PROBLEMS IN POKER

Swaping % in poker is the biggest problem out there and its never even addressed. No one will ever get involed with a person they have a peice of when its not necessary. Take the mose recent world series for example. Phil Ivey came over the top of a player with 9 5 off suit. DO YOU THINK ANYONE WOULD COME OVER THE TOP WITH 95 OFF OF A PERSON THEY HAD A PERCENTAGE OF. It changes the play when people swap admit it or not.

my first post so be easy on me

[-Skeme-]

There is absolutely no way to regulate it.

[Dynasty]

Mason Malmuth wrote about this in one of his essay books and gave the basic advice that owning pieces of players in tournaments should not be allowed.

Obviously, tournament poker has exploded in popularity since he wrote that. So, it has not been a hinderance to growth so far.

I think the way to stop it is for the WPT and the WSOP to publicaly ban % swaps. Eventually there will be a guini(sp) pig who gets banned and it will stop this madness.

[-Skeme-]

That wouldn't do anything. It would just make the swappers quiet about who they're trading %s with. It's not inforceable.

[Lalit Khajuria]

What you mean?
I "stake" couple of players to bigger online tourneys, like the stars sunday tourney etc. And also play it by myself, is there something wrong with that?

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
What you mean?
I "stake" couple of players to bigger online tourneys, like the stars sunday tourney etc. And also play it by myself, is there something wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Not saying that you have any bad intentions or are less than honorable, but it opens the door for all kinds of improprieties. Even if there aren't improprieties taking place, it gives the appearance of impropriety, which damages the game.

It would be like Derek Jeter being part owner of the Boston Red Sox while he's playing against them in the playoffs.

[Kama45]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you mean?
I "stake" couple of players to bigger online tourneys, like the stars sunday tourney etc. And also play it by myself, is there something wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Not saying that you have any bad intentions or are less than honorable, but it opens the door for all kinds of improprieties. Even if there aren't improprieties taking place, it gives the appearance of impropriety, which damages the game.

It would be like Derek Jeter being part owner of the Boston Red Sox while he's playing against them in the playoffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect analogy.

It can lead to implicit collusion.

[tek]

Disregarding swapping for the moment, you can go over the top with crap for two other reasons. You have a read that the guy has a weaker hand and/or he is playing for money that is bigger for him than you...

[Phill S]

The trouble is, with regard to the WPT, deals arent allowed so the natural variance of MTTs cant be overcome this way - thats why people trade percentages (backing deals for a second reason).

Imo, if deals are allowed, or if percentages are publicly announced then i dont see any problems. The trouble with your analogy is poker players arent out to win, they are out to make money.

Phill

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Imo, if deals are allowed, or if percentages are publicly announced then i dont see any problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all respect Phil, I don't think that you are thinking this through. Publicly announcing, "Player A and myself have a reason to collude" does not make it any less of a problem. Imagine you're at a table and you know that two guys are in business together (or are partners or whatever you want to call it). Four players limp, you limp with 66, Player A (with aces) limps, and Player B (A's business partner) mini-raises with 27o, getting all 5 limpers to call but re-opening the betting for his partner with aces.

Because you knew that A and B were business partners, does this make it any less wrong? As long as participants in the competition are allowed to have a piece of other participants, teamwork / collusion will be a very real threat. In fact, just from a $ results standpoint (aside from the ethics), players A and B would be foolish not to collude while at the table.

I would never do this, of course. But many players would, and as long as you allow players to stake other players like this, the appearance of impropriety is there, and for good reason. IMO, anybody who thinks that there are not shenanigans going on is really being naive. I have no idea how rampant it is, of course, but just think about it.

[Smoothcall]

It doesn't make it any less wrong. But it will limit the collusion to a minimum if they know everyone is watching them, since it was annouced they are business partners.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't make it any less wrong. But it will limit the collusion to a minimum if they know everyone is watching them, since it was annouced they are business partners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smoothcall makes a perfect point, if people expect you to collude, you certainly cant collude as effectively as otherwise.

But frankly, what do people expect to happen? Either its brought out into the open and dealt with, or its forced to be more covert than it already is.

