Stakers & Stakees - Collusion issues in live MTTs

[tteeeeee]

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

[SuuPRlim]

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.

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

[MANTIS01]

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.

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.

[bobAlike]

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.
 

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.

[SuuPRlim]

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

[cambridgealex]

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.

[CHIPPYMAN]

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

 

[cambridgealex]

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

 

Merry Christmas Chippyman

Hope you have something other than Fish and Chips tomorrow xxx

[cheesies]

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

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?

[skolsuper]

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

[SuuPRlim]

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

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?

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.

[Doobs]

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.

[rfgqqabc]

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?

[Girgy85]

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

[outragous76]

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?