+EV SNG proposition?

[Roman]

I friend offered to play sngs with me and split all winnings 50/50. Assuming no collusion and the standard Pokerstars payouts, how would the dynamics of you playing two players in a SNG instead of one change your EV? We are both capable, winning players with him being more aggressive early so he can get paid off late and me being tight early to steal blinds late.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

[Graham]

[ QUOTE ]
how would the dynamics of you playing two players in a SNG instead of one change your EV?

[/ QUOTE ]


It is collusion if your EV changes. That's pretty much the definition of it.

[cagedman]

Assuming you're not communicating, the combined delta-EV should be negative for the pair. If the average player is worse than the average of the pair, it's -EV because less deadish money on the table. In other words, each member of the pair is going to have less prize equity than playing alone.

Oh and assuming the average player is BETTER (from a prize-equity standpoint) than the average of the pair, you're going to lose money; you'll just lose slightly less than if you each played seperate SNGs out of the same br. (In other words, -EV, +delta-EV).

In other words, it's bad if you're winning players, and better alhough losing if you're losing players.

[NotMitch]

From an EV stand point it is bad. 2 firsts in two different SnG's is better than a 1-2 finish in one SnG. I also think it is unethical.

[cagedman]

Combined with my previous post.

[Roman]

players taking peices of eachother isnt cheating, they do it all the time.

[PrayingMantis]

There was a very long discussion on RGP about players playing from the same bankroll, but not colluding, at a final table of a multi. The question was in regard to the other players' EV, IIRC, and there were many opinions.

The bottom line, for me at least, is that I would be very unhappy to know that 2 players at my table are "playing together", even without communicating. SNGs are full with situations in which you put pressure on specific player because of X or Y reason. It is only natural that players who share prize money will tend to be soft on each other, and by that hurting a third player EV in some situations.

I don't see why you can't play from the same bankroll, but not at the same game? There are SO many games to play in...

[Roman]

its fun to discuss hands and situations with a friend?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
its fun to discuss hands and situations with a friend?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm pretty sure it's also fun to collude? So?

[stupidsucker]

SO you can honestly say that when your on the bubble you will still try to knock each other out? Playing like you dont know each other?

Bullshit.
You will dump chips to each other if possible and only go after the other two players.

Playing together in a SNG is cheating unless you honestly play like they are just another opponent. I cant see how you would do that. I believe the term for helping someone on the bubble is softplaying, and it is against the rules.

[wjmooner]

4 handed, you have around 5000, so does another guy. Your friend and another guy each have around 600 or so. Your friend pushes. You find AA in the BB. Should you call? Of course. Do you? I hope so, but it should never be a question.

Slowplaying is just as much a part of cheating as IMing your cards to your friend. Check out Mattias Anderson's World Series Report in the WPT etc. section where he admits to slowplaying against a friend. He should have to give his winnings back, seriously.

C

[Marcotte]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the term for helping someone on the bubble is softplaying, and it is against the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

In TPFAP, Sklansky points out that the chip leader should fold QQ to an all-in from a short-stack on the bubble. The reason is not that we fear AA, KK, or AK, but rather that there is too much profitable blind-stealing that the big stack can do on the bubble. Sure he has a great chance to knock someone out and move into the money, but he's going to money anyway. Why not move into the money with 5-10% more of the chips?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
In TPFAP, Sklansky points out that the chip leader should fold QQ to an all-in from a short-stack on the bubble. The reason is not that we fear AA, KK, or AK, but rather that there is too much profitable blind-stealing that the big stack can do on the bubble. Sure he has a great chance to knock someone out and move into the money, but he's going to money anyway. Why not move into the money with 5-10% more of the chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing 2 very different things here. Of course, maintaining a short-stack on the bubble could be smart play by big-stack. This has nothing to do with what stupidsucker or me are saying. As long as you're acting for keeping your own interests (and only **YOUR** interests), it's perfectly fine, even if it helps some other player, short-stack in this case. That's very common in tournament poker. However, if some other specific player's survival is more important to you than another player's survival (and not because you fear the other player more, or because other strategic reasons which are surely legitimate, but simply because you share your profits with the first guy), then you are practically colluding.

[Eder]

Kinda like our weekly 2+2 tournies...you guys softplay to me so I can bubble each week...collusion!!!!!btw it on in 15 mins haha