Phill

[Smoothcall]

You are absolutely right. Even the most honest players will stop from making a play on someone they have an interest financially on. They may not flat out pass chips as some may do. But they won't go for the jugualr with these guys and back off on plays they would make against this oponent if they didn't have an interest.

For the people in charge of banning backing others in a tournament that the backer plays himself is : 1) They will lose many entries as many of the players are back by one man. So if he plays than 3 or 4 of his guys can't play. The entries will go down. 2)It will still go on.

But i think it would lessen the collusion a bit. As if they said anybody caught would be possibly suspended and banned. So i like the plan of making a rule not to allow people to back others in a tournament they play themselves. Question is do the people running the tournaments like it?

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Mason Malmuth wrote about this in one of his essay books and gave the basic advice that owning pieces of players in tournaments should not be allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

A pleasant thought, but there is absolutely no way of actually enforcing this. To illustrate the principle, think of how well a rule to prohibit tournament poker players from spending any portion of their winnings on chewing gum would work.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
But frankly, what do people expect to happen? Either its brought out into the open and dealt with, or its forced to be more covert than it already is.

[/ QUOTE ]

That kind of reasoning could be used to keep all sorts of activities legal that are currently illegal on the grounds that "they're going to do it anyway".

It's hard for the Olympics to test for Human Growth Hormone but they ban its use anyway.

I think that the answer is to ban it and severely sanction those who are caught doing it. Once the first big name poker player is banned from big money tournaments for a year (or whatever the sanction is) it will get the attention of everbody.

I really think that as poker gets more and more popular with the general public that there is just a huge scandal waiting to happen with regards to this practice. Hopefully it doesn't hurt the sport in the long run or (God forbid) lead to the government getting their noses into it. And don't think that if there was a big scandal that the publicity seeking members of Congress wouldn't try to get involved.

I think that the poker industry would be better off trying to fix this problem itself now so that this does not happen in the future.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the answer is to ban it and severely sanction those who are caught doing it. Once the first big name poker player is banned from big money tournaments for a year (or whatever the sanction is) it will get the attention of everbody.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't imagine the ramifications of being caught could extend beyond the one tournament in question or the one place hosting the tournament. Phil Ivey, if he were caught colluding (which i doubt he does) at the Foxwoods event, would have no trouble buying into the Bellagio event. Lacking a national regulatory body, there's no way for one tournament director to get another tournament director to cooperate.

[fnurt]

Actually, if my buddy knows I will never come over the top of him with 95o because I have a piece of him, that makes me even more likely to come over the top of him with 95o. Maybe I'm just a poker player.

[Smoothcall]

Well some do that too. But its still cheating and collusion. Instead of you not hurting him you are hurting him to increase your advantage. Either way you or your backee have an advantage over the field. Another words the backer may raise you everytime knwoing you wont call him becuase if you do you will never be bcaked again! Or he may raise you and you come over the top and he will fold to help your stack. Either way there is an advantage one of you has the field doesn't have.

[Easy E]

You either don't know much about tournament poker the way Phil Ivey plays it, or you're too stupid to realize that making wild accusations is NOT the way to introduce yourself to the community.

Here's hoping your future posts are of much greater caliber. This one sucked.

[Smoothcall]

Wow, easy is not easy on the new poster. He didn't say phil i was colluding with anyone. He's saying if someone in phil i's position(had a piece of the caller in front of him) would be less likely to try and bust that opponent. He's not saying phil i. colluded with anyone. take it easy on him easy.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
You either don't know much about tournament poker the way Phil Ivey plays it, or you're too stupid to realize that making wild accusations is NOT the way to introduce yourself to the community.

Here's hoping your future posts are of much greater caliber. This one sucked.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was, uh, just an example of the type of play a good player makes. I think you completely misread the post.

I wasent accusing Phil Ivey of anything. I was just asking if you had a % of sombody would you make a play coming over the top of them with nothing.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Swaping % in poker is the biggest problem out there and its never even addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been addressed. It's a problem but not necessarily the biggest problem.

