mosta
05-28-2004, 12:39 PM
I thought I'd pull this out of Jim Kuhn's old thread because it might be interesting--I'm taking issue with what everyone else seemed to agree--that Kuhn is entitled to a pot that he was pushed out of on the river, likely with the best hand, by colluders. I'll paste the posts below:
utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A J , button calls along with both blinds.
Flop A K 9
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, [edit: UTG calls], both colluders call.
Turn 7
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.
River 2
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff checkraising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.
------------------------------------------------
Looking at my viewpoint, I was clearly cheated out of $367. You admit this in your response. I would like my $367 back...
-------------------------------------------------------
me:
is pacific's position really completely unreasonable? fact is, there was another player on the river. maybe UTG was going to fold no matter who bet, but colluder 2 does change gears and suddenly bet into you. UTG probably caught a decent bit of the flop but thought he was probably behind you. now this other guy comes to life. what, did he spike two pair or a set? you call and now UTG likely is behind two guys, so he gives up. if the colluders had instead checked to you again and you bet out, then maybe UTG's plan was to take a shot at check-raise bluffing you out--legitimately. no one knows if you could have called. just because you have the best hand doesn't mean the pot is yours. what about cases where colluders take the pot down on the flop? do you expect Pacific to compare all the hole cards, and what? give it to the best hand at the time? deal turn and river cards themselves and give it to the winner of that simulated, no-betting hand? give it to the and with the most equity at that moment as determined by twodimes? or aportion it by equity?
I'm sorry--I don't mean to fault you when you clearly have been wronged. but no one in this thread seems to have given Pacific any credit for at least trying to do the right thing (in a situation which, on inspection, perhaps is not entirely cut and dry). (I know Party distributes colluders' money to all players who played against them. I don't know how they figure it out. But you don't have to be one that complained. They will just notify you--we are giving you their money, whether you ever suspected anything was going on or not. I doubt they try to give pots to "rightful" winners. I bet they just distribute by number of hands, or percent of money contributed to pots they won.)
-------------------------------------------------
and:
I agree with you, if they are just going to pocket it, that is dirty and unethical. they say they are going to distribute it to players via promotions and bonuses. I have no idea whether to believe them. I think it would be better to give it to the players victimizied by the collusion. my point is just that it is tricky to figure out who, of those players, would be entitled to what. every player in a pot at any point is affected in their decision making by what every other player does and simply by the number of other players there. you can not determine what the hand would have been "without the colluders there". it's like when the sports columnists say, shaq shot 20% from the line, if he could have made two more free throws they would have won, he cost them the game. No--because at the point that shaq made those extra points it would have changed the situation of the game, changed the score differential, which would have affected the other teams strategy, etc.
that pot was $[367]. he got $50. UTG got nothing. the blinds and the button, who were also in the pot at some point, got nothing. how fair or unfair is that to each person--I don't know. we don't know how the other players would have played without the colluders. some may have gone further with their hands and outdrawn or outplayed Kuhn. some may have folded pre-flop. maybe the button wouldn't have limped without the two colluders limping up front. okay, then why is Kuhn entitled to button's contribution to the pot? with the collusion there, the entire pot is tainted. you can't award the pot to anyone without the other players being victimized.
again, I'm sorry that Kuhn was victimized, but it's not entirely clear that giving him that pot is the fairest solution. giving it to promos? I don't think I especially like that either. I think my favorite solution is to distribute the money in colluders' accounts in proportion to what each player contributed to each pot that a colluder won. that I think comes closes to "undoing" those tainted pots. how feasible that is for the poker site to figure out, I don't know. but I do think that the accusations and invective leveled against Pacific in this thread is at least somewhat unfair. and no I don't work, or even play, there.
utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A J , button calls along with both blinds.
Flop A K 9
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, [edit: UTG calls], both colluders call.
Turn 7
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.
River 2
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff checkraising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.
------------------------------------------------
Looking at my viewpoint, I was clearly cheated out of $367. You admit this in your response. I would like my $367 back...
-------------------------------------------------------
me:
is pacific's position really completely unreasonable? fact is, there was another player on the river. maybe UTG was going to fold no matter who bet, but colluder 2 does change gears and suddenly bet into you. UTG probably caught a decent bit of the flop but thought he was probably behind you. now this other guy comes to life. what, did he spike two pair or a set? you call and now UTG likely is behind two guys, so he gives up. if the colluders had instead checked to you again and you bet out, then maybe UTG's plan was to take a shot at check-raise bluffing you out--legitimately. no one knows if you could have called. just because you have the best hand doesn't mean the pot is yours. what about cases where colluders take the pot down on the flop? do you expect Pacific to compare all the hole cards, and what? give it to the best hand at the time? deal turn and river cards themselves and give it to the winner of that simulated, no-betting hand? give it to the and with the most equity at that moment as determined by twodimes? or aportion it by equity?
I'm sorry--I don't mean to fault you when you clearly have been wronged. but no one in this thread seems to have given Pacific any credit for at least trying to do the right thing (in a situation which, on inspection, perhaps is not entirely cut and dry). (I know Party distributes colluders' money to all players who played against them. I don't know how they figure it out. But you don't have to be one that complained. They will just notify you--we are giving you their money, whether you ever suspected anything was going on or not. I doubt they try to give pots to "rightful" winners. I bet they just distribute by number of hands, or percent of money contributed to pots they won.)
-------------------------------------------------
and:
I agree with you, if they are just going to pocket it, that is dirty and unethical. they say they are going to distribute it to players via promotions and bonuses. I have no idea whether to believe them. I think it would be better to give it to the players victimizied by the collusion. my point is just that it is tricky to figure out who, of those players, would be entitled to what. every player in a pot at any point is affected in their decision making by what every other player does and simply by the number of other players there. you can not determine what the hand would have been "without the colluders there". it's like when the sports columnists say, shaq shot 20% from the line, if he could have made two more free throws they would have won, he cost them the game. No--because at the point that shaq made those extra points it would have changed the situation of the game, changed the score differential, which would have affected the other teams strategy, etc.
that pot was $[367]. he got $50. UTG got nothing. the blinds and the button, who were also in the pot at some point, got nothing. how fair or unfair is that to each person--I don't know. we don't know how the other players would have played without the colluders. some may have gone further with their hands and outdrawn or outplayed Kuhn. some may have folded pre-flop. maybe the button wouldn't have limped without the two colluders limping up front. okay, then why is Kuhn entitled to button's contribution to the pot? with the collusion there, the entire pot is tainted. you can't award the pot to anyone without the other players being victimized.
again, I'm sorry that Kuhn was victimized, but it's not entirely clear that giving him that pot is the fairest solution. giving it to promos? I don't think I especially like that either. I think my favorite solution is to distribute the money in colluders' accounts in proportion to what each player contributed to each pot that a colluder won. that I think comes closes to "undoing" those tainted pots. how feasible that is for the poker site to figure out, I don't know. but I do think that the accusations and invective leveled against Pacific in this thread is at least somewhat unfair. and no I don't work, or even play, there.