actionmonkey on Step 5's

[ChrisV]

A few days ago actionmonkey said in chat to a friend of mine that he had quit Step 5's because they were being teamed and it was annoying him.

Discuss.

[Daliman]

I personnaly think full teaming by 2 players is likely -Ev overall, as the maximum return is 7k for both, as opposed to 9k if they played singly. If they are good enough to win on their own, they are definitly better off playing on their own. Also, of course, 1 person getting in means only 3 other spots for the other person to get in. Diminishing retuns would have to rule here, and 3 or more doing it would be simply ludicrously stupid.

I don't doubt it is happening though, and can cut into earn of a +EV player. If they suck at poker let them all play together, all 9 of them vs me.

[ChrisV]

Teaming is only -EV for the reasons you describe if you typically have an advantage over most of the field. For the sake of argument, suppose you're playing against 1 total fish and 8 other players who are carbon copies of you. All you do every tourney is divvy up the fish's money. It would be advantageous to you then to get into a team with some other players, because it makes no difference to splitting up the fish's money and it helps you defeat the players who are copies of you.

[Daliman]

Theoretically, yes, but it would also cost you some chip EV at times. Let's say you are 4 handed, your buddy is UTG, you are in the BB for 400, all have comparable stacks. Yer buddy UTG has TT, you have AKo, your buddy raises to 1200, button folds, and the SB pushes for 2500. Now what do you do? Call to protect? Fold so you don't both get Ko'd? There are myriad situations similar to this that could occur wth shared cards/kickers etc that may cause someone to fold a hand PF or on the flop that may have ended up the winner. not saying it CAN'T be +EV, but if yer any good, you'll almost always be better off on your own

[Gramps]

I can see how you could maybe team so that when you're both left in the tourney, the big stack can feed some chips to the short stack here and there - not fail safe, but it can increase the odds of the short stack getting valuable chips wihtout getting knocked out, etc.

It's also possible AM fell back into his overly aggressive bad habits, lost a bunch of $$ in the Step 5s, and attributed it to imagined collusion, or didn't want to give his losses as the excuse for quitting them. Who knows.

I haven't played the Step 5s yet, but I imagine a 215 player's ROI is significantly less there, which means the swings could be absolutely insane at times. During a bad downswing is when PP is rigged/others are cheating thoughts start to creep into one's brain...so who knows...

[ChrisV]

I think monkey is experienced enough to take a downswing... he gave some more specific information about the teams, said there was one from Moscow and another one... not sure exactly, as I said I didn't personally have this conversation with him.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't played the Step 5s yet, but I imagine a 215 player's ROI is significantly less there

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true? Because there is 4 payouts instead of 3, I assumed you would have a similar ROI or slightly more.

Also, considering that you have probably 1+ lower level players funnelling money up to this table, wouldn't STEP 5 actually increase your ROI?

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
s this true? Because there is 4 payouts instead of 3, I assumed you would have a similar ROI or slightly more.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that more payout spots does not increase ROI, unless you adjust to the structures better than others.

-Jman28

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically, yes, but it would also cost you some chip EV at times. Let's say you are 4 handed, your buddy is UTG, you are in the BB for 400, all have comparable stacks. Yer buddy UTG has TT, you have AKo, your buddy raises to 1200, button folds, and the SB pushes for 2500. Now what do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this situation could possibly be made worse by you each knowing each other's cards. Can you explain how the two of you lose overall $EV by knowing each others hands here and acting accordingly?

It seems to me that proper colluding is clearly +EV unless you are playing against all fish.

-Jman28

[Daliman]

Well, look at the scenarios I posted before, or this;

Let's say similar situation, step 5, 5 handed, all around 2K, blinds 250-500 and you have AK in the BB. Your buddy has AQs UTG and folds because he knows you have AK. All fold to an aggressive SB, who pushes on you.

Do you call, knowing you have a dead out and a quarter?

Assuming you do, which you likely should, if the SB has JT and the board comes rainbow J9Q46, look what has now happened.

There are, as I said before, myriad ways this can go bad. One of the "teams" would likely be Tony G and his buddy from vilinius, who I believe have said they play in the same room, but they really don't play that well.

[d1sterbd]

Any good player is going to have an advantage by having more information. They know each other's cards and they have one less person to get reraised by. They can dump chips to each other. They can run plays on the other people on the table by raising and reraising once their are callers in between. If there is more than two people in their team, than it doesn't really matter who they are playing against in the long run. The advantage is just too big.

[Gramps]

Even though some fishy players make it up to Step 5s, that's no different from the 215s where some reckless gamblers reside from time to time. The difference is the higher shark concentration, hence your % return per SNG will be less. Your ITM would probably be more if an extra spot got paid, but that doesn't affect your ROI at all.

Thus, you're going to be susceptible to higher # buy-in downswings, and you're playing for 5 times as much $$ - that equals some serious ugly downswings for even long-term winners.

[Gramps]

I don't doubt that skilled players could work it out so that they could gain a slight edge here and there. Hopefully if they're doing it and it's clear, enough people complain and Party b-tch slaps them.

[ZeeJustin]

Your examples are attrocious. In the TT vs AKo example, why is the TT raising to only 1200 rather than shoving? The average stack is only 6 big blinds. Anyway, optimal colluding strategy has these players play exactly as they would if they weren't colluding in this situation because a fold could be too obvious a sign.

In your second example, you can use the same reasoning to show that AQ is better than AK. Obviously if you can pick out what cards come on the flop turn and river, you can make any situation look bad.

Here's the thing about colluding. If the two players know what they're doing, the worst case scenario for them is that they have to play the same way they would if they weren't colluding. Only poor colluders will ever find a -ev spot. Fortunately for us, most colluders aren't great players, but that doesn't mean there aren't any out there that are good.

Your logic throughout this thread is really poor Daliman.

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
For the sake of argument, suppose you're playing against 1 total fish and 8 other players who are carbon copies of you. All you do every tourney is divvy up the fish's money. It would be advantageous to you then to get into a team with some other players, because it makes no difference to splitting up the fish's money and it helps you defeat the players who are copies of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are also taking on a double share of the rake, so it is not clear you are better off in this situation.

Suppose the fish is -50% ROI (he can get lucky every now and then!)

The fish is then donating $1069/2 = 535 dollars to the pool. Unfortunately, the rake is $690, so collectively you and the other copies of you have to pay up the remaining $155 rake. When you play by yourself, you only get a 1/9 share of this rake (~$17). However, when you play with a buddy, you get a double portion of the rake (~$34).
Depending on how much your collusion gains you relative to the other copies of you will determine if it is a good move. If it doesn't help at all it is a bad move however.

At the limit (colluding with all 9 other players) is clearly a dumb move since you all just lock in the rake loss /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Pokerscott

PS this is similar to the chip dumping collusion theory. I am convinced chip dumping is not a big deal in single table SnGs. In general, I am ecstatic if a player goes all in early and doubles someone else up (that is one less competing for the money). In general if I am happy when someone doubles up someone else early(presumably +EV for me), then it can't be +EV to pay two entry fees and execute that play. Of course there are other ways to collude, but the early chip double is not a viable one imo.

[curtains]

Isnt the most obvious way to collude to sit next to each other, and if its SB vs BB confrontation late in the event, you can always let whomever you want win, assuming the cards arent ridiculous.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
You are also taking on a double share of the rake, so it is not clear you are better off in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are taking on a double share of the rake AND a double share of the profit. Say, arbitrarily, that your profit is $100/tourney before rake. Individually you win $100 and pay $65 in rake, for $35. Collectively you win $200 and pay $130 in rake, for $70 = $35 each. There's no difference.

[ QUOTE ]
The fish is then donating $1069/2 = 535 dollars to the pool. Unfortunately, the rake is $690, so collectively you and the other copies of you have to pay up the remaining $155 rake. When you play by yourself, you only get a 1/9 share of this rake (~$17). However, when you play with a buddy, you get a double portion of the rake (~$34).

[/ QUOTE ]

And a double share of the profit, so $120 odd instead of $60 odd. Work it out, it's the same amount per player.

[ QUOTE ]
At the limit (colluding with all 9 other players) is clearly a dumb move since you all just lock in the rake loss

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is advantageous. It changes nothing except that you all get to see each other's cards, which presumably means you beat the fish out of more money. A smaller team would be better since you can use your knowledge against the other players as well. Not sure what size team would be optimal.

