Goading a player to call: is it, *gasp*, CHEATING?

[spentrent]

There is currently a discussion related to this in the following thread...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1295286&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

So far, a few people in that thread think it's CHEATING to goad someone to call an all-in bet. Is this a general consensus?

Am I all alone in believing that a player isn't a cheater unless he's playing with an unfair advantage?

The original poster ridiculed my opinion by implying that I must believe that poker is a partner's game. I'd rather have my point debated rationally instead of simply shot down irrationally by someone who doesn't agree.

[lorinda]

I had an argument on a table the other day about this.

It is technically cheating because it is collusion between two players deciding how to play against a third player.

In England it would be cheating to goad someone into calling your own bet, but not in America, but goading someone into calling someone else's bet is cheating because two of you are effectively discussing the best course of action against one.

Lori

[slickterp]

i read that other thread earlier, and the only reason the guy was mad was b/c he lost. had he won, no thread would exist or there would be one about how the idiot let someone else talk him into calling. couldn't it be collusion vs. the goader and the callee b/c the goader could be trying to get inferior hands to call a superior hand and it backfired?

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
It is technically cheating because it is collusion between two players deciding how to play against a third player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. 99% of the time, the person who is saying to call the all-in is not saying it because he thinks it is the right way to play the hand. He just wants to see somebody knocked out of the tournament. That's usually pretty clear, given the context.

Now, if the person expanded that comment: "Call him, he's been bluffing all night." That would be cheating.

Having said that, I would never goad someone to call an all-in bet. It's rude.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
I had an argument on a table the other day about this.

It is technically cheating because it is collusion between two players deciding how to play against a third player.

In England it would be cheating to goad someone into calling your own bet, but not in America, but goading someone into calling someone else's bet is cheating because two of you are effectively discussing the best course of action against one.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can imagine a lot of scenarios where I agree with you. For instance, Player C says "I've never seen him play a jack; in fact before the game he told me he thinks jacks are unlucky. Also, I've never seen him show down a good hand when he stares intently at the board after betting. Thus, you should call." That I'll agree is collusion. But then again, why should you believe Player C? As your opponent, he wants you to go broke.

"Goading" in my eyes is:

Dealer: Player A bets 2000 (all-in)
Dealer: Player B, you have 15 seconds to act.
Player C: call
Player C: call
Player C: CALL
Player C: CALL IT YOU *****!
Player C: call

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]
"Goading" in my eyes is:

Dealer: Player A bets 2000 (all-in)
Dealer: Player B, you have 15 seconds to act.
Player C: call
Player C: call
Player C: CALL
Player C: CALL IT YOU *****!
Player C: call

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - this IS annoying and rude, its NOT cheating.

Anything more though - like discussing range of hands, etc. is certainly collusion.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, if the person expanded that comment: "Call him, he's been bluffing all night." That would be cheating.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm really confused. I can't take a stand either way. What validates the goader's comment as absolute truth and thus collusion? If you want to goad someone into a call, of course you'll say "He always bluffs," whether it's true or not.

[Paul2432]

This is not a matter of opinion. The following is a direct quote from the Tournament Director's Association rules (http://www.thepokerforum.com/tdarules.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
35. Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands during the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot access Party Poker's rule page right now, but I am fairly sure they have a similar rule.

Whether you agree or disagree with the rule is a matter for discussion, but the rule itself is a fact.

I suggest that if in the future you wish to have a discussion regarding the rules of poker, that you actually read the rules of poker.

Paul

[spentrent]

DISCLAIMER: I realize that side bets are taboo in tournaments.

Player A bets 2000 and is all-in.

Player B flips over AA and asks Player A, "Do you want me to call?"

Player C says to Player B, "I'll lay 2 to 1 if you lose."


Is Player C giving Player B an advantage by showing he's so confident that Player A is weak by laying insurance?

Or perhaps Player C is laying the insurance such that Player B will _still_ be short-stacked if Player A holds up... but he wouldn't have considered calling _without_ Player C's vote of confidence. Thus Player C still benefits by creating a shorter stack than his own.

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]
35. Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands during the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're all IN AGREEMENT and are NOT DEBATING this rule.

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that if in the future you wish to have a discussion regarding the rules of poker, that you actually read the rules of poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

The question still remains unanswered: Is Goading, as cited earlier in the thread, cheating?

