Re: Interesting Home Game Dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]


That's collusion and illegal.

[ QUOTE ]



Generally, I'd agree with this. But ......

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]



There is no 'but' here. It's collusion. Now, if the three of you independently (without discussing it) decide to blind him off, I believe that's legal.

However, you formally can't agree to do this.

Now, on to your general question -- There's no ethics here at all, you either cut a deal, or let him blind out. If it's a game amongst friends and either (1) you all want to split the pot for friendship's sake or (2) you want to split the pot so the guy doesn't get pissed off and not play in the future -- that's fine. I'd probably offer a deal like this .... Second place money seems more than fair.

On the other hand if it were a major event with thousands of dollars on the line --- the schmo who had to leave would be S.O.L. Don't sit down if you can't finish the game.

Re: Interesting Home Game Dilemma
 

If the group doesn't make a deal, then he gets blinded off and his prize is whereever he ends up in (4th-2nd)

Re: Interesting Home Game Dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
So your argument is that collusion is okay as long as it benefits you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see everyone's point. And I guess what I meant was that as long as everyone benefits equally from the deal I don't see the harm in it. The leaving player obviously doesn't care that he's an overwhelming favorite to take first or 2nd. A deal, spoken or unspoken in this instance does not provide any player an advantage over another.

For the record I am against collusion. Anyone who plays regularly in my home game could surely tell you that I have measures in place to prevent it from occuring.

PG

Re: Interesting Home Game Dilemma
 

Sounds like it would take a mighty long time for him to lose his whole stack to the blinds ;P