Re: PM me
 

There have been threads posted in the past where regulars here who are friends have posted about IMing each other about a big fish or two making a high limit game very attractive, then jumping into the game together. I suspect stuff like this is more common than most would think.

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?

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?"

[/ QUOTE ]

A while back there were some questions as to how the "one player to a hand" rule applied online. At that time I recall you being on the side that said "it does not" and it seems like what you describe above would be acceptable?

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

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?"

[/ QUOTE ]

A while back there were some questions as to how the "one player to a hand" rule applied online. At that time I recall you being on the side that said "it does not" and it seems like what you describe above would be acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

bicyclekick and schneids are playing in a high limit game together while on IM (I use their names because they have talked about playing together and IMing and I would like to get their opinions on this.). Schneids folds pre-flop. bk bets the 4-flush river and gets raised.

1) Schneids, does this guy raise the river with Jack or Queen?

2) Schneids, I have the King, what do you think I should do against this guy?

3) Schneids, did you have the Ace?

Do you think any or all of these questions are OK?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this can lead to collusion even when none is intended.

As far as I'm concerned, if Schneids weren't playing at the table, ANY QUESTION would be OK.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
There have been threads posted in the past where regulars here who are friends have posted about IMing each other about a big fish or two making a high limit game very attractive, then jumping into the game together. I suspect stuff like this is more common than most would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do this on a daily basis.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]


A while back there were some questions as to how the "one player to a hand" rule applied online. At that time I recall you being on the side that said "it does not" and it seems like what you describe above would be acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, there is no "one player to a hand rule" online.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

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?"

[/ QUOTE ]

A while back there were some questions as to how the "one player to a hand" rule applied online. At that time I recall you being on the side that said "it does not" and it seems like what you describe above would be acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

bicyclekick and schneids are playing in a high limit game together while on IM (I use their names because they have talked about playing together and IMing and I would like to get their opinions on this.). Schneids folds pre-flop. bk bets the 4-flush river and gets raised.

1) Schneids, does this guy raise the river with Jack or Queen?

2) Schneids, I have the King, what do you think I should do against this guy?

3) Schneids, did you have the Ace?

Do you think any or all of these questions are OK?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this can lead to collusion even when none is intended.

As far as I'm concerned, if Schneids weren't playing at the table, ANY QUESTION would be OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

you should logically have no objection to two players at the same table talking not about the play of a hand in progress. if bk folds and schnieds raises schnieds can tell bk, "i got ako" bk could then say "gl"

thats it until after the hand. at the end of the hand bk can then say "hey, that guy bluff raises the river, you shouldn't have folded."...or "why didn't you bluff 3 bet like i woulda done [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] -- DONK style"

after the hand that is fine. during teh hand it is not.

to clarrify: if bk comments on schnieds hand during the play i dont care if he's in timbucktoo at the time and happens to be getting clear wireless reception that only allows him to use AIM, its wrong.

-Barron

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that is wrong?

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are high. Trying to enforce some sort of "one player to a hand" rule online is beyond retarded.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


A while back there were some questions as to how the "one player to a hand" rule applied online. At that time I recall you being on the side that said "it does not" and it seems like what you describe above would be acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, there is no "one player to a hand rule" online.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. I was just interested in getting clarifiation from Diablo because I was missing one critical point about his argument.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are high. Trying to enforce some sort of "one player to a hand" rule online is beyond retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn how to respond to the right poster, moron.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Learn how to respond to the right poster, moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

because it is information gleaned during the play of a hand that has the potential to alter the outcome ofthe hand.

if im sitting in a B&M game and not in a hand and a friend comes by and says "seat 1 LOVES to bluff raise the river to take advantage of suckers who go by clark's theorum" that is fine.

if the action is in the middle and the same friend comes by and says it WHILE i still have an option and i call and win the pot, that is wrong.

-Barron

Re: PM me
 

For the record Diablo I'm pretty sure I trust any read I have more than any read BK has, and I'm pretty sure he feels the same about his reads. Especially considering that opponent A may play a hand one way against me and another way against BK. Our IMming if we're on the same table is purely for recreational value, no different from conversing in a live game. I see your point about this being a concern online and I'm sure it happens from time to time.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

because it is information gleaned during the play of a hand that has the potential to alter the outcome ofthe hand.

if im sitting in a B&M game and not in a hand and a friend comes by and says "seat 1 LOVES to bluff raise the river to take advantage of suckers who go by clark's theorum" that is fine.

if the action is in the middle and the same friend comes by and says it WHILE i still have an option and i call and win the pot, that is wrong.

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you believe one-player-to-a-hand rule exists in online play? I don't believe it does and think it is perfectly fine to discuss a hand in play with someone who is not at the table.