[ QUOTE ]
PS this is similar to the chip dumping collusion theory. I am convinced chip dumping is not a big deal in single table SnGs. In general, I am ecstatic if a player goes all in early and doubles someone else up (that is one less competing for the money). In general if I am happy when someone doubles up someone else early(presumably +EV for me), then it can't be +EV to pay two entry fees and execute that play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't what chip dumping is in SNGs. It's the opposite - a big stack dumping chips to his partner so that his partner doesn't get busted.

Getting colluded against on the bubble and ITM is very bad for you. Luckily, even if there's a team in the game against you, they mostly don't all make it to the bubble.

[Daliman]

I never said my examples were perfect, but this response shows a general misunderstanding about both SNG late game concepts and the possible gain from colluding. My examples, even still, are far from atrocious. Obviously, on the bubble, TT vs AK is going to have to get allin preflop in almost all cases, yet if people were colluding, they wouldn't want to do this. You can just as easily say TT pushes then, and gets called by the SB. Very often, AK will and should call there, but a case can be made for either folding or calling AK there. Your "optimal" strategy would have one KO the other if no one else got involved, which does create a larger stack, but does knock one player OOTM in a 3 pay game, therefore meaning the player remaining now MUST come in first to have the minimum profit they would have by both cashing, not to mention any lost strategy gain.

In the second example, what I am saying is that there are times when having more information at your disposal isn't always going to be +EV. It's nice, sure, but there will be many times you would make a marginal fold that would have won for you because you know you have dead outs.

Anyways, I was only using these as loose examples. The deep thinker should look at the other ways colluding can backfire from my examples..

Trust me, Ive done a lot of thinking and analysis about how collusion impacts a game, especially SNG's, and it ain't a big deal. If they were to just play the way they normally would, then they're not colluding, now, are they? But if one guy at level 3 says he has TT UTG 8 handed, and his buddy says he has JJ in the CO, TT is going to fold, and now JJ has lost a +EV situation tht may have improved his standing. Yes, TT has saved some chips, but it may just as easily end up not mattering, not to mention the fact that the standard UTG raise by TT could be reraised by JJ, thus thinning the field, which is, of course, a primary function of raising. There are TONS of reasons why it just isn't very effective, and while chip dumping/small stack CPR of a buddy can be frustrating, it can, and as often as not, does backfire on them.

Before you go impugning someone's logic, you should first consider the source of the logic, and do some thinking on your own, because you are flat wrong here.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
In the second example, what I am saying is that there are times when having more information at your disposal isn't always going to be +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obvious, and not even worth saying.

[ QUOTE ]
It's nice, sure, but there will be many times you would make a marginal fold that would have won for you because you know you have dead outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: Plays with less EV than the most +EV play will occassionally result in the best possible outcome due to variance. Ok great. That's obvious too.

[ QUOTE ]
The deep thinker should look at the other ways colluding can backfire from my examples..

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Here is your problem. If the colluders play perfectly, IT CAN'T BACKFIRE. In the sense of you getting your chips all-in with aces, and losing to a lucky river, sure, it can backfire. But in the longrun, this extra information will addup to be very +EV if utilized correctly.

In no way shape or form should optimal colluding ever result in a loss of EV.

[ QUOTE ]
But if one guy at level 3 says he has TT UTG 8 handed, and his buddy says he has JJ in the CO, TT is going to fold, and now JJ has lost a +EV situation tht may have improved his standing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming they have equal stacks, it is very -ev for them to gamble against each other. It doesn't even matter what the odds are. This is one of the many benefits of colluding. Since you are sharing your profits, every same stack all-in is exactly the same as a coinflip, and for good players, coinfips are generally -EV. By avoiding -EV plays, they are profiting.

You keep talking about plays backfiring. Yes, +EV plays backfire all the time. There's variance in poker. That doesn't mean the play wasn't +ev in the first place.

[The Yugoslavian]

I think I have a solution that I may have brought up before:

A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker: winner takes home chips, pride, and perhaps some of Dalibaby's Gerber $$.

I'm sure others would want to watch this freezeout happen. It'd be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic.

Yugoslav

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a series of 10 handed sngs would be better. I get to play as 9 players at the table would if they were colluding, and Daliman can only play for one.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, Here is your problem. If the colluders play perfectly, IT CAN'T BACKFIRE. In the sense of you getting your chips all-in with aces, and losing to a lucky river, sure, it can backfire. But in the longrun, this extra information will addup to be very +EV if utilized correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the essence of your misunderstanding. Just as there is no "perfect" way to play poker, there is no "perfect" way to collude. In ring games or MTT's, sure there is/can be a definite effect, but in SNg's, it is more than offset by the static payout structure and the comparatively high rake.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have a solution that I may have brought up before:

A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker: winner takes home chips, pride, and perhaps some of Dalibaby's Gerber $$.

I'm sure others would want to watch this freezeout happen. It'd be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

#1 I don't currently have 10k available.
#2 If I did, I think I could find better spots with it than ZJ.
#3 I KNOW ZJ's broke ass doesn't have 10K(.......)
#4 ZJ could find better spots with it if he did.


Now, I'm sure we could both get worked into quite a lather for a pay-per-view event on pokerstars...


(wheels spinning...)

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
In the second example, what I am saying is that there are times when having more information at your disposal isn't always going to be +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is obviously true. An example is if oyu have 72o utg and your partner has 72o utg+1. Your ev is zero both with and without this information, so having it isn't +ev.

However, your AQ vs JJ vs AK is NOT an example of this. Folding the AQ is very +EV even if it results in a loss in this one example.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a series of 10 handed sngs would be better. I get to play as 9 players at the table would if they were colluding, and Daliman can only play for one.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I would do this in a heartbeat.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a series of 10 handed sngs would be better. I get to play as 9 players at the table would if they were colluding, and Daliman can only play for one.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I would do this in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I would do this in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any way to set this up? If anyone owns a program that we could do this with, I would be very appreciative. I think this is a very +EV spot for me, and I am definately willing to do it if someone can set it up. Daliman can even chose the stakes. For it to be meaningful, I think we should use a 50/30/20 payout structure.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a series of 10 handed sngs would be better. I get to play as 9 players at the table would if they were colluding, and Daliman can only play for one.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I would do this in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please clarify what you mean by this.

~D

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a series of 10 handed sngs would be better. I get to play as 9 players at the table would if they were colluding, and Daliman can only play for one.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I would do this in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]


Look at El Diablo coming out of OOT to STT when a wager pops up!!!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would do this in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any way to set this up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Get 8 forum regulars + you, put everyone in a chatroom, all involved play a $5 private SNG and talk about their hands in there.

Hell, this is so interesting I volunteer.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a series of 10 handed sngs would be better. I get to play as 9 players at the table would if they were colluding, and Daliman can only play for one.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I would do this in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please clarify what you mean by this.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems pretty obvious, but I mean that I think It would be +EV for me just in the SNG's themselves overall, although obviously not as +EV as my normal SNG's, as ZJ is no slouch. Essentially, I doubt ZJ could come up with an effective enough strategy to minimize my earn while obviously maximizing his, and would probably have a few strategy failures along the way.

Also, if I were to do this, I would want a side bet on who ends up with the higher ROI after the ten. Variance being what it is, it really wouldn't prove anything definitively, and at this point I can't afford to make it even worth MY while, so I'm SURE i couldn't afford to make it worth ZJ's while. It would be an interesting exercise, however, and I think a thread on proper play style from either end would be VERY provocative.

[Daliman]

Diablo's prop wager radar is nonpariel

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are also taking on a double share of the rake, so it is not clear you are better off in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are taking on a double share of the rake AND a double share of the profit. Say, arbitrarily, that your profit is $100/tourney before rake. Individually you win $100 and pay $65 in rake, for $35. Collectively you win $200 and pay $130 in rake, for $70 = $35 each. There's no difference.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are playing in a game ten players.