[ QUOTE ]
DO YOU THINK ANYONE WOULD COME OVER THE TOP WITH 95 OFF OF A PERSON THEY HAD A PERCENTAGE OF

[/ QUOTE ]

A very prominent person in the poker world once bought %50 of me in a $300 buy-in 1 rebuy torunmanet at the Golden Nugget in downtown Vegas. The tournament paid 6 places. We got down to six players. There were two short stacks. Me and another player. My backer was in the BB. I was one of the button. I raised three times the BB. Folded to him he called. I had A,T. the flop came A,A,3. He checked. I checked. The turn was an ofsuit 5. He checked and I bet the pot and he called. The river was a 9. He moved in. I called. He had A,9 and knocked me out.

He went on to win the tournament. When I asked him about the hand he said that if he had played it any other way it would have been cheating. I disagreed but he was probably right. Some people are just plain honest.


Vince

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that the answer is to ban it and severely sanction those who are caught doing it. Once the first big name poker player is banned from big money tournaments for a year (or whatever the sanction is) it will get the attention of everbody.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't imagine the ramifications of being caught could extend beyond the one tournament in question or the one place hosting the tournament. Phil Ivey, if he were caught colluding (which i doubt he does) at the Foxwoods event, would have no trouble buying into the Bellagio event. Lacking a national regulatory body, there's no way for one tournament director to get another tournament director to cooperate.

[/ QUOTE ]

A national (or better yet, international) regulatory body is certainly needed as well, and not just for this partnering issue. Just like in all the big sports, a regulation body would really bring credibility and negotiating power to poker.

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But frankly, what do people expect to happen? Either its brought out into the open and dealt with, or its forced to be more covert than it already is.

[/ QUOTE ]

That kind of reasoning could be used to keep all sorts of activities legal that are currently illegal on the grounds that "they're going to do it anyway".

It's hard for the Olympics to test for Human Growth Hormone but they ban its use anyway.

I think that the answer is to ban it and severely sanction those who are caught doing it. Once the first big name poker player is banned from big money tournaments for a year (or whatever the sanction is) it will get the attention of everbody.

I really think that as poker gets more and more popular with the general public that there is just a huge scandal waiting to happen with regards to this practice. Hopefully it doesn't hurt the sport in the long run or (God forbid) lead to the government getting their noses into it. And don't think that if there was a big scandal that the publicity seeking members of Congress wouldn't try to get involved.

I think that the poker industry would be better off trying to fix this problem itself now so that this does not happen in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are so right on. I'll bet (pun intended) that baseball players and fans initially thought a ban on baseball gambling by players would be unenforceable. Ask Pete Rose how effective that rule is.

If there were a major regulatory body, and an official circuit (combining all the major tournaments), like there is in tennis, for example, banning a player for a lengthy period of time would work.

I've actually thought about this: if I ever make it to a tv table, in the middle of a big hand, I'm going to ask every player at the table if they are backed by anyone. It'll probably be edited out, but it might get the subject a little more attention. If I don't make it, I hope someone else does this.

-ptmusic

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But frankly, what do people expect to happen? Either its brought out into the open and dealt with, or its forced to be more covert than it already is.

[/ QUOTE ]

That kind of reasoning could be used to keep all sorts of activities legal that are currently illegal on the grounds that "they're going to do it anyway".

It's hard for the Olympics to test for Human Growth Hormone but they ban its use anyway.

I think that the answer is to ban it and severely sanction those who are caught doing it. Once the first big name poker player is banned from big money tournaments for a year (or whatever the sanction is) it will get the attention of everbody.

I really think that as poker gets more and more popular with the general public that there is just a huge scandal waiting to happen with regards to this practice. Hopefully it doesn't hurt the sport in the long run or (God forbid) lead to the government getting their noses into it. And don't think that if there was a big scandal that the publicity seeking members of Congress wouldn't try to get involved.

I think that the poker industry would be better off trying to fix this problem itself now so that this does not happen in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem would fix itself if the players werent paying their own entry fees. You don't worry about collusion at wimbledon, because they aren't backing each other because they aren't risking their own money.

The WSOP made oodles of money from the players entry fees AND got oodles of money from ESPN as well, not to mention ancilliary revenue from room rentals, food, spin off gambling, press attention...

