he is grinding away like a true hero. He raises and I am on the dolly with dem Aces, it just also so happens that the two fair gentlemen in the blinds are utter spewboxes who are desperate to wager all their betting discs. Is it working together with Bopkin if I flat call to bring the two kind sirs into the hand rather than 3bet and potentially push them both out of the pot? If I am friends with Stuart is it collusion even though we have never mentioned anything with regards to this preflop spot? In many cases though a 3bet can show a profit and is a good play, it can be more profitable to flat call and allow the weaker players in with hands that play well in that type of spot, by doing so it allows the bopkinator to see a flop and realise equity and sometimes stack me/the fish however it is still the best play for me preflop. So have I colluded with the Bopkin etc etc.

At the other end of the spectrum I don't play much more than £300 freezeouts and there have been occasions were I have myself layed down hands to mates/horses when normally I would have stuck it in the eye of my opponent.  However, I would be far less likely to do this at the business end of a tournament.

I hate also to sit in a cash game with mates as well as I sometimes play differently especially when I know financially they shouldn't be in the game.  

I just think its human nature to look out for the interests of backers/mates/horses.

[/b]

Respect your honesty !

If anybodies horse or backer was on the same table for sure It would be better to stay out of each others way so both players can go as deep as possible . We all know this happens ! , its when it gets into the realms of chip dumping  ,passing premium hands  or even sharing information on hole cards etc it becomes a big problem

One just has to try  and be extra vigilant !

one point to start is that it's impossible to be collusive if one person isnt aware he's colluding. if a horse makes a play and its on his back er to act and the backer (in thought processes completely separate to the actions of the horse) is influenced to make a different decision by the fact he has a financial interest in the horse then this is 100% fine imo, the horse is affect 0EV by the change anyway (obviously in a vacuum he is going to show a profit/loss one way or the other) we're trying to make decisions to maximize profit and that, imo is completely fine, within the spirit of the game and NOT cheating (that spot when they are 3 handed on the final is the only exception to where it starts to get sticky....)

It's also works the other way, your horse jams and you decide to make a much lighter call because you believe this is in your best interests is that colluding as well?

I also don't think it's anyone's business to know who stakes who, there are loads of external influences that will affect anyone's decision making, spose I had a fight with my girlfriend before I left the house and was in a really aggro mood, spose I'd won the seat and desperate to cash, spose me and my friend on the other table had a bet where the first person to 4bet Jc 6h wins £200 am i sposed to declare this to you all as well?

There is ofc going to be a ton of grey area's but allowing the fact you stake one of the players to influence your decision making, is imo completely fine and I actually think NOT doing so is pretty bad. if the horse picks up on adaptations your making to him then he 100% needs to exploit that, as it's more +ev to him.

"spose I had a fight with my girlfriend "

Bluff.

no matter how air i pump into that thing she just won't stay inflated. mad tilt, makes me wanna jam T7o every hand in tournaments

Image post now. Just picking em off for fun

(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/281500_2333288451868_1239482695_32956246_6308112_n.jpg)

<3 you carla

Surely there is a bunch of stuff in the 3rd paragraph that could never be viewed as cheating/colluding and some stuff in the first paragraph that clearly could?  If you are letting the staking affect your play then it is unethical, if you aren't then it is fine.  Writing NOT in capitals doesn't make it right?  Even if you declare your conflict of interest and let the staking effect your play then I think you are still on the unethical side.

This is all easier to see if we assume it is a double or nothing sit and go, people would be quicker to pour scorn on your words, and I am not sure this is really much different.  "eg I raise folded my SB to my horse in the BB in a double or nothing sit and go.  We are trying to make decisions to maximize profit and that, imo is completely fine, within the spirit of the game and NOT cheating"

Obviously it isn't nearly as bad as my example, or flashing cards at your horse etc, but still not entirely legit either.

Merry christmas all.

Great subject.

Looks like there is no perfect answer.

I dont see a problem myself really, it is just part of the game in the same way that if im sitting next to my best mate on one side and someone i dont know is on the other its probably going to influence my decision making. its not cheating.

I dont think a stable master would enter a tourny if he had 10 horses in it (that would cause problems), but if he had 1 or 2 then maybe he would and it wouldnt matter to me.

The beauty of poker is there are literally millions of things that can effect, this is just one.

you're misunderstanding I think

The horse is doing nothing, he acts independently and the backer is then faced with a decision and factors in the equity he wins or loses by certain things happening to the financial interest in his horse.