Re: PM me
 

What was your feeling regarding the appropriateness of the three questions I posed? Sure, of course you trust your read the most. But what do you think of getting bk's opinion on questions like that if he is not involved in the hand (but at the same table)?

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 ]

This does create an unfair advantage. It helps you narrow your opponents range of hands and gives you more information than everyone else.

It's like showing your cards to you one other player in a live game. That's why they have the "show one, show all" rule.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

because it is information gleaned during the play of a hand that has the potential to alter the outcome ofthe hand.

if im sitting in a B&M game and not in a hand and a friend comes by and says "seat 1 LOVES to bluff raise the river to take advantage of suckers who go by clark's theorum" that is fine.

if the action is in the middle and the same friend comes by and says it WHILE i still have an option and i call and win the pot, that is wrong.

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you believe one-player-to-a-hand rule exists in online play? I don't believe it does and think it is perfectly fine to discuss a hand in play with someone who is not at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

and i dont think that is acceptable.

-Barron

Re: PM me
 

I think that the Q about the ace is 100% immoral because that's getting into the realm of benefitting from extra info the rest of the table doesn't have (or cannot possibly have access to).

I think the other two questions are sketchy. That is, I don't think it's right but if other people want to do it I really don't care because they're the sort of observational stuff that isn't a concrete everyone-has-the-right-to-know stuff. I don't know how to express this fully, but I look at it as sort of like a college class: I'm going to attend, and I'm going to take my own notes and trust those notes. I don't care if you never go to class and just get all your notes from a friend, and then score better than me on a test. Sure it sucks that happened and someone who worked less did better than me, but I certainly could have tried to ask around for better notes too.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care if you never go to class and just get all your notes from a friend, and then score better than me on a test.

[/ QUOTE ]

how about if it was a test where you can bring cheat sheets (2 pages of notes)...after the test began, that no working friend of yours is handed a full sheet that has been worked on by 4 people even though he contributed nothing.

is that wrong?

-Barron

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 ]

After thinking about it more, I've decided that this is why David Ross is running so bad and BK is running so good.

No cute smily face here because I'm only half joking.

Re: PM me
 

I know a guy who plays HU exclusively. He has a partner and the 2 of them sit in front of a computer together and discuss every hand. They play as a team and split the winnings.

In a B&M this clearly would not be allowed. Online whether it is ethically, morally, legally or otherwise wrong, it is definitely unenforcable. It makes no difference how you feel about it or whether you would do it. Others are.

If you are both at the same table and discussing a hand in progress it is called collusion. There is a rule against it and it is enforcable. I would be very carefull about sitting at the same table as a friend, on any kind of a regular basis, and discussing _anything_ while we are at that table together. Whether you are intentionally colluding or not, it will not be you doing the interpretting of the situation should it get investigated.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is, I don't think it's right but if other people want to do it I really don't care because they're the sort of observational stuff that isn't a concrete everyone-has-the-right-to-know stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Here's the problem. One of those questions was:

2) Schneids, I have the King, what do you think I should do against this guy?

Let's say two people ask each other questions like that. Sometimes when the question is asked, the guy being asked will know he folded the Ace. Obviously, he can very confidently answer "oh, I would definitely raise." Anyway, you get the point.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care if you never go to class and just get all your notes from a friend, and then score better than me on a test.

[/ QUOTE ]

how about if it was a test where you can bring cheat sheets (2 pages of notes)...after the test began, that no working friend of yours is handed a full sheet that has been worked on by 4 people even though he contributed nothing.

is that wrong?

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ethically irresponsible, which is slightly different from right or wrong... Wrong or not I cannot say but it's certainly resourceful of him since we live in a society that cares more about results than how the results were obtained. I prefer the ethically responsible route for myself but I'm not about to make a stink about it or tell the instructor (who will probably do nothing). I think this one is entirely up to each own's prerogative; which I guess means I'm half-assed saying it's ok.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care if you never go to class and just get all your notes from a friend, and then score better than me on a test.

[/ QUOTE ]

how about if it was a test where you can bring cheat sheets (2 pages of notes)...after the test began, that no working friend of yours is handed a full sheet that has been worked on by 4 people even though he contributed nothing.

is that wrong?

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ethically irresponsible, which is slightly different from right or wrong... Wrong or not I cannot say but it's certainly resourceful of him since we live in a society that cares more about results than how the results were obtained. I prefer the ethically responsible route for myself but I'm not about to make a stink about it or tell the instructor (who will probably do nothing). I think this one is entirely up to each own's prerogative; which I guess means I'm half-assed saying it's ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, i totally agree and come to a different actionable conclusion. i think its wrong IMO!! and by wrong i do mean ethically irresponsible. so i wouldn't do it.

same with the talkig while a hand is in progress...if others want to do it i can't enforce it...but i CAN simply not do it.