As long as the money is being put up by the players, then I say they have the right to make backing deals. Police this problem by keeping an eye out for collusive play, recognizing its hard to catch. But hey, its our money, let us spend it as we will.

Quite frankly, I think the problem isn't that serious and is likely to consist mostly of mostly unconscious soft playing. But hey, that could happen with friends, business partners, spouces etc etc, and we don't ban them from playing. I don't see the backing issue as any more serious than those issues.

--Zetack

[Phill S]

All you guys are looking at this from the wrong angle. % sharing is a logical thing in tourney poker, it reduces variance which is a killer in big MTT events.

Instead of looking of ways to remove it using sticks, why not use carrots?

WPT makes a fortune from the sale of footage. If the events were to pump some of this money back into the event it would give you a better footing to ban % sharing. Whilst this overlay wouldnt go a huge way to reducing variance, with a flatter pay structure and the higher profitability given, i can see most, if not all, pros playing on a level footing and not sharing %s.

If you instigate some kind of ban from playing on specific tours, such as WPT, WSOP and EPT or if all of these band together, then you could ensure tournement players wouldnt do it.

By banning for twelve months from all the major events, and at the same time making these events better to the players - then you have a two pronged approach to the problem.

The big question that requires asking is how you deal with players who are certainly good enough to play, but require backing to do so. Lets not name names, we all have a good idea who is being backed, for whatever reason. But what then, do we stop backed players from playing these events?

Phill

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, easy is not easy on the new poster. He didn't say phil i was colluding with anyone. He's saying if someone in phil i's position(had a piece of the caller in front of him) would be less likely to try and bust that opponent. He's not saying phil i. colluded with anyone. take it easy on him easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? Maybe you should read that again
<font color="green">No one will ever get involed with a person they have a peice of when its not necessary. Take the mose recent world series for example. Phil Ivey came over the top of a player with 9 5 off suit. <font color="red">DO YOU THINK ANYONE WOULD COME OVER THE TOP WITH 95 OFF OF A PERSON THEY HAD A PERCENTAGE OF.</font></font>

Tell me again, Smooth, where you got your interpretation from?

And I'm never easy on new posters that start off with that type of mentality. Nip that crap in the bud early on, just like you would with a child.

[Easy E]

Either we're reading different posts, or I'm going to have to question your reading comprehension.

If that's what the OP was trying to say, s/he gave no indication in their post (unless I missed the "highlight the white text for the real explaination for my stupid comment" section)

[Easy E]

I see that the structure disguised your actual statement. It is my reading comprehension that was off, not theirs. I stand properly chastised. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

However, to answer your question- if you wouldn't come over the top of someone just because you have a piece of them, then you are guilty of collusion and shouldn't be playing poker (or taking pieces of players in the same tournament)

I'm there to get chips any way I can, within the rules and the spirit of the game. My stake in another player would have nothing to do with that. So yes, I'd come over the top with trash if I thought I had a good shot to win the pot, no matter whom I was playing.

Again, my apologies for the original harsh reply- I was responding to something that you didn't actually say, but what I read. I leave my other dumass responses as proper penance for my stupidity.

[Easy E]

See my apology to themyth and both of you instead.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif I need to cut down on the caffeine, I guess.

[Easy E]

<font color="green">When I asked him about the hand he said that if he had played it any other way it would have been cheating. I disagreed but he was probably right</font>

Probably? Boo, Vince.

[Smoothcall]

I think you are reading it wrong. What he is saying that if phil i. had a piec of the caller he wouldn't play tricky and try to steal the pot away from a buddy he has piece of. Its not important the name phil i except to show an example of 2 people who weren't colluding. Just the opposite of the way you are thinking it.

[Smoothcall]

Apology accepted. It takes a man to admit they made a mistake and apologize. I repsect you more for it. No harm no foul.

[Easy E]

what if I'm not a man? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably? Boo, Vince.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, I wondered how long it would take before someone would pick up on "probably". the point of this thread is exactly that. Is playing differently than you would if you didn't have a piece of your opponent cheating. Some will say that it is sad that anyone would think that it was not cheating. But I consider myself an honest poker player. I would never knowingly do anything that I believe could be considered cheating. So when my buddy pointed out why he felt that playing differently would be cheating I agreed with him but before that I had my doubts that it could be considered cheating. Suffice it to say that I would not play differently but still I wonder. It hink there is a discussion here but I'll think a bit more before I carry on.