If the plan was to raise, then fold so your horse has more chips that is OFC cheating. If you make a call, raise or fold influenced in some way by the fact you have financial interest in another player that is absolutely fine, and I'd certainly be considering it as its my "equity" and my decisions aren't trying to increase/decrease equity of other player/my horse individually (as in trying to win chips of X to give to Y) I'm just making independent decisions that I think increase my equity in any given situations

Some godawful posts itt so far, not naming any names (titbeam, not sure if serious?), and tbh when I saw the title I rolled my eyes a bit because I thought I would rather the thread didn't exist and this complex issue was swept back under the carpet. However, now it's out in the open I think some good points have been made and it definitely is worth discussing.

Personally, I would be all for a 'full disclosure' policy to create a level playing field, it'd be great to know which players had what % of themselves and who satted in etc, and everyone knowing that everyone knows would create an interesting dynamic. My only concern, as a backer myself, would be an over-zealous TD seeing chip-dumping and soft-play where there is none. I don't want to have to be constantly trying to second-guess what a certain TD considers an 'acceptable fold' in order to avoid a penalty. For that reason, and the problem of how to enforce the rule on people who don't want to declare their interest willingly, I think the rule is unworkable.

Why would you want it swept under the carpet? I think it can only ever be a good thing to have these things discussed, although I, like you can't see there ever being a workable rule.

 I understand, just not to the best at writing it down....

I agree with skol, its a big discussion/good topic but a pointless one at the same time as any solution is going to be unworkable. unless anyone can say different?

As a TD this is a really grey area for me as explained in Augusts Grand Prix thread, last couple of pages.

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=54787.360

What is the difference between pre tourney saver/% or during?

If it affects play it is essentially wrong.

With large stables it is possible for example 5 out of 6 players belonging to that stable being the 6th player I would not feel very comfortable if I knew, if I didn't know and found out later I would be calling foul.

Two short stacks 3 handed go for a fag and agree to have % of each other without the CL knowing........... right or wrong? What's the difference?

As a TD if I know %'s have been swapped pre should it be my duty to inform the rest of the players, as if I found out %'s were swapped during a FT without everyones knowledge then I would stop the comp there and then.


I share this concern, obviously a TD will have to way up whether some decisions are bad play or soft play, the chances are if the TD knows "friends" are on the table then all of a sudden bad play is auto seen as soft play, leaving the outcome entirely in the TD's hands. All of a sudden a TD's "opinion" has now shaped the whole outcome. With all the RFID technology and hole cards being shown everything is scrutinised so you are damned if you do and damned if you dont because all of a sudden it is not about the players play it is about the TD's interpretation of the play.

It would be poor of me to sweep it under the carpet, although to be completely honest I would rather not know and assume everyone was playing to win for themselves rather than getting their horse to ladder at the expense of someone else. With hole card technology becoming more popular it does need to be addressed. It may mean that in the future play is reviewed after the event a bit like a stewards enquiry, money withheld until a panel looks at it, rather than an individuals opinion. I am not saying that will happen but just a thought.

Why godawful other than the fact I don't write goods.

That's an idea, if anyone calls foul play over an incident, there's a post tournament inquiry and the footage is examined by several TDs or whatever to decide whether any rules were broken or if clear collusion has taken place.

Also, it isn't about all about the cards. It is the cough that appears or the tap of the table etc which is communicating with said horse that will always be seen as cheating. Squeezing players is almost always between savers.

I was pointing that at someone else lol

I guess the main point is you cannot expect someone not to take a decision that is (in ther opinion) optimally profitable due to an ethical grey area.

Every tries to do the best for themselves whilst operating non-collusivly and acting within the written and ethical boundaries of the game.

+1keys the "full disclosure" policy 100% not an option cos it's easy to cheat and impossible to police. poker is a game of imperfect information anyways, everytime I'm at a table I generally know something about a player that gives me an advantage over someone who doesn't know it, and visa verca - just part of the game imo

I didnt want it swept anywhere, just left where it was (under the carpet). Was just saying I initially felt like this was gonna end in some kind of hassle for me that I cannot be arsed with.

Edit: @dik9: I had the same thought re: stewards, imo full disclosure with the TD not interfering in real-time, delaying payments and getting a panel to rule on things afterwards is probably the absolute fairest way of dealing with it, but faced with all these practicalities I think people would prefer the status quo, and I don't think there's a middle ground.

