Stakers & Stakees - Collusion issues in live MTTs

[Raman]

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.

[FUN4FRASER]

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?

[/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 !

[SuuPRlim]

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 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.

[Dubai]

"spose I had a fight with my girlfriend "

Bluff.

[SuuPRlim]

"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

[Dubai]

Image post now. Just picking em off for fun

[SuuPRlim]

<3 you carla

[Doobs]

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 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.

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.

[tteeeeee]

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.

[SuuPRlim]

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

[skolsuper]

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.

[cambridgealex]

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.

[tteeeeee]

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

 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?

[dik9]

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.

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.

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.

[titaniumbean]

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