-ONE -50% ROI fish that donates $535
-YOURSELF
-EIGHT other copies of yourself

You CANNOT be +$100 against eight copies of yourself. Given that you and your eight copies all have to have the same expected value, you ALL have to on average pay the rake that the fish is not paying (690 - 535)




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fish is then donating $1069/2 = 535 dollars to the pool. Unfortunately, the rake is $690, so collectively you and the other copies of you have to pay up the remaining $155 rake. When you play by yourself, you only get a 1/9 share of this rake (~$17). However, when you play with a buddy, you get a double portion of the rake (~$34).

[/ QUOTE ]

And a double share of the profit, so $120 odd instead of $60 odd. Work it out, it's the same amount per player.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is the same but it is not positive.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the limit (colluding with all 9 other players) is clearly a dumb move since you all just lock in the rake loss

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is advantageous. It changes nothing except that you all get to see each other's cards, which presumably means you beat the fish out of more money. A smaller team would be better since you can use your knowledge against the other players as well. Not sure what size team would be optimal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you really saying you believe that a ten person SnG with a rake can be beat by TEN players colluding?!? That is ludicrous. You must be misunderstanding, but in the limit example I gave "colluding with all OTHER 9 players" simple math tells you everyone is on average down the rake...no fish, no good eats...

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would do this in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any way to set this up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Get 8 forum regulars + you, put everyone in a chatroom, all involved play a $5 private SNG and talk about their hands in there.

Hell, this is so interesting I volunteer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is likely the closest we could get to actually doing this properly, but I think ZJ not specifically having full view of all cards in play or control would skew the results.

[Daliman]

PS, I'd just like to congratulate myself for getting into yet another pissing match. I have chosen a very worthy opponent in ZJ, as I respect his play immensely, and look forward to further posturing and discussion to follow. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 10k HU freeze-out at Party Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a series of 10 handed sngs would be better. I get to play as 9 players at the table would if they were colluding, and Daliman can only play for one.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I would do this in a heartbeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]


Look at El Diablo coming out of OOT to STT when a wager pops up!!!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone else thinks the 9 handed player would have to be significantly worse than the 1 handed player for this to be a contest? Knowing 18 of the hole cards is killer. It might take a while to learn how to play (ie you insticts are wrong. A flush draw doesn't have 9 outs out of 47. It could be 0/31 or 9/31. You can tell when you hold the nuts (AK on a A77 board if you folded 2 sevens and an ace) in normally dangerous situations and so on.

I think the only chance Daliman has is that Zee isn't used to colluding (or at least I hope not /images/graemlins/grin.gif) and will not have the enough time to calculate the proper moves. Daliman might be right that his ROI will be higher than Zees. I would have to sit down for a while to figure out how much he has to win to make that true.

[gumpzilla]

If the game is raked, then each of ZJ's 9 copies is going to be paying .075 - .1 buyins in rake. At the high end of rake, that means that only .1 buyins of profit are made everytime Dali gets busted OTM. So Dali is going to have to be absolutely crushed by the table full of ZJs for that to be a good proposition, particularly if the 50/30/20 payout structure is kept. Even if Dali never did better than 3rd you'd have to bust him 9 times more often than he came in 3rd to break even. I'm willing to believe this is possible, but it's not clear to me. I'm assuming that the SNGs will preserve their regular structure in order to keep the bet somewhat relevant to the original discussion?

[Daliman]

Well, if i were to cash 4 times with normal distribution, he'd lose, simple as that. And even given ZJ's extensive colluding experince(.....), i'm certain he's never had 9 at a table before.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the essence of your misunderstanding. Just as there is no "perfect" way to play poker, there is no "perfect" way to collude.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely untrue. Of course there is a perfect way to play poker. It's just that most of the time your information is imperfect so the perfect play is hard to determine.

If I know everybody's hand and exactly what they are going to do based on every possible action of mine, then I can determine the perfect play.

Your examples in collusion amount to "some situations are difficult to play. Therefore, they must be unprofitable".

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if i were to cash 4 times with normal distribution, he'd lose, simple as that. And even given ZJ's extensive colluding experince(.....), i'm certain he's never had 9 at a table before.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no way that you would cash twice, let alone 4 times, and the chance of you winning 1 is no more than 1%.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
You are playing in a game ten players.

-ONE -50% ROI fish that donates $535
-YOURSELF
-EIGHT other copies of yourself

You CANNOT be +$100 against eight copies of yourself. Given that you and your eight copies all have to have the same expected value, you ALL have to on average pay the rake that the fish is not paying (690 - 535)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just demonstrating that your EV is the same whether you are in a team or not. Whether that EV is positive or negative is not relevant.

If you lose to the rake when colluding, then you were losing to the rake anyway. It's true that if you have a team of nine, it's very difficult to beat the rake because the other guy has to be essentially dead money. But that is also true if you are playing by yourself against 8 very good players and one fish. Collusion is not the cause of the loss, the fact that it's a bad game is.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you really saying you believe that a ten person SnG with a rake can be beat by TEN players colluding?!? That is ludicrous. You must be misunderstanding, but in the limit example I gave "colluding with all OTHER 9 players" simple math tells you everyone is on average down the rake...no fish, no good eats...

[/ QUOTE ]

My mistake, I thought you meant colluding in a 9-person team, rather than with 9 other people (ie 10 total).

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if I were to do this, I would want a side bet on who ends up with the higher ROI after the ten.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the SNGs are raked, the average outcome is that you both lose. However, ZeeJustin's ROI will be higher (that is, less negative) than Daliman's. If the SNGs are not raked, ZeeJustin wins on average.

In short: <font color="red">I'm willing to make this side bet with you</font>, as long as you both getting negative ROI's but ZeeJustin's being less negative counts as a win for me. How much you want to put on it?

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the essence of your misunderstanding. Just as there is no "perfect" way to play poker, there is no "perfect" way to collude.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely untrue. Of course there is a perfect way to play poker. It's just that most of the time your information is imperfect so the perfect play is hard to determine.

If I know everybody's hand and exactly what they are going to do based on every possible action of mine, then I can determine the perfect play.

Your examples in collusion amount to "some situations are difficult to play. Therefore, they must be unprofitable".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, poker IS a game of imperfect information, therefore, there is NO perfect way to play, as I said. If you had perfect information, it wouldn't be poker, now would it? Even IF you had perfect information, that doesn't necessarily mean you could make the perfect play. I'll make another attempt at an example here, but let's say you have JTh 6 handed. You see that 2 opponents folded 1 heart each, and that there were no 8's,9' T's J's, queens, or kings folded. You opponent has AsAc, and has raised you for 10% of your stack. Now, percentage wise, i'd bet a call is in order, but of course, you'd be better off folding and waiting until you KNEW you were ahead, right? ANd what if you BOTH have perfect information? Then it's just like a chess game, right? Of course, we all know there is a perfect way to play chess.....

And no, my examples do not amount to what you say. I could ICM a few compelling examples to show this, but i think i will save that for my forthcoming website. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if i were to cash 4 times with normal distribution, he'd lose, simple as that. And even given ZJ's extensive colluding experince(.....), i'm certain he's never had 9 at a table before.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no way that you would cash twice, let alone 4 times, and the chance of you winning 1 is no more than 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ludicrousness of this statement far outstrips your normal lucid thought process. Exactly what makes you think this, and how would my win % be under 1%

P.S. I will take 75-1 odds from you all day on an exact situation like this solely on me winning, and beat you like a drum.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if I were to do this, I would want a side bet on who ends up with the higher ROI after the ten.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the SNGs are raked, the average outcome is that you both lose. However, ZeeJustin's ROI will be higher (that is, less negative) than Daliman's. If the SNGs are not raked, ZeeJustin wins on average.

In short: <font color="red">I'm willing to make this side bet with you</font>, as long as you both getting negative ROI's but ZeeJustin's being less negative counts as a win for me. How much you want to put on it?

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course. The rake has no actual effect whatsoever on my ROI vs his. -4% ROI is obviously higher than -8%.

Therefore, the redundant redundancy of the redundantness of your redundant post is redundantly redundant.

P.S. I think I could get +EV either way long run of the strategy used in the short run given,(e.g. he doesn't have 1000's of trials to perfect his strategy;the strategy used during the 10 would be the same for long run). This of course, is also impossible, but it's fun to think about.

