Stakers & Stakees - Collusion issues in live MTTs

[Claw75]

Thanks for shipping the 25p on stars Gatso.

I'm going to grim him anyway

[gatso]

Thanks for shipping the 25p on stars Gatso.

np, a pleasure doing business with you

[AlexMartin]

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.

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?

[Boba Fett]

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. 

:\

[skolsuper]

^^ 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?

[Rupert]

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

[MANTIS01]

^^ 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?

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.

[SuuPRlim]

but surely the tournament "should" be played with everyone trying to maximize there profit at every opportunity?

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

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

[skolsuper]

^^ 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?

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.

So you're saying... wrong?

[Girgy85]

^^ 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?

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.

So you're saying... wrong?

What animal are you?

[skolsuper]

^^ 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?

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.

So you're saying... wrong?

What animal are you?

I AM MAN.

[SuuPRlim]

I reckon I'd be a mole.

[MANTIS01]

^^ 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?

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.

So you're saying... wrong?

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.

[MANTIS01]

I reckon I'd be a mole.

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

[outragous76]

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