I used to play in a game twice weekly where about 20% of the field shared action!

It took me a while but you can use it your advantage if you know! Problem is when you get to the final with 8 of them!

That's fine, unfortunately the status quo, is at the TD's discretion once again (so peeps better trust the TD :) )

Another point in question on the subject of horses which again is a grey area for me, should a backer have a say in a proposed deal at the table? It seems that nowadays if a deal is proposed a large % have to phone or ask a backer. Even worse a deal is proposed by a player who has a stake in a short stack at the table.

the only thing I don't like about these types of discussions is that they make people think there is a big problem out there when personally I don't really think there is.

I remember a hand I played, maybe 3 or 3.5 years ago at DTD as it happens I had come down to notts with a guy I knew from Leeds poker (an older guy) 10 left I had a monster stack and he was short-stacked, he jammed UTG2 and it folded to me with ATs in the BB, I had a feeling I should fold cos "he was my mate" and we'd swapped 20% (I had him covered by over 15x IIRC) BUT I also didn't feel like this was 100% ethical and we'd not discussed anything either. I did call and he was a bit pissed at me saying I should defo fold (he had J6s or something and shoved because it was my BB and thought that i'd fold anything not high premium), I asked someone in Leeds who is "old school" and he said I should have 100% folded as well (he was driving me there and back as well), the consensus was that JJ+ and AK I could not fold as it was bad form but everything else I can, two other people I asked and they all said the same thing. Interesting.
 

Why wouldn't the guy with a horse on the final with him use the fact he has financial interest in one of the other players to try get himself a better deal? after all he was on the hook for 2 buyins to the event before it started?

This is the point I'm stuck on - I just don't think (as long as no shady behaviour has taken place) that using the fact you have a horse deep in a tournament with you to try increase your EV/profit/equity is in any way colluding or un-ethical in the slightest, I'm going to go as far as to say the backer would be pretty foolish not to. Lets not forget all the times the entire K&K stable brick the monte carlo and they've done 6bags...

I think this is a very complicated subject with a lot of grey areas which could be debated and deconstructed for an enternity without ever arriving at a universally acceptable conclusion. So best to keep things simple. Any decision you take in a tournament that isn't in the best interests of you winning that tournament is pussy play.

And all I am saying, is that if it affects play (rightly or wrongly) then the boundaries have changed somewhat.

Technically the backer isn't directly involved, the horse isn't obliged to listen to the guy on the end of the phone, at least he has no obligation to you anyway. And yes if the backer is also a player of course they veto any deal proposed, same as the other players can veto any deal they propose.

I am not on about vetoing (is that a word), I am on about a proposal of a deal from someone who has another stake on the table (that maybe undeclared) to ensure a small stack gets more than they should. Or a deal like lets all take x and play for the rest etc.

I dont think this idea could ever work.  Its a total freeroll for the person losing the hand to go back and challenge.  If the challenge goes against them they lose nothing, if the challenge goes in their favour for some reason or other they will gain chips/ladder a spot or whatever and these decisions will be made my TD's who were not playing in the tournament, were not sat at the table, do not have the same info on the players at the table and the dynamics of the table as the player they are going to make a retrospective ruling on.  Then there is the chance for bias, local TD making a ruling later on softplay after a complaint by a local reg in a hand against any random player or something like that, it could be open to accusations of players just having money stolen from them afterwards.

Like I said, the other players are free to decline that. Even if they don't know that the proposer of the deal stands to gain, they can see that the short stack is gaining and can allow/not allow that as they wish.

Backers & horses help the numbers and prize pools so its v positive in that way, certain scenarios might benefit them but it swings and roundabouts really. Imo its not a big enough issue/problem at the moment but thats not to say one day it becomes a problem. The appeal thing is a no go for me, just not part of the age old game, changes the dynamics to much and creates even more grey areas + more work for TD's

if it was a prestigous tourney then id factor my ego incentive into my decision making, but if the oppo comes along to make more money by doing X than Y and it isn't cheating I'm doing X and there still isn't a single good reason in this thread why I shouldn't