[david050173]

200+15

D place z profit
4-10 65
3 -335
2 -535
1 -935

So if D either has to win 1 game or place in the money twice if I haven't messed the math up. Give Zee a hundred games to figure out the optimal collusion strategy, I think I take him. Going in cold, I think it is a toss up.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, poker IS a game of imperfect information, therefore, there is NO perfect way to play, as I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is a perfect way to play, but you may not be able to determine what it is. This is an important distinction.

I don't need complete information for there to be a perfect way to play, either. Suppose rather than knowing exactly what my opponent's hand is, I know it is one of two exact two-card holdings - 50 percent chance of either. I still know everything else. By crunching the numbers, I can still determine a perfect play. There will in fact be a perfect play based on any amount of available information. The uncertainty in determining what it is is a result of my inability to accurately estimate all the percentages involved. This does not mean those percentages don't exist.

[ QUOTE ]
If you had perfect information, it wouldn't be poker, now would it? Even IF you had perfect information, that doesn't necessarily mean you could make the perfect play. I'll make another attempt at an example here, but let's say you have JTh 6 handed. You see that 2 opponents folded 1 heart each, and that there were no 8's,9' T's J's, queens, or kings folded. You opponent has AsAc, and has raised you for 10% of your stack. Now, percentage wise, i'd bet a call is in order, but of course, you'd be better off folding and waiting until you KNEW you were ahead, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

If a call is in order, meaning it's +EV, I call. It has nothing to do with waiting until I'm ahead.

[ QUOTE ]
And what if you BOTH have perfect information? Then it's just like a chess game, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

More or less. A chess game where neither side has the advantage of the first move.

Heads up holdem is already a "chess game" - that is, it has been shown mathematically there is a way to play the game (without getting any special extra information) such that you cannot be defeated by any opponent. It isn't clear whether this also applies to multiplayer holdem.

[ZeeJustin]

Yes, I'm baffled. I can see 23 of the cards in the deck. You can see 2. How are you going to outplay me? Where does your edge come from? Do you think you're that much better than me that this extra information wouldn't make me at least a break even player against you?

Ok, would you enter a 200+15 against 9 winning players? I know you use some game selection, and that you wouldn't. Yet you would play against 9 versions of me where I'm allowed to collude with my only goal being to create a -ev scenario for you?

How can you possibly think you could have a positive expectation?!?!

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I could get +EV either way long run of the strategy used in the short run given

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what that meant.

If you guys can figure out a way to play these games, I'll bet any amount of money up to $1000 on ZeeJustin to win. You could try a quiet site which has empty play money or low buyin SNGs with a decent structure. 2+2ers sitting at the table could all type their hands in order in an IRC channel. Then ZeeJustin could instruct us what to do. I'd volunteer my services for this experiment.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm baffled. I can see 23 of the cards in the deck. You can see 2. How are you going to outplay me? Where does your edge come from? Do you think you're that much better than me that this extra information wouldn't make me at least a break even player against you?

Ok, would you enter a 200+15 against 9 winning players? I know you use some game selection, and that you wouldn't. Yet you would play against 9 versions of me where I'm allowed to collude with my only goal being to create a -ev scenario for you?

How can you possibly think you could have a positive expectation?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is I don't think within 10 SNG's you can come up with an optimal enough strategy against me without just never busting any of your own players, which you wouldn;t do, since you said that playing the hands mostly straightforward would be +EV for any colluders. If you never busted your own players, it could be tougher, I haven't hashed that out yet.

[Ulysses]

You playing a 10-person SNG vs. 9 ZJ's who are sharing their cards and strategy. And you think you can be +EV in this game. This may well be the silliest thing I have ever read. I'd take virtually unlimited action against you in this wager. That includes you mortgaging your house or doing whatever else to round up money.

Let me ask you a different question. Let's say you played a 4-person SnG where the top 3 places pay 50/30/20. Your 3 opponents are very good players share their cards and strategies and start out w/ 3k chips each. You start out with 1k chips. What do you think your EV is in that game?

[ChrisV]

He didn't say he wouldn't avoid busting his own players. He said that AT WORST you would just play the hands the same way you normally did, so that colluding would never be -EV. Usually there would be a more +EV option available.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
If you guys can figure out a way to play these games, I'll bet any amount of money up to $1000 on ZeeJustin to win. You could try a quiet site which has empty play money or low buyin SNGs with a decent structure. 2+2ers sitting at the table could all type their hands in order in an IRC channel. Then ZeeJustin could instruct us what to do. I'd volunteer my services for this experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, too. It could work.

There is NO WAY Daliman would win/place under those circumstances without a monster run of cards, BTW. Here's a thought experiment: what happens when all of the ZJ's simply limp every time they have a remotely playable hand? (Going all in on Daliman's part works until he runs into the aces hidden in the 6 limpers)

[Daliman]

Well, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the optimal way to play vs me WOULD be to play high hand and NEVER bust another of his own players, therefore I would always have to. THis may be an inexploitable strategy, although again, i haven't worked all that out, but yes, I'm willing to concede that I'd likely not be able to win this. However, since he said this earlier in the thread;

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, optimal colluding strategy has these players play exactly as they would if they weren't colluding in this situation because a fold could be too obvious a sign.

[/ QUOTE ]
... I suppose I didn't account for the neverbust strategy, my own error. Kind of like playing someone at boggle online for cash and not accounting for the fact that he COULD be using a boggle calculator. Not that anyone would ever be that devious.... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

In further thought, I DO think however him having 2-5 players at a table would;

A. Add up to less EV for hims if he played a commensurate amount of SNg's singly.
B. Affect MY EV less than if I were just playing against 5 seperate opponents of ZJ's skill level.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
In further thought, I DO think however him having 2-5 players at a table would;

A. Add up to less EV for hims if he played a commensurate amount of SNg's singly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if in those single SNGs, the players filling those seats were on average worse than him. If they were filled by 4 carbon copies of ZJ, he'd be better off teaming.

[ QUOTE ]
B. Affect MY EV less than if I were just playing against 5 seperate opponents of ZJ's skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Impossible. This statement is equivalent to "5 single copies of ZJ have a higher EV than a team of 5 ZJ's". Otherwise where is your extra EV coming from?

To show either (A) or (B) above, you will first need to demonstrate a mechanism by which colluding loses EV compared to not colluding. You will not be able to do this because the idea is ludicrous.

Presumably you concede that if the 5 ZJ's share each others' hands, but play exactly the same as they would without knowing the hands, that is EV neutral. Unless ZJ makes poor decisions based on his information, he is therefore going to be EV neutral at worst. If he wants to ensure he is +EV, he can totally steer clear of the complex decisions and just do what he would have done anyway, which is EV neutral. He can just do the simple things, like run best hand versus you, chip dump to his short stacks to keep them alive, and avoid smashing his big hands into each other.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm baffled. I can see 23 of the cards in the deck. You can see 2. How are you going to outplay me? Where does your edge come from? Do you think you're that much better than me that this extra information wouldn't make me at least a break even player against you?

Ok, would you enter a 200+15 against 9 winning players? I know you use some game selection, and that you wouldn't. Yet you would play against 9 versions of me where I'm allowed to collude with my only goal being to create a -ev scenario for you?

How can you possibly think you could have a positive expectation?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also take unlimited action on this. There are so many ways you can be destroyed that I really can't see how zee would ever let you win. He could sit there knowing he had a near 100% chance to win by the river given his cards and certain flops, whereas you would have absolutely no advantages at all. In fact, I'm trying to imagine the odds that you would need to win simply by variance and I am having a very difficult time. I'd like you to paint a scenario where you could possibly win outside the realm of sheer variance.
-James

EDIT: woops, responded before I saw that you conceded later in the thread. But seriously, how could you not account for the fact that Zee might just not bust his own players?
-James

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the optimal way to play vs me WOULD be to play high hand and NEVER bust another of his own players, therefore I would always have to. THis may be an inexploitable strategy, although again, i haven't worked all that out, but yes, I'm willing to concede that I'd likely not be able to win this. However, since he said this earlier in the thread;

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, optimal colluding strategy has these players play exactly as they would if they weren't colluding in this situation because a fold could be too obvious a sign.