The RULE you posted makes no mention of it. To the rule you cite this antagonizing someone to call would NOT fall under:

-discussing hands
-discussing hand possibilities

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that if in the future you wish to have a discussion regarding the rules of poker, that you actually read the rules of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

These aren't the rules of poker as handed down from the Poker Gods to Poker Moses. They are the "Tournament Director Association's Rules."

Of course this is a discussion about whether such a rule is reasonable. What, am I supposed to say "Touche! Brilliant, Paul!" What you said is similar to a wacko evangelist saying, "You don't love Jeebus, why, you CERTAINLY haven't read the Bible! You silly such and such!"

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
35. Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands during the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question still remains unanswered: Is Goading, as cited earlier in the thread, cheating?

The RULE you posted makes no mention of it. To the rule you cite this antagonizing someone to call would NOT fall under:

-discussing hands
-discussing hand possibilities

[/ QUOTE ]

I think telling someone how to play his hand is clearly discussing the hand. The second to last sentence of the rule is not meant to cover all possibilities, it is just one example of a violation. No rule can list every conceivable situation.

Paul

[AleoMagus]

For what it is worth (not much, by the way) I can't stand it when this happens and I think it is cheating.

What it really comes down to in my mind is that a player not involved in a hand may actually affect the outcome and decisions in that hand.

There are a lot of times when a player is in a marginal situation and they just need a little extra incitement to push them one way or another. Similarly, many times, a player will want to call, but may fear doing so out of embarrasment if they are actually making a big mistake. When another player starts goading and cheering on a call, this can be all that is needed to shift a players decision making one way or the other.

I actually was in a situation once where a player later confessed "I was going to call, but after X kept telling me to call, I felt like it might be wrong to do it. I thought it might look bad"

Now, this may have been a line, and it may even be foolish to care what other players at the table are trying to get you do do, but it does happen. Even subconciously. The things that you say while not involved in a hand can affect the outcome and as such, should be carefully considered.

This kind of goading is not idly done, and if you are so convinced that it does not affect the outcome - why do it?

Then again, all it may come down to is what will be punished by the site in question, and I don't think it is likely that Partypoker will be punishing this anytime soon.

Just my opinion

Regards
Brad S

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that if in the future you wish to have a discussion regarding the rules of poker, that you actually read the rules of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

These aren't the rules of poker as handed down from the Poker Gods to Poker Moses. They are the "Tournament Director Association's Rules."

Of course this is a discussion about whether such a rule is reasonable. What, am I supposed to say "Touche! Brilliant, Paul!" What you said is similar to a wacko evangelist saying, "You don't love Jeebus, why, you CERTAINLY haven't read the Bible! You silly such and such!"

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I was being a bit facetious, but I disagree with your comparison. Unlike the bible, the rules of poker for a particular venue are clearly written. People may disagree with the rules, but noone disagrees that they are the rules, unlike the bible where many people disagree that it is the word of God.

My point is that the rules are freely available to everyone, and if you don't like them please let's have a vigorous discussion and try and make them better. However, once you take a seat at the table you are bound by the rules as currently written. Breaking the rules once you take a seat at the table is cheating, regardless whether you agree or disagree with the rules.

Paul

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I all alone in believing that a player isn't a cheater unless he's playing with an unfair advantage?


[/ QUOTE ]

reading this thread again, I think this is the point that you are most mistaken on.

First, In my mind, whether you call it cheating, or rule breaking, or whatever, you do not need an advantage to play contrary to the rules. If I am in a ring game and I have folded, it is of absolutely no benefit to me to tell everyone on the turn "gee, I should have played, I would have made quads", but it is still not allowed.

Secondly, In a tournament situation, anytime two players get into a confrontation, $EV bleeds off into the players not involved in the hand. If you can somehow make these confrontations even slightly more likely, you are unfairly extracting an advantage. This is most obvious on the bubble when an elimination can make you the money.

Regards
Brad S

[texasrattlers]

How is goading/telling someone to call a bet not discussing the hand? Be serious.

For those who do not play on Stars, they disable chat when any player is all in, in effect enforcing this rule for all in situations.

[tallstack]

I was going to respond to the original post on the side that it is cheating. A mild, and often seen, form of cheating mind you, but cheating nonetheless.