I watched this nature programme the other day about an organisation which introduces leopards back into the wild. After rearing the leopard cubs to adolescence they were chipped and released. Their progress in the wild was monitored after their release and some of the cubs fared better than others. A couple of the leopards didn’t do so well. I think one struggled to hunt and got very thin and another got sick. Throughout the programme the organisation stressed that they had a strict policy of nonintervention. They explained that no matter what happens the natural order of events needed to play out unhindered and didn’t want to intervene and change things. Every time I watch shows like that I hear this doctrine upheld with such conviction. There isn’t a single good reason why people should be so passionate about this stance. I mean the people in that organisation worked very hard to rear the cubs in the first place so they had a big emotional investment in seeing the cubs do well. Also they had a financial stake in their leopard’s success because they would only receive continued funding if their project was successful. As a viewer I always think this is bullshit. I mean why not give the leopards you’ve got a stake in a little helping hand and surely they’ve got a better chance to succeed. Give that sick leopard some fecking leopard medicine ffs. But no way, those people are convinced interfering in the natural order of things is the worse thing you can do. Why do they think that?

I think a poker tournament is an organic entity. So intervening disrupts the natural way a comp will pan out and I think it’s almost impossible to judge whether that intervention will be beneficial when you make your decisions.

Your horse shoves and you on the dolly with what you think is the best hand. You fold to preserve your spread of equity. However bb snaps and wins when he would have folded if you called. How did that decision work out? If you had called you horse wins and you both stay in. So actually you haven’t preserved your spread of equity you’ve increased an oppo’s equity. Alternatively your horse gets his shove through when you would have knocked him out if you called. This disrupts the natural order of the cards because rather than 9 handed game it’s still 10 handed and you get coolered and busted next hand. Or horse stays in and busts your own ass in a couple of orbits and then gets knocked out himself couple of hands later. Too many scenarios to mention. There is no way to know whether your intervention actually increases your equity or not and if what you're doing is beneficial to you or your horse. It’s just better to play things out the way they should be played out. Prefer my first answer though. It's pussy play to fold the best hand cos your special poker friend makes a bet.

This made me lol, he expected you not to call because you knew him but it was aright for him to take advantage and nick your BB.

lol Mantis, loved the leopard story, even it is was a touch random...

Just like any decisions you'll face one in a poker tournament you have to do so with imperfect information, big holes that you plug with a bunch of different resources but it will always ultimately be educated guesswork.

I'm not talking about spots specifically where you're calling or folding to an all in, there are loads of spots where you might wanna adjust your play vs a horse of yours cos you reckon it makes you more money - won't necessarily benefit the horse, could easily hinder him, thats fine as well.

Personally I wouldn't be too bothered about upsetting the natural flow as every hand is a new one etc etc

Of course there's tons of spots where you'd adjust your play vs a horse, but you know the thing about these spots? They'll never change. Nor should we intervene to change these spots. Why not? Because of Mantis' leopards. They never change their spots.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR

boys and girls..hope u all have a good one.

i am gald there r 2 ways this matters been looking in2.

all the best and c u all soon.

x x x x

FRANKIE

 ;letsparty; ;thankyou; ;letsparty;

Merry Christmas Chippyman :)

Hope you have something other than Fish and Chips tomorrow :D xxx

Seems like you're just saying ignorance is an acceptable excuse here - if you open the button planning to fold to your horse's 15x shove to chip him up then its collusion, but if you open the button without a plan, see his shove, think 'I have a financial interest in this player' and fold because of it then it's ok?

Say you're in a tournament on the bubble and you decide to fold a marginal hand to a shove that you would have called were it not the bubble, i.e. if winning the tournament were your one and only goal, you would have called, but the ICM play is a fold (you want to lock up a cash before gambling for the win, in live-speak). Is that a pussy play? Also you are a leopard

Thats not going to happen though is it. Any backer who will open the btn without any consideration for the blinds stack sizes doesn't have enough knowledge of the game to use his horse to increase his equity.

If I open the button, with A6, the SB has 15bb's and my Horse is in the BB with 15bbs, I could make the plan min the button, call the SB's shove and fold to my Horses's shove, this would be fine because.