[/ QUOTE ]
... I suppose I didn't account for the neverbust strategy, my own error. Kind of like playing someone at boggle online for cash and not accounting for the fact that he COULD be using a boggle calculator. Not that anyone would ever be that devious.... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

In further thought, I DO think however him having 2-5 players at a table would;

A. Add up to less EV for hims if he played a commensurate amount of SNg's singly.
B. Affect MY EV less than if I were just playing against 5 seperate opponents of ZJ's skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effect your EV less? You are crazy.
-James

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you guys can figure out a way to play these games, I'll bet any amount of money up to $1000 on ZeeJustin to win. You could try a quiet site which has empty play money or low buyin SNGs with a decent structure. 2+2ers sitting at the table could all type their hands in order in an IRC channel. Then ZeeJustin could instruct us what to do. I'd volunteer my services for this experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking, too. It could work.

There is NO WAY Daliman would win/place under those circumstances without a monster run of cards, BTW. Here's a thought experiment: what happens when all of the ZJ's simply limp every time they have a remotely playable hand? (Going all in on Daliman's part works until he runs into the aces hidden in the 6 limpers)

[/ QUOTE ]

poker IRC would be the way to do this. It would also allow you to adjust the rules to be whatever you want. If you do this on a real site, you have to worry about whatever autocollusion detection they have in place.

Strategy wise it seems to me that Daliman wants a preflop game, Zee a post flop.

[Daliman]

EH, i been doing other things, didn;t go over all the scenarios. I stand by my other statements regarding him with 5 players thiugh, as that plays out more as I initially envisioned playing the 9 ZJ's. I think the only way EV gain he can make on me is when only we are left, and he can again play neverbust. I would need to know which 5 he is to better deflect.

[ChrisV]

Man. This is uncharacteristically poor thinking from you.

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

(1) If multiple players of equal ability play in the same game on the same bankroll (without colluding), their combined $EV will be equal to the sum of their individual $EVs.

(2) There are obvious plays that can increase the $EV of a group of players who are colluding. To give a really obvious example, folding a medium stack on the bubble where he would otherwise have raised and run into a big stack's AA.

(3) Swapping hands but playing the same way you would have played without the extra knowledge is EV-neutral.

If you concede all the above points, then you have conceded my argument (that colluding can never be -EV) whether you like it or not.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Man. This is uncharacteristically poor thinking from you.

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

(1) If multiple players of equal ability play in the same game on the same bankroll (without colluding), their combined $EV will be equal to the sum of their individual $EVs.

(2) There are obvious plays that can increase the $EV of a group of players who are colluding. To give a really obvious example, folding a medium stack on the bubble where he would otherwise have raised and run into a big stack's AA.

(3) Swapping hands but playing the same way you would have played without the extra knowledge is EV-neutral.

If you concede all the above points, then you have conceded my argument (that colluding can never be -EV) whether you like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]


1 is redundant as stated, 2 is true, but flawed, 3 is obviously true, and lso not collusion. None of which, however, defines your statement as true.

[citanul]

This thread, post turning into a Daliman idiocy spouting thread, has become really quite silly.

Zee, or anyone else who's decent, if you want to hook up this game against Dali, I'll be one of the seats for you. I'd love to share in the profitting of any old huge side bet that anyone wants to make against Dali, but I'll help for free too.

In fact, I'm betting that if 3 or 4 reasonably intelligent players coached a player who's never played higher than 10+1 (and possibly even a losing player at that level) for an hour or two (not only would that player probably be a winning 10+1 player, but) that player would be able to beat 1 Daliman 9 on 1, very, very soundly.

citanul

By the way, I think the concept of for instance, can we have Texas Pete crush Daliman is waaaaaaaay more exciting than can Zee, Chris, Giga, Me (not that I count myself as *as* good as these players, but I'm pretty good), adanthar, etc, crush Dali.

[ChrisV]

(2) is "True, but flawed"? Surely it's either true or untrue. In the specific example given, say, is it true or not?

Those three statements taken together do prove my argument, thus:

(a) Put 5 copies of ZJ in a game.
(b) Now I'm going to make them play off the same bankroll. This is EV-neutral as per (1).
(c) Now I'm going to make them share hands, but not change their play. This is EV-neutral as per (3).
(d) Now I'm going to make them avoid running into each other's hands on the bubble. This is +EV as per (2). Therefore these players colluding is EV-neutral most of the time, but EV-positive when one of these situations arises - which makes it EV-positive overall. Since the amount of $EV in a tournament is fixed (because the prize pool is fixed) this EV must be coming from the other players in the game, including you. It is not possible for you to avoid your share of the EV loss, because you aren't involved in the hand at the time the +EV play is made, so it is impossible for you to alter the outcome.

Spot a flaw?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Those three statements taken together do prove my argument, thus:


[/ QUOTE ]
No, they don't as I said earlier.

B is incorrect, C is correct, and D is dubious at best.

I am tiring of hashing out minutae about this. My initial stance on the whole thing is what I'm going to leave this with; Overall, collusion in SNG's is -EV for +EV players. It is also likely even further -EV for -EV players. Collusion with people who are good at colluding is likely only slightly better at best than how they would do normally.

[david050173]

b) doesn't matter if ZJ bankroll is big enough (bigger than what one player needs but less than 5)

I think there are 2 ev's here: the colluders and yours. I definitely think the colluders hurt your ev. They may also hurt their own assuming they are the best players at the table.

I am not sure blatant examples we are giving (folding TT to JJ) are the places where collusion really affects the game. What if the only collusion is that after one folds his hole cards, he tells the other player. If there is one time in a game where that makes a difference between the team winning a pot or losing a pot I could easily see that adding a decent chunk of ev. Through in some betting manipulation and maybe they get do 20% better than before.

The part here is if the colluder isn't playing, who plays for him. If it is a party 5+1 fish who is on a lucky roll it is probably better not to have your colluder in the game. If it is ZJ, the colluder is probably better.

[ChrisV]

How the hell can (b) be incorrect? How can the amount of money they win or lose possibly change depending on whose money they use to buy in with? That's just asinine, particularly in view of the fact that when i stated the same thing earlier, you called it "redundant".

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, collusion in SNG's is -EV for +EV players.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Collusion with people who are good at colluding is likely only slightly better at best than how they would do normally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't these two things contradictions of each other?

If, in the face of a logical proof that you're wrong (which you counter by calling the points "incorrect" and "dubious" without explaining why) plus several 2+2 heavyweights telling you you're wrong, you want to keep insisting you know better, then be my guest. I think you'd do better to understand why what you're saying is impossible.

[HoldingFolding]

This would make sense. In other news, two female player both from the former Soviet Union often seem to sit together, but then they play a lot and come from cities 1000s of miles apart. Could this be the focus of Monkey's paranoia?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, Ive done a lot of thinking and analysis about how collusion impacts a game, especially SNG's

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of your further elaboration in the thread, this statement is one of the funniest things I've ever read on 2+2.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I stand by my other statements regarding him with 5 players thiugh, as that plays out more as I initially envisioned playing the 9 ZJ's.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is shocking that you can continue to make this kind of assertion even after Chris has explained in excruciating detail why you are not making any sense.

Then again, perhaps that's to be expected given that you started off with a position that you playing w/ 1k chips v. three opponents who start w/ 3k chips each and collude is a +EV scenario for you.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, perhaps that's to be expected given that you started off with a position that you playing w/ 1k chips v. three opponents who start w/ 3k chips each and collude is a +EV scenario for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me where i said this.

[Daliman]

Ok, here's why B is incorrect. You are smart enough that I shoudn't have to explain this to you.
[ QUOTE ]
(1) If multiple players of equal ability play in the same game on the same bankroll (without colluding), their combined $EV will be equal to the sum of their individual $EVs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If any more than one person plays the same SNG's off of the same BR, you can't just take their EV's from single play, add them together and get a theoretical earn. The reason is that only one of them can win the SNg, so if the is 2 people, the max earn is 80%, so 40% each, but if they play by themselves in seperate SNG's, they could make 50% each. I'm nowhere near as good at math as you are, but obviously there are diminishing returns here.

[adanthar]

Dali,

You are UTG+2 on the first hand on the tournament, have nothing and fold. The next three ZJ's then go all in blind. Repeat three times.

See the problem?

