Ethics question dealing with inactive players in SNGs.

[jimotto]

You are in an online sit and go tournament when you are at the bubble or in the money (ie 3 or 4 players left). There is an inactive player at the table with a significant stack. You have no intention of putting your chips at risk and giving the inactive player a chance of finishing better than you. Is it ethical to communicate this to the other players. If so, lets say the inactive player is right behind you in position. If you are going to blind him out, you will collect all his big blinds, leaving the other player(s) at a disadvantage. Is it ethical to communicate to them that they should alternate betting through you to collect the inactive player's big blind so that none of the active players remaining gain an advantage over the others?

The actual situation that this question is based on, 20+2 SNG on pokerroom. Four players remaing, estimated stacks are player1 1000, player2 3000, Me 6000, inactive 5000. Inactive player left maybe 5 minutes earlier when there were 6-7 players left. Blinds are something like 200-400. Inactive is BB and Player 1 goes all in. Player 2 calls, I fold, player 1 is eliminated. I say I am not going to bet, player 2 says split blinds? and I say sure. We take turns blinding out inactive till he's around 3000. He then shows up and throws a fit, accuses us of collusion and reports us to support. I win, inactive comes in second. At first one person in support agrees that our behaviour was not out of line, but then a couple days later is overruled we are said to be guilty of cheating. Support says my win was not fair, and wants to penalize me $22 out of my $100 winnings.

I'd be interested in hearing opinions on both the specific and general situation. Please feel free to be brutally honest.

Thanks

Jim

[pgec311]

This is an interesting question. I am not a big fan of people who get a nice stack and then sit out until there are 3 or 4 left, so they assure themselves money. However, if they are not there when it gets down to 3 players then I say by all means the two active players have the right to do this. Why should they fold and let someone who is not even playing stay in the game. If they are active, they have every right to move up in the money. Without the chat, how can it be proven that it is cheating anyway, it essentially becomes a heads up match b/t the two active players where one or the other should take the pot. I am suprised that pokerroom reversed their decision and if I were you I would put up a fight over this. By sitting out, the player has given up the right to win any pot in play.

Just my .02 cents
PC

[Toro]

It's collusion without a doubt. Poker is not a team sport.

[pgec311]

PS I also find it interesting that he just happened to come back when it was down to four and was bi@#$ing that this was happening. Makes me think he was there the whole time and was pissed b/c he wasn't going to finish in the money.

PC

[Toro]

Sitting out, imo, is not an advantage at all. In fact, I think it's pretty stupid. But if that's what the guy chooses to do, that's his right and it does not give others at the table who don't like it to collude against him.

[pgec311]

I see what you are saying, and i guess i agree to some degree, but at the same time what if he doesn't come back at all. If he was the big stack, he might outlast the other two if they play normal, but you are correct in that if they openly discuss this and do nothing but blind him out that is "team" play. So i see both sides to this one.

PC

[Edge34]

Technically: This was clearly collusion by the definition of the word. Softplaying each other because the third player is taking a walk qualifies.

This being said, I agree that there is very little more frustrating than a given player getting a big stack and walking away, thereby almost guaranteeing himself a money finish. The very same effect the guy was going for could be gained by just manually folding every hand, but this would lead to the potential of getting involved in a big hand and taking a tough beat, and missing the money or just barely making it. To fix this, some kind of protection should be offered to players who DON'T do this. Maybe something like "If a player is sitting out for 2 or more rounds (could be adjusted for a number of hands, a period of time, whatever), that player will be removed from the game and will be awarded X position, regardless of stack size." While what the two of you did wasn't exactly ETHICAL, the guy finished second, and I don't think you owe anybody anything from your win.

[Edge34]

Hey toro,

I've had this problem before, and its relatively infrequent. The fact is, the risk of taking a big beat with a monster is greatly reduced, and that in itself is an advantage for a player who is sitting out as opposed to playing. The amount of benefit is clearly arguable, but its there nonetheless. However, why should a player who is taking a walk be granted any less risk than one who is actually playing the game? This is a slightly underhanded and cowardly way of playing the game.

You're right though, it is stupid. While they walk away from potential big beats, they also give up big potential profit. But when you walk away with 6 left only to come back when you're in the money, isn't that a LITTLE bit too coincidental?

-Edge

[Toro]

I've had this happen to me many times in S&G's and it's just never bothered me at all. In fact, I like it, especially if he has a big stack. Now I don't have to deal with the big stack at the table.

And when they eventually return, their stack is quite diminished from the blinds and I've had an opportunity to build my stack.