1) My play is (imo) profitable because of the stnd reasons why we open A6 OTB here,

2) I am happy the SB is 3b jamming wide enough to justify a call if he jams

3) Whereas I think my Horse might be jamming a similar range to that of the SB, because I have interest in him, folding to his Jam increases my equity in the tournament more than calling would (fwiw this is JUST an example it would almost certainly be more equitable to call, but for the sake of example this is the conclusion I've reached)

There has never been a word spoken between myself or my horse on this subject so it's in no way collusive - he might pick up on the fact that I'm likely to call tighter vs him here and use this to his advantage to Jam wider, just like the SB might realise we'll be calling him wider and adapt it to his advantage to jam this spot tighter. We're all using all the information we have to make decisions that maximize our equity - INDEPENDENTLY. completely, completely fine, and imo it just isn't cheating in the slightest.

http://www.pokertda.com/custom_posts/view-official-tda-rules/

50:   Penalties and Disqualification

A penalty may be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, throws a card off the table, violates the one-player-to-a-hand rule, or similar incidents occur. Penalties will be invoked in cases of soft play...

53:   Ethical Play

Poker is an individual game. Soft play will result in penalties, which may include forfeiture of chips and/or disqualification. Chip dumping and/or all other forms of collusion will result in disqualification.


http://www.pokerstars.co.uk/poker/rules/tournaments/#6

Unethical Play
20.Poker is an individual (not a team) game. Any action or chat intended to help another player is unethical and is prohibited. Unethical play, such as soft-play (playing less aggressively against a partner) and chip dumping (intentionally losing chips to a partner), may result in penalties, including seizure of funds from the offender's account and/or termination of the account.

I've played at the recent Monte Carlo at a table with cheesies, (if it is you Ben, this is Adam.) and ended up on a table with one of my best friends who'd arrived at the tourney with me and was stopping at my house etc. We'd swapped 10% and i don't feel like it changed my action ever, and i don't feel like it would when we were deep either but possibly my calling ranges would be tighter even though i ESP him in every hand we play.  However, when i was starting out i was in the final 4 of a tourney with a 3k prizepool, and there came a situation were i took a deal because of other people in the field. My dad had backed me for a few months and had 50% of my action in this tourney too, i don't think i had any of his. At the final the chip stacks were something like:

Me 150k
Dad 95k
Player 1 110k
Player 2 180k

At this point the blinds are quite big and everyone is short and the chip leader offers a deal for the prizepool to be split. I definitely felt like i had an edge and wouldn't have taken the deal if my dad wasn't a) in the field. b) the shortest stack

Now at this point not calling with the ATs becomes very wrong and i think my dad would expect nothing less, even though i know plenty of older players who would disagree with this completely. Does the stakee/staker problem become more of a problem at higher stakes? Should the money really matter?

Once made the final table of the monthly tourn at blackpool g. my mother also made the final. i knocked her ass out in 9th place even tho i had 50% of her and went on to chop it 3 ways for 1.5k

But could you ever quantify your lost tea time equity and balance that vs chip equity?
Does sng wiz have this feature yet?

Playing fair>>>>>getting smaller tea portions

Sorry but the one person I would make an exception for is my mum. I'd even fold aces face up

she's usually got the bulleys and I've usually got the cowboys :(

Really really surprised at a lot of this.  Don't get me wrong, I've heard of plenty of scams going down for <£5, so I am sure plenty of people are going to be pulling strokes all over the place any time decent money is involved.

But is it really that hard just to do the right thing?  Play as if you would against anyone else, (i.e. totally on the up) it really isn't giving up much at all, and certainly far less than compromising your own integrity by making a play against a horse that gives you a theo of a few lousy bucks when you know that other players in the tourny have been disadvantaged by your actions.

Make every decision in good faith and all these threads go away.

no-one has yet to suggest a single good reason why your decision making being influenced by you being vs your horse if all the action is non-collusive is a bad thing and what damage it causes?

you claiming it's not collusion is merely semantics. call it softplay if you like

if I'm in the bb, my horse shoves on me from the small, his stack is a tiny percentage of mine, can you honestly not see that me folding aces is wrong? he doesn't know I'm going to do it so your argument would say it's not collusion but it's clearly a bad thing and it clearly damages the integrity of the tournament

In gatso's example, I could be in the bb and I might decide to fold AA.  If I did, the only reason I could think of would be that I want to prolong the bubble/ladder jump as lots of mid-stacks are playing passively.  I could do that in 100% good faith that it was for that purpose - the fact that a horse happened to be in the hand would have nothing to do with it.  Don't think anyone would believe me though if I turned my hand over :)

Now a more likely scenario.  I am in the sb with a bowl on the money bubble.  The button has a decent stack with KK v the BB's AA and large stack.  Unfortunately, they are horse and backer which I am unaware of.  As the sb, I'm robbed of what should be an elimination opportunity.  The rest of the table are denied the increase in equity that this mandatory clash should provide.