[Daliman]

I conceded that long ago.
But then again, in this specific scenario, i'd only have to knock one person out. I am certain this would be nowhere near his best strategy. My ICM equity would be about $254 in a 200 tourney at that point. Actually, the more I think about that specifically, I like my chances. I WOULD play this out this specific way, absolutely.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I conceded that long ago.
But then again, in this specific scenario, i'd only have to knock one person out. I am certain this would be nowhere near his best strategy. My ICM equity would be about $254 in a 200 tourney at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hard to believe that you are truly this clueless.

This is a troll right?

Payouts are $500, $300, $200. (Payouts obv. are $1000, $600, $400 here, which Dali and I both missed my typo, but this didn't affect either of our logic re: this being +EV or -EV)

ZJ1: 3k chips
ZJ2: 3k chips
ZJ3: 3k chips
You: 1k chips

ZJ1, 2, 3 collude w/ complete information about each other's hand and actions.

You think your equity is $254. (unless ICM equity means something different)

Wow. Do you understand how much better than ZJ you're claiming to be?

You either don't understand anything that has been discussed in this thread or you're making millions at SNGs. One or the other.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the more I think about that specifically, I like my chances. I WOULD play this out this specific way, absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much? I have an unlimited bankroll to play this out with. Since we've already agreed on the ground rules that you feel are "absolutely" +EV for you, just name for what stakes and how many times you want to play.

You are truly displaying some of the worst thinking ever seen on 2+2.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I conceded that long ago.
But then again, in this specific scenario, i'd only have to knock one person out. I am certain this would be nowhere near his best strategy. My ICM equity would be about $254 in a 200 tourney at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hard to believe that you are truly this clueless.

This is a troll right?

Payouts are $500, $300, $200.

ZJ1: 3k chips
ZJ2: 3k chips
ZJ3: 3k chips
You: 1k chips

You think your equity is $254.

Wow. Do you understand how much better than ZJ you're claiming to be?

You either don't understand anything that has been discussed in this thread or you're making millions at SNGs. One or the other.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the more I think about that specifically, I like my chances. I WOULD play this out this specific way, absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much? I have an unlimited bankroll to play this out with. Since we've already agreed on the ground rules that you feel are "absolutely" +EV for you, just name for what stakes and how many times you want to play.

You are truly displaying some of the worst thinking ever seen on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically said my ICM equity. I'm assuming you know what this is. Please show me how I am wrong, as you are making some VERY bold statements for someone who likely doesn't have the SNG experience that I do.


Also, do you not see that now I only have to KO one person to get $400? This would be an exceptionally worse way to play for ZJ than if he just never busted any of his players.

[ChrisV]

I know where you're coming from because I used to believe this as well. It is a very intuitive idea because we are used to playing in SNGs where most of the table is worse than us. But the fact is that having a partner in the game does not damage your bottom line any more than having an independent player of equal ability does.

There are a couple of different ways I can demonstrate this. Let's take the case you're worried about, where you and your partner finish first and second. The expectation per player here is obviously (first prize + second prize)/2. Now suppose your partner is replaced by an independent player who plays exactly as well as you do. You reach heads up with this guy, lets assume with equal stacks (which is the average case since he plays exactly as well as you do). What is your expectation? Answer - you have an equal chance of finishing either first or second. Therefore your expectation per player is the same as before - (first prize + second prize)/2. If you change the scenario so that you finish first more often, all you are doing is proving that it's good to have people in the game that play worse than you.

Another way to approach the problem is like this: in this game with 5 copies of ZeeJustin in it, playing independently, each copy earns $x per tourney. They decide they are going to pool their profits. That gives them $(5x). They chop it 5 ways, which gives each of them $x. When I put it like that it should be obvious that playing off the same bankroll cannot make a difference to their earn.

The hole in the "can't both finish first" reasoning is that it looks at the first-second placings and reasons that you missed a chance to both finish first. But it doesn't consider that you both might have finished second - which, if your opponent is of equal strength, is just as likely.

Counterintuitive, but true.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, do you not see that now I only have to KO one person to get $400?

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly do you plan on doing this? You have to double up twice, and even then you're not gaurenteed to KO someone since I can basically redistribute my chips at will.

Edit: I'll clarify. You double up once, the stacks are 3k/3k/2k/2k. If you fold utg, I can have a 3k stack raise to 200, the other 3k stack call, and my 2k stack shoves. Now I have 3 approximately equal stacks. If you cripple one, I'll just dump enough chips to keep it barely alive.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, do you not see that now I only have to KO one person to get $400? This would be an exceptionally worse way to play for ZJ than if he just never busted any of his players.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right that this is worse for ZJ because he misses out on a lot of +EV opportunities by skipping all the 10 handed hands.

I think you still are behind though. I'm not sure how ICM plays out when ZJ will NEVER go all in against himself. Maybe it still works. I agree for sure though that you are better off here than against 9 ZJs.

I am also sure that colluding well is certainly +EV, and I would be willing to play 9 hands against your 1 (even though you are a better SNG player than me) and expect to win more (lose less) than you.

-Jman28

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

I specifically said my ICM equity. I'm assuming you know what this is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I was editing my post as you were responding to note that specific fact.

OK. I just looked it up. Now I know.

But you don't need a model here if you just use logical reasoning. How can you be +EV in such an obviously huge -EV spot.

This all comes back to your basic contention. This is not about your experience in SNGs. It is about your lack of understanding of the advantage gained when your opponents all know each other's hands and act accordingly against you.

As I said earlier, I am very happy to play out this scenario against you for any amount of money for any amount of times.

[ QUOTE ]
This would be an exceptionally worse way to play for ZJ than if he just never busted any of his players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not argued against this statement.

[ChrisV]

Actually El Diablo, Daliman is right about this, or partly right. His equity in the SNG at this point is still going to be negative, because of the vicious collusion ZJ can unleash on him, but it is less negative than it would be if ZJ had just sat tight and not knocked his own players out. In other words it's a bad plan for ZJ to knock 6 of his own guys out, but not so bad that it rescues Dali.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words it's a bad plan for ZJ to knock 6 of his own guys out, but not so bad that it rescues Dali.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, do you not see that now I only have to KO one person to get $400?

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly do you plan on doing this? You have to double up twice, and even then you're not gaurenteed to KO someone since I can basically redistribute my chips at will.

Edit: I'll clarify. You double up once, the stacks are 3k/3k/2k/2k. If you fold utg, I can have a 3k stack raise to 200, the other 3k stack call, and my 2k stack shoves. Now I have 3 approximately equal stacks. If you cripple one, I'll just dump enough chips to keep it barely alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not saying it would be easy, but I'm giving serious thought to getting backing on this if Diablo is serious, which I'm sure he is. It's DEFINITELY not unexploitable vs your end. Only having 3 hands vs having 9 significantly reduces your card knowledge domination, and situations would also likely arise where you call me allin with 2 or even all 3 hands if you had 3 good hands that didn't block each other, which, if I slide through, changes everything, of course.

I'm very interested in what Diablo's responce will be regarding that $254 figure I came up with, as I don't remember him ever eating crow round there parts.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually El Diablo, Daliman is right about this, or partly right. His equity in the SNG at this point is still going to be negative, because of the vicious collusion ZJ can unleash on him, but it is less negative than it would be if ZJ had just sat tight and not knocked his own players out. In other words it's a bad plan for ZJ to knock 6 of his own guys out, but not so bad that it rescues Dali.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this and I also agree with the fact that 9 is clearly not the optimal number of seats for the colluder to buy in with. I think both are fairly obvious.

However, I think my scenario is incredibly simple to analyze and is clearly and demonstrably -EV for Daliman. Once you establish that, it makes a lot of other things clear as well re: the impact of collusion in various scenarios.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
and situations would also likely arise where you call me allin with 2 or even all 3 hands if you had 3 good hands that didn't block each other, which, if I slide through, changes everything, of course.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never agreed to playing on crack. I would be sober if any bet were to go down.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm very interested in what Diablo's responce will be regarding that $254 figure I came up with, as I don't remember him ever eating crow round there parts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very simple. You are correct that your equity in that situation against three non-colluding players is $254. As I edited in my post while you were responding (and said to ZJ at the same time in chat), I did not know what ICM was and made a faulty assumption that you were talking about something that applied to the discussion at hand. That is why I stated the conditions and my amazement that you thought your equity was $254. I am more than happy to admit that you were correct about your "ICM equity" being $254.