If they are satisfied with just making the money, that's fine with me.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
However, why should a player who is taking a walk be granted any less risk than one who is actually playing the game? This is a slightly underhanded and cowardly way of playing the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Underhanded? How so? There are some players who will raise every hand, others who call every hand. Neither of those is a good strategy, but there's nothing at all "underhanded". Similarly if someone wants to fold every hand (i.e. sit out), it usually is not a +EV strategy, but there's nothing morally wrong with it.

[ QUOTE ]
But when you walk away with 6 left only to come back when you're in the money, isn't that a LITTLE bit too coincidental?

[/ QUOTE ]
It easily could have been a coincidence. But if it wasn't, then so what?

[LetsRock]

Communicating with another player intending to team up is collusion - plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you think the "sit out" player is entitled to do so. If you happen to play it so that you take turns stealing his blinds, then that's fine. It's unspoken and you both recognize a situation. But the minute you openly agree to do this it is collusion.

[jimotto]

That seems to be the consensus, thanks.

Jim

[george w of poker]

I think if you both openly agree on a strategy to take advantage of the third player's "strategy" then its definitely colluding. however, if its unspoken and you both continually take turns chipping away at his stack, it is perfectly legal and ethical.

[jaybee_70]

I was in a SNG where the player to my left involuntarily disconnected. We were 3 handed when this happened so I was given a huge advantage over the other remaining live player. I felt like I had an unfair advantage and offered to alternate taking the dead blinds. Is this stupid, collusion, or both? While I thought it might be stupid, the thought that it was cheating never crossed my mind.
Please let me know if it's cheating, because I would hate to be penalized in the future.

Thanks,
Joe

[sabre170]

Would it have been unethical for the big stack to simply announce, "I'm going to play every third hand and pass the others until further notice"?

[george w of poker]

i think it was a) against the rules. b) not a good strategy for trying to win a tournament c) not cheating because of your intent to make it fair for the remaining player but you did make it unfair because the guy that disconnected was probably trying to reconnect and you volunteered to not pick on the short stack who was still connected.

[LetsRock]

Anytime players make an agreement to act a certain way, it's collusion. Even if your intentions are honorable, it's still collusion.

Why would you give up an advantage by doing that? Internet poker has it's own little dramas and sometimes we get disconnected at inoportune times. You should take advantage of the situation, because (If for no other reason) it's likely that others would take advantage of you if you get disconnected. It's not like you cut his phone line (right?) so it's up to you as a poker player to take advantage of any edge. You were in the right place at the right time - no more, no less.

[LetsRock]

Well, no, not really. If he asks me to employ a similar strategy, then yes.

I wouldn't believe him even if he said that anyway.

Lookin' out for #1.

[iblucky4u2]

"Collude: v. conspire together" - Webster's Hand College Dictionary

Clearly, when 2 players communicate to take advantage of another player they "conspire together" and it is collusion. If they are both aware of the situation on their own and share the missing players blinds then that is taking advantage of their experience.

Another example of this type of play is seen when the bubble approaches. You will sometimes find experienced players will not bet against each other when there is an all-in against several players. This will keep as many hands alive as possible to eliminate the all-in. I have seen this frequenctly in live tournaments.

Knowing about the strategy is ok, talking about it is collusion.

On the other hand, why would the player to the right of the absent player alert the other player to this? In poker, you are out to win - not share - all the chips! You are playing poker not trying to win a popularity contest. You wouldn't tell another player you are bluffing, so why tell are you giving them chips for nothing?

[berya]

This is cheating plain and simple. I would have gone bananas myself.

[Simon Diamond]

To fix this, some kind of protection should be offered to players who DON'T do this. Maybe something like "If a player is sitting out for 2 or more rounds (could be adjusted for a number of hands, a period of time, whatever), that player will be removed from the game and will be awarded X position, regardless of stack size."

Do you honestly think this would be a good idea? If somebody has bought into a poker tournament, then surely it is their prerogative with how they utilise their chips. If they want to sit out and not play any hands, that's their decision - I don't believe it is against the rules.

I personally think your suggestion is ridiculous, but I'm sure there will be others who would agree with you.

Simon

[Profit]

[ QUOTE ]
To fix this, some kind of protection should be offered to players who DON'T do this. Maybe something like "If a player is sitting out for 2 or more rounds (could be adjusted for a number of hands, a period of time, whatever), that player will be removed from the game and will be awarded X position, regardless of stack size."



[/ QUOTE ]

UB does something similar to this with their FREEROLLS. i think its a good idea there, but definately not when ppl have put up money. I've been disconnected for 30 mins once and came back and still had chips so obviously i would have been pissed if i was forced to forfeit.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Collusion, plain and simple. He has the right to walk away if he'd like. If this were live and he just pushed away every hand without looking, that'd be his business.