It just isn't right.  People have posted that playing for your friends while he takes a leak is wrong, (I agree) but don't think that this is wrong?  I don't get it.

Nobody did anything wrong to prompt this thread

merry xmas mr. key

Everyone is taking the extreme examples and they usually go against my argument. In the example you have given with ACES (lets ignore the ethical side of it) this will pretty much always be a losing fold regardless of the stacks to fold, so if you were to fold it would be extremely shady behavior. It would almost certainly fall into the "softplay" penalty's in doobs post...HOEVER....IT IS 100% not collusion because it's one person's individual action. So the horse couldn't be punished. Like I said earlier people should just try and make the most profitable decisions they can, with the info they have inside the written and ethical codes of the game.

The examples I'm making are in closer, more marginal situations (not even calling or folding to shoves prolly half the time) just spots where you set about making a plan for the hand and allow it to be influenced by the fact your horse is in the hand, I think this is fine and no-one has presented a reason why aside from "Everyone should just play the tournament as it should have been played" but surely the tournament "should" be played with everyone trying to maximize there profit at every opportunity?

I didn't even read OP, so that may well be true.  But I did happen across some of the replies, which I disagree with strongly.


Don't allow it :)


You really wouldn't enjoy playing in a tournament where that was the case.

I think the National Geographic channel is a good resource for learning about tournament poker strategy. So moving on to natural wild leopards now. I saw that the mommy leopard takes incredible care of her cubs and brings them food throughout their development and will even lay her life on the line to protect them from harm. However, when the cubs reach a certain age she drives them away, very sad. This one time the mommy leopard caught an antelope and one of her cubs was still hanging around being unable to fend for itself. It came over to try and get a little bit of food and the mommy leopard was very aggro and would not give her cub a single mouthful. Turns out that mommy leopard is certain that it's much better for her cub to stand on it's own two feet and get it's own food without a helping hand. Leopard expert says the cub has much better chance of life success if he fights to sustain itself rather than being sustained with help from it's mommy. There's plenty of food around for both so can't think of one single reason why mommy would refuse to help the cub she has a big genetic stake in to survive. So we have mommy leopard refusing to intervene and we have those charity guys refusing to intervene and help. Seems being leopard isn't easy and it's on it's own in the jungle and everybody thinks that is the best way. Why is it best way?

Like George I would prob pussy play my mommy. I would also pussy play my girlfriend chiefly because I like sex and the occasional hot meal, but this isn't natural or right. Think Girgy has shown the best leopard instincts in this thread and would prob survive best in the wild. Eye of the tiger that fella. Of course the only reason the bubble is exploitable is because of pussy play. If everybody played to win at all times you couldn't exploit the bubble. Hence pussy play is a weakness in a player. And it makes your horse a weaker player. This is fact of nature.

Also, don't agree that each hand is a separate entity but linked to all previous hands. The way you play this hand is directly linked to the image and chip power you've accumulated during previous hands. Why would somebody tilt in this hand if it had nothing to do with last hand? Dangerous to disrupt the natural chain of events and no proof it does good rather than harm. There's some other stuff I've learnt about honey badgers and poker as well. 

so sick that tighty decided that advent calendars only have 24 doors. def deprived mantis of a spot

:(

Thanks for shipping the 25p on stars Gatso.

I'm going to grim him anyway

np, a pleasure doing business with you

assume this is a level? This is a REINTRODUCTION i assume; meaning that the leopard no longer exists naturally in that area. The conservationists are aiming to recreate natural selection to enable a healthy leopard population for the long-term. This leads to wanting a healthy genetic base for the population. Helping out some sick leopard has negative knock-on effects; if the leopard cant hunt and somehow reproduces, then it dilutes in combination with the mates hunting instinct which is transferred to the next generation. Endup with leopards which are unable of existing without human interference. shit, im hungover, this was a level right?

:\

^^ oops.

Not sure what point you're trying to make tbh mantis, that any action not 100% trying to win chips is immoral or unethical? Fwiw, I think trying to describe a poker tournament in 'nature' terms is farcical. Granted there is chaos theory stuff going on and actions have unforseeable consequences, but it's a human construct. Who's to say what the 'natural' action is in any given situation? Answer me this: 9-handed, I am dealt 72o utg, but instead of folding, I decide to raise for some reason, maybe it's mitch's big blind or something, basically any reason other than I think it's a profitable play. Right or wrong?