This example, however, is so obviously cheating in my mind that I don't even know where to start.

Dave S

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, In a tournament situation, anytime two players get into a confrontation, $EV bleeds off into the players not involved in the hand. If you can somehow make these confrontations even slightly more likely, you are unfairly extracting an advantage. This is most obvious on the bubble when an elimination can make you the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point of contention here is that only an absurdly weak player will let someone who is saying "Call, call, call, CALL!" affect his decision.

I don't consider that an unfair advantage. It's similar to trash talking your opponent in any sport.

I agree that it's not classy; don't get me wrong. But an unfair advantage? No way!

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
This example, however, is so obviously cheating in my mind that I don't even know where to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's against the rules. I don't question that. But, I feel like it takes away from the mind**** part of the game -- since I believe that the only person here with any advantage is the insurance layer.

What about insurance in a live action game? Is it still cheating?

[tallstack]

Personally, if I were Player A in this scenario I would go ballistic if this incident occurred.

Imagine you are in a tournament with three left and you are the small stack. You are looking for a place to pick up chips. You are against a very aggressive chip leader and a fairly tight mid stack. You find yourself HU on the river against the tight player and have determined that you can likely get him to lay down a hand with an all-in bet. You feel that you won't get many other opportunities with the big stack out of the hand and you go for it.

Your opponent shows you a hand that will beat you, trying to get a read from you. You are a virtual stone, not moving or saying a word. He can't decide one way or another. The big stack now makes it an almost no-lose situation for the mid stack to call you by offering some side action. The big stack just wants to get it HU with a player that he thinks he can outplay and is offering to take a bit of a loss here if it helps him get rid of you. Your opponent is deciding whether to take him up on the offer while you are shouting for the floor person. The floor person hears the story and decides that while he would like to help you, he doesn't want to take away the mind**** element of the game.

If you would be ok with that then you are a much more laid back person than I.

Dave S

[willie24]

is this cheating?

hand is down to 2 players preflop. player A goes allin. player B is thinking. player A tells player B what he has. (of course whether or not he is being truthful is not known)

[stupidsucker]

I think anyone not involved in the hand shouldnt say a word.

Is it cheating? By some standards yes. Isnt that enough?

Because if the player with the choice to make does go along with the goader, then it can look suspicious. I desise when someone not in the hand puts in their two sense. I feel it is wrong and a form of cheating. This includes telling someone in the BB that he has to call the extra 5 chips.

however, I dont feel that goading your opponent(s) is cheating, but I respect anyones oppinion that says otherwise.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
is this cheating?

hand is down to 2 players preflop. player A goes allin. player B is thinking. player A tells player B what he has. (of course whether or not he is being truthful is not known)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. The reason is in your parenthetical statement.

(Of course, god knows what the rules say...)

[rivered]

Gees, you must really take it hard when someone disagrees with you. This is an apple and oranges question. You don't mention anything about whether the person is even in the hand. If you're heads up with another person, fine, but if you're not even in the hand that's a totally different situation. It also is irrelevent whether you or I think it's cheating, what matters are the rules and whether they prohibit it or not. If they do, it's cheating. Very simple. Which is why I posted here, because I didn't know the rules and wanted to get the opinion of other players. It wasn't to rant because I'd certainly have more annoying beats to post then that.

Lastly, you don't need to start entirely new post and even link to the first one just because someone disagrees with you. Just answer the original post. Everything doesn't have to be a fight all the time.

[rci97]

1) The player (not involved in the hand) wouldn't be telling one of the other players what to do if he didn't want to change the outcome in some way.

2) As has been pointed out, players not involved in a hand are affected by what happens in that hand.

3) This type of behavior would never be allowed in any B & M tournament. Moreover, no player not involved in the hand would have the nerve / stones to do it if they had to physically sit at the same table as the other players.

4) At best, this type of behavior is totally unethical. At worst, it's downright cheating.

I had a similar situation occur on PP. Down to 4 players. I go all in UTG. BB tells SB "I'm out if you call." Anyone going to tell me that that's not cheating?

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a similar situation occur on PP. Down to 4 players. I go all in UTG. BB tells SB "I'm out if you call." Anyone going to tell me that that's not cheating?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is blunt colluision, and you should report it.