[Simon Diamond]

I agree Profit. For people sitting out at the start of freerolls, they are not losing anything. But if you lost connection during a buy-in tourney you would be annoyed at being kicked out.

Simon

[C M Burns]

I think most would figure out the proper strategy at this point without comunication, but some times i've seen people don't and if i had more money then one of the active players i would probably use this to my advantage. I think actually communicating is a little underhanded, but my feeling is if you sit out you give up any claim or rights in the tounamment, so if it does happen when you sit out you have no grounds to complain. And if another person did say something i would play along as long as it helped me but the first chance i had to go after him i would, thats just the way the game should be played, as someone said it's not a team sport.

And actually sitting out is never an advantage, even if you plan to fold everything just the threat of you being in can get you some blinds, and of course u can never win sitting out and u really need to win sometimes to make a profit.

[cferejohn]

What would be the reaction if this happened in a live tournament?

That is to say, it's the final table and one player chooses to or must leave for some period of time, and the tournament director rules he must post blinds and fold (which I assume would be the ruling). Would the tournament director stop the players from agreeing to split up the blinds? I think he would.

That's not to say that you can make direct comparisons of live and online play. I've been teaching my girlfriend to play by playing online $5 sit-n-goes with her, and coaching her through decisions. This certainly would not be allowed in a live tournament, but I don't think there is anything wrong with it online.

[Edge34]

Hey Simon,

I agree with you in theory - If a player is disconnected, they should not be penalized. However, the websites can tell if a player is just sitting out or is truly disconnected. Also, in this case, the player was (apparently) there the whole time. I know my theory is a stretch and I also know that it would never be instituted, but it was merely an idea thrown out to combat the new "strategy" of clicking the little "sit out" button and taking a walk.

A better idea: Software should take the "sit out" button out of its tournaments. This totally cuts out the middle man.

Regarding my "underhanded" comment from earlier, I just happen to feel its a coward's way out to click "sit out" and avoid the potential for a bad beat - that's part of the game. While there's nothing against the rules in this move, its just not very honorable, but I know pokeris not necessarily a "gentleman's game" and even has dishonesty (bluffing) as an inherent trait of the game. Just my two cents. Hope this clears things up.

-Edge

[Simon Diamond]

A better idea: Software should take the "sit out" button out of its tournaments. This totally cuts out the middle man.

I actually don't think sitting out to get into the money is very clever, but I don't think you should get rid of the sit out button altogether.

Many a time when my bladder is straining, I feel it only fair to save the rest of the players for waiting on me. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Not cutting you down by the way, you've prompted some good discussion which is what this forum is all about.

Simon

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not to say that you can make direct comparisons of live and online play. I've been teaching my girlfriend to play by playing online $5 sit-n-goes with her, and coaching her through decisions. This certainly would not be allowed in a live tournament, but I don't think there is anything wrong with it online.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but there was a lively debate about this last month:

thread 1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=584258&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&vc=1)

thread 2 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=586305&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&vc=1)

And a related thread I came across in searching for those:

thread 3 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=556550&page=&view=&sb=5&f part=&vc=1&o=&PHPSESSID=)

[jaybee_70]

fair enough. thanks for the response.

[Jonathan]

Jim,

Like most of the other responders, I see this as collusion and wrong. You should not have chatted your intentions explicitly with the 3rd player.

But what if you didn't chat with the third player, but merely let him take every other blind by not competing? Would this be collusion too or not?

In any case, I'm really curious about how the site intends to distribute the $22. Are they going to pocket it themselves? If so, I would quit that site. They should give you a warning, but I think the penalty is completely out of line.

Regards,
Jonathan

[TylerD]

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the subject.

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
A better idea: Software should take the "sit out" button out of its tournaments. This totally cuts out the middle man.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a terrible idea. Sometimes stuff happens and you are not able to finish the tourney.

It would not be fair to you to not allow you to try to blind-out into the money. It would be horrendously rude to the rest of the players to have to sit and wait the full time for the software to time you out on every turn.

[Toro]

This actually happened to me in a Pokerstars multi. I was cruising along in 23rd place with about 125 players left when our only daughter gave birth to our first grandchild.

When my wife got the call from the hospital, it was sayonnara tourney. So I put it on "sit out" and we left. When we returned a couple of hours later the tourney was over and I was happy to see that I finished 27th and got paid with the 19th-27th group.

I joked to my wife that I would have never finished that high if I stayed and kept playing. Of course, I'll tell my grandson when he gets older that he cost me a "good pay day" by his untimely birth.