"Er nash ranges and sizes only at the table please" - Floorman, Moon series of poker 2068

Everyone loves talking about the animals imo. You want to talk more about this farcical subject right? Whole thread has made me cry with laughter every time I’ve opened it. It’s damn good thread.

You think it’s absurd to bring natural analogies into the subject of poker because the game is of human construct right? Since the dawn of time man has used natural analogies to explain human behaviour and makeup. I mean it’s something which is engrained into the fabric of our very being as people, from religion to psychology to philosophy to everything. It’s normal to use natural analogies today. You can be cunning as a fox, wise as an owl. My gf came home from the shops over xmas and said it was a jungle out there, lol. Associating animals to the different types of poker players around a table is quite a classic poker strategy. Also fish/shark which are symbolic terms in the game. Farce to say fish play poker?

In a poker tournament people often say the cream will rise to the top. So the strongest players should naturally populate final tables whilst the weaker players and the unlucky players get killed off. Isn’t this the way it should be? Like natural selection right? Them strong leopards survive and them weak or unlucky leopards die. So natural selection is a very nice way to think about a poker tournament in actual fact.

Anyway, honey badgers are intelligent solitary animals. They are notoriously fearless and tough competitors out in the wild. They are tireless in combat and will savagely attack much stronger animals who want to mess with them. This means that wherever they go the honey badger gets respected by all the other animals. I reckon honey badger would make for a good poker player. Being such a fierce competitor it’s instinct would drive honey badger to make profitable plays all of the time. If I play in serious poker tournament I play like honey badger. Sure, you personally don't have to play strongly or seriously if you don't want to. This will undoubtedly effect your survival expectations.

Nature experts say that when cheetah cubs are born they have this thick coat to mimic that of honey badger. This is a great defence because other animals think shit it’s honey badge better not mess. So when you raise UTG with 7-2 or soft play anyone you aren’t fierce competitor honey badger poker player anymore. You are actually weak underneath the tough looking exterior. You are actually cheetah. When the other predators find out you are just cheetah cub that looks like honey badger you lose their respect because you are no threat. Rightly so too. You are completely free to choose whatever animal you want to be in poker tournament jungle skolsuper, (except honey badger as I bagsy it first), you can be cheetah cub if you want thou. Think Grigy is already leopard so not that either.

I really don't get why. If what you mean is it would make then tougher to win you need to notice I said trying to maximize profit and also I hate playing them anyway cos they are sht and I never win :(

So you're saying... wrong?

What animal are you?

I AM MAN.

I reckon I'd be a mole.

Lol Girgy you crack me up.

Only rules can say what is right and wrong. The rules Doobs quoted are going to be difficult to apply to every unique situation as we have seen in this debate so don’t think rule application can work. And declaring of financial interests would be impossible to implement. So I would prefer to talk about the right and wrong attitude. Hence using these fun animal analogies to solve a problem that can’t be solved otherwise.

Think human is bad choice. Animal doesn’t level itself into doing something unnatural when hunting prey, just employs best strategy to take down the prize. Instinct to survive and triumph is paramount and nonnegotiable, just happens naturally. I think that is the right attitude. So you can try and defend straying from the right attitude but in doing so you are saying you aren’t as ruthless and skillful at the game as you could be and the other animals will respect you less because of it. Don’t necessarily think that is wrong just not how I would play the game or how I like the game to be played.

Don’t know why you don’t just choose an animal? Btw is that a real photo of Boba in his avatar? In our growing band of merry creatures we have honey badger, leopard, cheetah cub and now hippo.

Lololol and now also mole. Just need Tikay to play part of Noah and analogy goes biblical.

Here we go, a really nice, certainly intelligent guy is about to make an absolute cock of himself in a thread.

Now where is that ignore button again

rofl!

Mantis' posts are the most interesting in this thread.

_{(blatent effort to get into sig)}

mantis plz don't put cf in your Sig

Mantis' posts aren't even about this thread, he's amusing himself doing some kind of 'playful' thing, not quite sure what's going on exactly, I just know seeing earnest old i'llsmashyourfacein mantis talking about having fun and writing "lololol" is really creepy and weird, like when Gordon Brown did that youtube video.

I love Mantis

tikay deffo getting bumped now...