Swapping Percentages

[byronkincaid]

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?

[TightEnd]

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?

[byronkincaid]

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?

[Dingdell]

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.

[AceofWands]

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?

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.

 

[totalise]

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:

but there was a slight +EV effect as well (coming from the cardroom not the other players)

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.

[Sheriff Fatman]

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.

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

[Royal Flush]

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:

but there was a slight +EV effect as well (coming from the cardroom not the other players)

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.

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.

[Dingdell]

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.

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

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.

[TightEnd]

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'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.

[totalise]

its not all about the highest EV choice!

wtf

[byronkincaid]

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:

but there was a slight +EV effect as well (coming from the cardroom not the other players)

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.

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 )
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.

[TightEnd]

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

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

[totalise]

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

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 Cheesy )
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?

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

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.

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.

[byronkincaid]

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

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

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.