However, I think that is not much more relevant in this spot than saying "my equity in this spot if we chop it up evenly is $500."

[Daliman]

Playing off the same BR in the same SNg's, as I said before however, has a static return, so as I 'm faily sure someone else explained already in this thread much better than I can, if you have 8 players all colluding in the same tourney together, their ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM return per is $28 @, as they are paying 1720 to play. Obviously, the return would have to be less than this, and there are a fair amount of people making this already in the 20's, and I am making more than this lately in the 100's.

[Daliman]

No clarification was needed. I knew exactly what you meant.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
as they are paying 1720 to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Colluders can't apply for rakeback?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Not saying it would be easy, but I'm giving serious thought to getting backing on this if Diablo is serious, which I'm sure he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, just to clarify. I said any amount of times for any amount of money. What I really meant by that was "any reasonable amount of times" for "any large sum of money."

[ZeeJustin]

I hope you're not trying to cut me out of the action. I clearly want a decent amount of action on myself here.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and situations would also likely arise where you call me allin with 2 or even all 3 hands if you had 3 good hands that didn't block each other, which, if I slide through, changes everything, of course.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never agreed to playing on crack. I would be sober if any bet were to go down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, let's see here then. Lets say I go allin UTG at 100-200 blinds, and your three hands are AK, 99, and JTs. Which hands do you play, and which do you fold?

Obviously, calling with all 3 hands would be HIGHLY unlikely, but 2 I would think could easily be very common. Jt's is the obvious likely fold candidate, but which do you fold, AK or 99?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let's see here then. Lets say I go allin UTG at 100-200 blinds, and your three hands are AK, 99, and JTs. Which hands do you play, and which do you fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is the optimal play, but I would call with only AK. Even if it's not the optimal play, it is still very -ev for you.

[ChrisV]

Someone did indeed explain that, and I'll give you the same answer I gave him, which is that that has nothing to do with collusion or teaming or magic disappearing first-place money. The reason you can't make any money in that situation is that there are 7 other players in the game who play just as well as you do, and you're getting eaten by the rake. This applies whether you are teaming with them or not. If you know these other 7 are always going to be sitting, you are better off colluding with them - but yes, obviously it's better not to have them in the game in the first place.

[Ulysses]

Dali,

Let's ignore all of the posts prior to this for a sec.

Think about the following and tell me if you change your position at all and can maybe see why a number of us are just shockingly appalled at your positions in this thread.

You are playing SNG poker. Your opponents can ignore all that and never have to try to win. They are all playing a different game called "Knock out Daliman." And that game has completely different rules and information. This so completely changes the situation and drastically impacts all regular SNG considerations.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm very interested in what Diablo's responce will be regarding that $254 figure I came up with, as I don't remember him ever eating crow round there parts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very simple. You are correct that your equity in that situation against three non-colluding players is $254. As I edited in my post while you were responding (and said to ZJ at the same time in chat), I did not know what ICM was and made a faulty assumption that you were talking about something that applied to the discussion at hand. That is why I stated the conditions and my amazement that you thought your equity was $254. I am more than happy to admit that you were correct about your "ICM equity" being $254.

However, I think that is not much more relevant in this spot than saying "my equity in this spot if we chop it up evenly is $500."

[/ QUOTE ]

You are incorrect about it's relevance, and your SNG inexperience is becoming glaringly obvious now. I chose my words carefully, and I never stated that this would correlate directly to my earn, but it DOES show that I gain automatically by the other ZJ's getting KO'd, as is common knowledge in tourneys of most any kind.

Also, you are throwing around a lot of insults for someone who has already shown a lack of understanding here in this thread. I don't remember ever saying anything derogatory about ZJ or yourself, and I would appreciate it if you would keep future comments along this thread above board, if not for common decency, then for the fact that you may be wrong.

Also, just to get it out, I do think I am a better SNG player than ZJ. This should not come as as surprise to anyone, least of all ZJ, as I think I am better than anyone playing in these at my $$$ level, save for Gigabet. I know ZJ is overall likely a better poker player than I am, but I have seen a few things I personally consider flaws in his SNG game. That said, he is still better than 99% of all SNG players, and I'd LOVE to have his MTT skill.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not saying it would be easy, but I'm giving serious thought to getting backing on this if Diablo is serious, which I'm sure he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, just to clarify. I said any amount of times for any amount of money. What I really meant by that was "any reasonable amount of times" for "any large sum of money."

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of "which I'm sure he is" did you not understand?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let's see here then. Lets say I go allin UTG at 100-200 blinds, and your three hands are AK, 99, and JTs. Which hands do you play, and which do you fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is the optimal play, but I would call with only AK. Even if it's not the optimal play, it is still very -ev for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if I have 88.

[curtains]

I challenge daliman to a sit and go where I get 5 hands and he gets 5 hands, and let's see who's a better colluder. They should make a site like this called collusion poker, where every sit and go is just a heads up match between two players with 5 hands each.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
but I have seen a few things I personally consider flaws in his SNG game

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that I play 12 tables at a time, and pay absolutely no attention to any of them, right? I could be wrong, but I'm also under the impression that despite this, my roi is still higher than your roi playing 4 tables.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
You are incorrect about it's relevance, and your SNG inexperience is becoming glaringly obvious now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. I'd wager a large amount that my SNG ROI results are better than yours at $100 and $200 levels (the only two levels where I have a reasonable sample size). I don't know what yours are, but I do know what Zee's are and what is generally considered "good" around here.

[ QUOTE ]
it DOES show that I gain automatically by the other ZJ's getting KO'd, as is common knowledge in tourneys of most any kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is arguing against that? Not me.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you are throwing around a lot of insults for someone who has already shown a lack of understanding here in this thread. I don't remember ever saying anything derogatory about ZJ or yourself, and I would appreciate it if you would keep future comments along this thread above board

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a fair request. I will try my best if you promise to try not to type things that are so wrong they make my brain hurt. That often leads to such caustic remarks from me.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Not if I have 88.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're only playing hands 88 and better, those 100/200 blinds are gonna eat you up fast.

I should also mention that I'm much more likely to call with the hand that's in the BB than the other hands for obvious reasons.

[curtains]

While we are at it, I'll put down 1k that my ROIs are larger than anyone's here. Who wants some???

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Dali,

Let's ignore all of the posts prior to this for a sec.

Think about the following and tell me if you change your position at all and can maybe see why a number of us are just shockingly appalled at your positions in this thread.

You are playing SNG poker. Your opponents can ignore all that and never have to try to win. They are all playing a different game called "Knock out Daliman." And that game has completely different rules and information. This so completely changes the situation and drastically impacts all regular SNG considerations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally civility. Thank the gods.

I do understand that it's a different game.

I have conceded that 9 vs 1 would alomost assuredly be insurmountable.

But remember when I said a month or so ago that a person would go broke 99% of the time he played vs the best in the world in the big game before doubling up to 3.5 million? You said, "I think you underestimate how much luck has to do with the game." Now, in that game, you are not only playing with 7-9 players who are among the best in the world, it HAS been inferred more than once that they share a bankroll at a minimum and cheat at a maximum there, which was something I took into account. Now, the parallels aren't exactly the same, but they're pretty similar. WHy are you discounting the "Luck" factor here even if it were conceded as given that I am a better player than ZJ(which it shouldn't be) and he obviously isn't up on proper collusion techniques(which HE shouldn't be)?

I should probably stop posting for the night now, as I'm too tired to figure out how cogent my previous paragraph was, but, to summarize;

I am the best.
ZJ is 2nd best.
ChrisV is 3rd
El Diablo is 4th, out on the bubble.

Jesus, i AM loopy.......

[ChrisV]

We should have a thread about ROIs in the $200s. It could be titled "Dick Measuring Contest".

[curtains]

Well it's absurd, anyone can lie about their ROI anyway....eliminate tournaments from their database and so on. No one will ever truly know someone else's ROI.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I am the best.
ZJ is 2nd best.
ChrisV is 3rd
El Diablo is 4th, out on the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo is better than either of us. Even if we are talking specifically about $200+15 sng play on Party, he is better than us. It may take him a handful of sngs to adjust to the changes in the game since he last played, but it wouldn't take him long at all.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Well it's absurd, anyone can lie about their ROI anyway....eliminate tournaments from their database and so on. No one will ever truly know someone else's ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one will truly know their own either. By the time you get a large enough sample size to have a margin of error of about 3%, the game texture will have changed significantly.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are incorrect about it's relevance, and your SNG inexperience is becoming glaringly obvious now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. I'd wager a large amount that my SNG ROI results are better than yours at $100 and $200 levels (the only two levels where I have a reasonable sample size). I don't know what yours are, but I do know what Zee's are and what is generally considered "good" around here.

