Stakers & Stakees - Collusion issues in live MTTs

[cambridgealex]

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.

[dik9]

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.

[SuuPRlim]

you're misunderstanding I think

 I understand

I was pointing that at someone else lol

[SuuPRlim]

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

[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.

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 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.

[outragous76]

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!

[dik9]

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.

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.

[SuuPRlim]

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.
 

[SuuPRlim]

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.

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.

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...

[MANTIS01]

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.

[dik9]

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

[skolsuper]

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.

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.

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.

[dik9]

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.

[Boba Fett]

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.

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.

[skolsuper]

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.

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.