Re: PM me
 

not going to make any friends like this but I'll just say I don't trust 2 players with IM communicating and sitting at the same table (and I know of a few 2+2 who actively do it). Doesn't matter how you deny it, I know you'll be privy to some info others are not and temptation without repurcussions (sp) is a very slippery slope.

Re: Further clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify further: the guy with the hand still in play can tell the guy who folded but the guy who folded can't tell the guy still in play. That way there is no knowing that your K high flush is the nuts because the A was folded PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

Re: Further clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify further: the guy with the hand still in play can tell the guy who folded but the guy who folded can't tell the guy still in play. That way there is no knowing that your K high flush is the nuts because the A was folded PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. No problem there, and live, no confusion there. Where the confusion begins is that there is no way of knowing exactly what is being discussed when the hand is played out online. I have no doubt that BK, Dcfr, NLS, and others on 2+2 do not cross the bounds of ethical discussion during play but, this being a public forum available to all who wish to read it, it is essential that it be clearly stated what is and is not ethical and acceptable discussion during the play of a hand if discussion during the play of a hand is to be discussed at all.

-Brad

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sh1t. I talk to tons of people while at the same tables. We often tell our hands AFTER the other has folded. It's fun sweating...i dunno. But when we're both in a hand together it's balls to the wall full game without any correspondance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you ever give advice to each other while in a hand? You've mentioned in the past IMing each other about juicy higher-limit games w/ big fish to jump into together. In those scenarios, when not in a hand together, are you talking about hands during play?

Specifically, bk, I am wondering if you would ever do something like this: Schneids folds preflop. You bet the river and get raised - might you ever ask "yo schneids, does this clown ever bluff raise?"

Re: Further clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify further: the guy with the hand still in play can tell the guy who folded but the guy who folded can't tell the guy still in play. That way there is no knowing that your K high flush is the nuts because the A was folded PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. No problem there, and live, no confusion there. Where the confusion begins is that there is no way of knowing exactly what is being discussed when the hand is played out online. I have no doubt that BK, Dcfr, NLS, and others on 2+2 do not cross the bounds of ethical discussion during play but, this being a public forum available to all who wish to read it, it is essential that it be clearly stated what is and is not ethical and acceptable discussion during the play of a hand if discussion during the play of a hand is to be discussed at all.

-Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

this was the point i saw R U serious make to which i responded in a (i see now) "shady" manner.

the mere appearance of impropriety is bad for everybody.

id rather have just ended this discussion then and there because the more attention paid to it, the more it seems so controversial. i see nothing wrong with it but at the same time wante dto assuade those who could take it the wrong way.

so for that i publicly apologize. i was0 not properly considering the affect of the secondary reply on the primary statement. el d is right, it does look shady and weak.

and to those who think its a "slippery slope," if you draw a line and never cross it its a cliff. period. if you have morals for the integrity of the game it isn't even a question.

-Barron

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sh1t. I talk to tons of people while at the same tables. We often tell our hands AFTER the other has folded. It's fun sweating...i dunno. But when we're both in a hand together it's balls to the wall full game without any correspondance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you ever give advice to each other while in a hand? You've mentioned in the past IMing each other about juicy higher-limit games w/ big fish to jump into together. In those scenarios, when not in a hand together, are you talking about hands during play?

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely not! no advice during hand. no comments on play. nothing that would alter a players decision to act or actions based on available information.

-Barron

Re: Further clarification
 

TimM: It would be a very small step to mention to the guy with a king high flush that the ace was folded. Why even put yourself in such a tempting position?

NLfool: not going to make any friends like this but I'll just say I don't trust 2 players with IM communicating and sitting at the same table (and I know of a few 2+2 who actively do it). Doesn't matter how you deny it, I know you'll be privy to some info others are not and temptation without repurcussions (sp) is a very slippery slope.

El Diablo: Specifically, bk, I am wondering if you would ever do something like this: Schneids folds preflop. You bet the river and get raised - might you ever ask "yo schneids, does this clown ever bluff raise?"

I don't think anyone here thinks you, personally, talk to other players with the explicit intention of cheating or colluding. (You wouldn't have suggested the method to davidross in a public forum, for a start.)

However, for someone with high morals, (DcifrThr: and to those who think its a "slippery slope," if you draw a line and never cross it its a cliff. period. if you have morals for the integrity of the game it isn't even a question.), I have to assume you must understand why the above posters have stated their serious concerns. They don't think you are colluding, but they are worried you might collude accidentally or by unintentional inference.

You asked earlier if you should stop talking secretly with other players in the game. If after reading and digesting this thread you do choose to stop talking secretly to other players, and announce it here, I suspect you will gain a great deal more respect as a faultlessly upright player.

Please chat to your friends, or post hands to these boards, after the game.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
(and I know of a few 2+2 who actively do it).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a problem.

Do you think this is more common or less common than most would think?

I am unimpressed with any poster that has an open IM window with someone he is sitting with. I want to know how prevalent this is because I am starting to think that some of the people I have looked up to as great players are nothing more than cheats gaining a small edge via soft collusion.

Re: PM me
 

There are probably 10 poker players I frequently IM with while I play online. Sometimes we end up at the same table, but not on purpose. We never tell each other our cards before a hand is over.

Re: PM me
 

"I am unimpressed with any poster that has an open IM window with someone he is sitting with. I want to know how prevalent this is because I am starting to think that some of the people I have looked up to as great players are nothing more than cheats gaining a small edge via soft collusion."

A lot of 2+2ers multitable the same games as their friends.

A lot of 2+2ers talk to their friends on aim.

A lot of 2+2ers have friends that are also 2+2ers.

There are a finite number of online poker tables.

Therefore, it only makes sense that some 2+2ers are highly likely to be playing at the same tables as friends/other 2+2ers that they happen to have aim conversations going with. This does not mean they are cheating. I think you are overreacting.

FWIW-I personally have about 25 2+2ers on my buddy list. I rarely end up at the same tables as them because I play mostly shorthanded and many of them play full, but it does happen occasionally and I don't see it as an issue whatsoever. If I played party 15 full it would probably happen far more often and I still don't think it would be an issue.