[ QUOTE ]
it DOES show that I gain automatically by the other ZJ's getting KO'd, as is common knowledge in tourneys of most any kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is arguing against that? Not me.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you are throwing around a lot of insults for someone who has already shown a lack of understanding here in this thread. I don't remember ever saying anything derogatory about ZJ or yourself, and I would appreciate it if you would keep future comments along this thread above board

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a fair request. I will try my best if you promise to try not to type things that are so wrong they make my brain hurt. That often leads to such caustic remarks from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

100's: 27% ROI
200's: 13% ROI, which sucks, and was previously 17% for my first 2800.

GL with that. I'd be interested to know your PP name, as that would tell me alot, but I doubt you'll give it. ZGot that whole "masked stranger" persona to keep up and all.

Good job of staying civil, btw. The "brain hurts" comment is a nice touch.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I have seen a few things I personally consider flaws in his SNG game

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that I play 12 tables at a time, and pay absolutely no attention to any of them, right? I could be wrong, but I'm also under the impression that despite this, my roi is still higher than your roi playing 4 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course i do, and it may be. I doubt either of us are in long run, and i've had some HORRENDOUS results my last 1000 200's.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
200's: 13% ROI, which sucks, and was previously 17% for my first 2800.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be honost and say that I don't really have an accurate measure for my roi. I've been traveling a lot, and haven't been using pokertracker as much as I used to. That being said, I would be very surprised if my roi over my past 2000 sngs is under 13%. Don't worry, I don't expect you to take my word for this since I can't produce any numbers. It's not very relevant to the thread anyway.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally civility. Thank the gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Civility. Overrated. Less fun.

[ QUOTE ]
I do understand that it's a different game.

I have conceded that 9 vs 1 would alomost assuredly be insurmountable.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. We're getting somewhere here. Note that my initial 3k/3k/3k/1k example was made specifically to help point out how -EV the generic situation was, as the stack preservation collusion dynamics become much more obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
it HAS been inferred more than once that they share a bankroll at a minimum

[/ QUOTE ]

While it is possible (and perhaps likely) that some are sharing a bankroll, I have not heard this as the norm and I know that some definitely are not doing that. The only bankroll sharing I'm aware of that is common knowledge is the fact that they pool their money and backers' money to play Andy Beal HU when the stakes increase dramatically as compared to the standard big game.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, the parallels aren't exactly the same, but they're pretty similar. WHy are you discounting the "Luck" factor here

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not agree at all that a handful of very good players who might be sharing a bankroll and might be cheating is "pretty similar" to being able to see all hands and discuss all actions amongst the team.

[ QUOTE ]
I am the best.
ZJ is 2nd best.
ChrisV is 3rd
El Diablo is 4th, out on the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why escalating blinds are great equalizers. Even the greatest frequently get unlucky and miss the money.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

100's: 27% ROI
200's: 13% ROI, which sucks, and was previously 17% for my first 2800.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, mine were higher, though they were quite a while ago and are in the hundreds, not thousands. I don't really care to discuss specific numbers or validity of my earn, etc. Even if your true earn in some game is higher, I don't care. My main point was simply that I've played a lot of SNGs and done well. Definitely enough to be able to intelligently discuss SNG strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested to know your PP name, as that would tell me alot, but I doubt you'll give it. ZGot that whole "masked stranger" persona to keep up and all.

[/ QUOTE ]

My PP name is akshawnd. My Empire name is gr8plyr82. My Stars and UB names are akshawnd. I have always shared my names openly on these forums.

[ QUOTE ]
Good job of staying civil, btw. The "brain hurts" comment is a nice touch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I too thought it was an unnecessary, but fine jab.

[mackthefork]

First rule of gambling Daliman, never let your ego affect your judgement. BTW I would say a team of 2 Macks vs a team of 4 Dalis and a team of 4 ZJs would come out with a higher ROI. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Regards Mack

[partygirluk]

I can't believe some of your reasoning in this thread Dali.

Lets take this slowly

i) You and ZJ are both excellent players. Neither has a massive edge over the other.

ii) There, if there was a table with 5 Dali clones and 5 ZJ clones (or any number such that the total number was 10), no player would be + EV after rake.

iii) Therefore, if you were playing against 9 ZJ clones, they could just all play independently, and you would still be -EV.

iv) Therefore you are suggesting that by colluding, he loses EV (as you know claim to be +EV).

v) But why would he choose to do something which deliberately lowers his EV? Thus, you are assuming that ZJ is a moron.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

And just think about it some more. Say ZJ holds AA on a JJx board. You show lots of aggression. He is concerned that you hold a Jack. He will have much more information that if he was not colluding. If he has already seen both Jacks, then he has no concerns. If he has seen no Jacks, he might be able to make a fold that he couldn't otherwise. Or if he picks up a flush draw on the flop, he will have a massive advantage hacing seen 16 more cards than if he was non colluding.

Really Dali, I am finding this hard to digest.

[Daliman]

You are also in WAY late on the thread. Read through and You'll see I conceded vs 9 ZJ's long ago.

[PrayingMantis]

Just so I'll get it clearly: what exactly is your argument in this thread, Dali?

Player A and player B are playing the same SNGs, without colluding. Player A has an ROI of ROIA, B has ROI of ROIB.

Now, assume they collude. Their ROIs now are ROI(c)A and ROI(c)B. Are you saying that ROIA+ROIB&gt;ROI(c)A+ROI(c)B? Or that ROIA+ROIB is not necessarily &lt;ROI(c)A+ROI(c)B, and that it depends on the quality of of A and B? These are two very different arguments.

If your argument is the latter, than I believe ZJ's "clones" are definitely not A and B for which ROIA+ROIB&gt;ROI(c)A+ROI(c)B, and so I don't understand your claims in regard to "beating" them. If it's the former, then it seems you are just very wrong. But please make it clear.

[Daliman]

Well, i was going to post a post mortem clarification on this whole thing, but I just lost half what I had typed to a cut and paste mishap, so I'll rewrite it out later.

[Chris Dow]

I'm not a regular poster in "high end" threads like this, lol. But to me, the solution to to one "colluding problem" that Dali gave is obvious and has been overlooked. When ZJ has the 3k stacks and Dali pushes utg and ZJ has AK JTs and 99. Dali pretty much said he is pushing with 88 up here. If that is the case ZJ would *OBVIOUSLY* fold all 3 hands and let Dali take the blinds (assuming a level of blinds around 100/200 which seemed to be agreed upon). ZJ has a huge advantage of letting the blinds escalate to a significant portion of Dali's stack and then forcing Dali to defend his big blind with a substandard hand later vs the best hand of the 3 he gets dealt. If Dali wants to play a tight solid game, ZJ just sits on his chips until the blinds get large and then plays the best of 3 vs Dali's big blind. Of course if Dali wants to weaken his starting standards for the UTG push or if the blinds are big and therefore force him to lower his standards ZJ simply calls with the AK (probably his best choice, but as ZJ stated which hand is in the blind will matter a lot) knowing he is now a substantial favorite to just end it and scoop up all the Dali money. (I would continue to comment on how even if he loses he's still in terrific shape but it would drag on forever) In conclusion, the scenario Dali posted as "a problem" for ZJ is far from it and when examined with "collusion strategy" only seems to emphasize the edge ZJ is adding.

Disclaimer: While not an expert colluder, I hold the opinion that I can think. In this case my brain indicates that the best solution is very similar to the one I tried to explain. Remember the rapidly escalating blinds (especially on PP)... One final note, but if Dali thinks that ZJ isn't a good enough player to have any idea about the strength of the hands that Dali is pushing with based on like the frequency of Dali entering pots then I suppose ZJ wouldn't be able to do this. I tend to think ZJ can figure it out, lol. Sorry for the long post, but I tried to cover my bases as far as counter-arguments are concerned.