Vince

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]

I've actually thought about this: if I ever make it to a tv table, in the middle of a big hand, I'm going to ask every player at the table if they are backed by anyone. It'll probably be edited out, but it might get the subject a little more attention. If I don't make it, I hope someone else does this.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

You ask this and I would tell you none of you business, though probably not that politely. Lots of players have backers, Raymer had backers in all his tournaments until he won the WSOP in 2004, in fact he still has a backer called PokerStars. Arieh was backed by Eric Lindgren in 2004 and everybody knows TJ CLoutier plays on other peoples money. Backing is and always has been an important part of poker and until some of these corprate sponsors start kicking in the prize money it will continue to be.

Here is another one for all you people worrying about colluding. what if a pokersite who has a bunch of players to WSOP still had 4-5 people left with 2 to tables to go aren't you worried the site would tell them to stay out of each others way so they could have more people reach the final table?

RZ

[Easy E]

.. check out OOT.

[Smoothcall]

then i'd asked you if you wanna come over.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
what if I'm not a man? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

,,,change 'man' to 'adult' please....... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
then i'd asked you if you wanna come over.

[/ QUOTE ]

...don't do it.

Smooth has green teeth and hasn't showered in 3 1/2 years.... /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
Is playing differently than you would if you didn't have a piece of your opponent cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

In one of sklanskys works, probably theory of poker, he talks about how hands can change direction by outside forces.

What he basicly said was if you went to a 1/2 limit holdem game, and dropped a few C-notes on the table, since the pot is so massive, all hands have value and nothing should be folded, at least not preflop.

Now % sharing can have a similar effect in terms of EV. If i had a piece of one of the other two opponants at a table, the way i played against them changes because of that % of the other guys profit.

If i get 80% of my profit, 20% of player A's profit and 0% of player B's profit, then the perfect result is me winning, A coming second and be coming 3rd.

Now if you have a large % of someone as you have backed them, this becomes even more apparent.

In both of these cases you would consided -EV moves against player A not because it helps A/you directly, but because it harms B most often. By harming B's equity you maximise your gain quite often.

Now whether this is right or wrong, i cant answer as ive never been in that spot. But when poker comes down to EV maximising, surely you can see where playing differently (but NOT colluding) can have benefit.

Phill

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Is playing differently than you would if you didn't have a piece of your opponent cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now whether this is right or wrong, i cant answer as ive never been in that spot. But when poker comes down to EV maximising, surely you can see where playing differently (but NOT colluding) can have benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the very reason why this should not be allowed! Allowing competitors to own a piece of one another creates an economic incentive to, at worst, collude, and at the least, play differently than you otherwise would have. That is just plain wrong. In any sport, the object of a governing body should be to ensure a level playing field and a fair competition.

Another analogy: When Pete Rose was suspended from baseball, some of his defenders said "at least he was betting on his team to win". That made no difference, because by doing so, he created an economic incentive for himself to place more importance on those games than other games that he did not bet on. If he had 50k riding on a game, for example, he would be more likely to use a relief pitcher for the 4th day in a row when he might not have otherwise. Also, if on Tuesday, he did not bet on the game, but he did have money on Wednesday's game, he created an economic incentive to rest his best players on Tuesday and save them for Wednesday.

Baseball understands that this type of activity hurts the integrity of the entire sport. This activity in poker also hurts the integrity of the game, and, importantly, the casual fan's perception of the game and the fairness of the competition. Even if it will be difficult to catch this type of activity, the powers that be still need to show the public / fans / participants that it is against this type of activity and that it is making an effort to stop it.

[Smoothcall]

If you are playing differently you are colluding. Player b is at a disadvantage because you are making plays to try to make him finish 3rd and the guy you got a piece of finishes 2nd. He is being ganged up on and colluded. When in this tounrey situation you are supposed to only care what where you finish, not your opponents.