-Barron

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is, I don't think it's right but if other people want to do it I really don't care because they're the sort of observational stuff that isn't a concrete everyone-has-the-right-to-know stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Here's the problem. One of those questions was:

2) Schneids, I have the King, what do you think I should do against this guy?

Let's say two people ask each other questions like that. Sometimes when the question is asked, the guy being asked will know he folded the Ace. Obviously, he can very confidently answer "oh, I would definitely raise." Anyway, you get the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would feel it is my ethical responsibility, in that case, if this ever happened and someone on IM asked me that Q, to answer back, "I don't know. Do what you think."

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is, I don't think it's right but if other people want to do it I really don't care because they're the sort of observational stuff that isn't a concrete everyone-has-the-right-to-know stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Here's the problem. One of those questions was:

2) Schneids, I have the King, what do you think I should do against this guy?

Let's say two people ask each other questions like that. Sometimes when the question is asked, the guy being asked will know he folded the Ace. Obviously, he can very confidently answer "oh, I would definitely raise." Anyway, you get the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would feel it is my ethical responsibility, in that case, if this ever happened and someone on IM asked me that Q, to answer back, "I don't know. Do what you think."

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but that's weak. If someone always gives that answer to that question, that's fine. But if that's a question that someone typically answers with a recommendation and then all of a sudden he comes up with that response this one time, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what he must have had.

I don't really want to argue this specific point with you, as I suspect you and I pretty much agree on where the lines should be drawn. My main point is simply that even when people have the best intentions, it's very easy to "accidentally" collude.

Re: PM me
 

Don't argue with the ignorant, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

ie. cheating at online boggle prop bets...

This is why I only have 300 posts, even though I have been reading 2+2 since day 1.

Re: PM me
 

Is there any ethical problem or is it considered cheating to invite a friend to come sit in a very juicy game granted that there is no discussion during hands?

Re: PM me
 

Yes, I agree with El D. It's got to be hard not to give out info (that would fall into the collusion basket) when you have got IM going in these spots with other players. Personally, I think all you cats should stop IM'ing each other while playing. Come on the board here and discuss hands afterwards if you want.

I should say though that I have no idea how you guys can play 4-6 games while also IM'ing at the same time. Multitaskers extraordinaire.

Re: PM me
 

good point.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are high. Trying to enforce some sort of "one player to a hand" rule online is beyond retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? In S&G tournaments I have successfully had the chat of several players revoked for discussing the play of a hand in the chat window. For example, I go all-in on the button, SB hesitates and BB types, "I can't call". In these situations I have e-mailed support and they have responded that the chat of the BB will be revoked.

I think this is blatant cheating on the part of the BB.

Paul

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 ]

After thinking about it more, I've decided that this is why David Ross is running so bad and BK is running so good.

No cute smily face here because I'm only half joking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's an appropriate statement to make if BK is discussing hands after they are played out with friends via AIM. I don't think he's up 100k in 3 motnhs or whatever it is because of the expert insight they are giving him.

Re: PM me
 

It is totally enforceable.

1. Party can turn your webcam on to see if anone is sitting behind you

2. Ever had a pizza delivered while playing? Party Agent.

3. Ever had a girl scout sell you cookies while plaing? Party Agent

4. If they really suspect you. The fire up the alien ship and head over to your house and do a brain scan.

Just ask Granny.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any ethical problem or is it considered cheating to invite a friend to come sit in a very juicy game granted that there is no discussion during hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. If I ran into a friend in a cardroom I would tell him if I was in a really good game. There is no reason why I cannot do the same online.

I rarely IM with people I am playing with. When I do I never tell them what my cards are during a hand and I expect them to do the same. I also never ask for advice during the hand and I don't give advice.

I don't think that two players who are in the same game should discuss anything online that they would not discuss if they were in a live game.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

After thinking about it more, I've decided that this is why David Ross is running so bad and BK is running so good.

No cute smily face here because I'm only half joking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's an appropriate statement to make if BK is discussing hands after they are played out with friends via AIM. I don't think he's up 100k in 3 motnhs or whatever it is because of the expert insight they are giving him.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, talking with friends who are playing at the same table and had cards during the hand. This is sharing information that the other 8 player don't have access to. When the table breaks then this is ok, but before that it is angle-shooting.

2 people playing one seat (two cards) and discussing the game is much different than 2 players playing in the same game together (looking at 4 cards) discussing the game.

I said I was half-joking becaue I don't think this is why BK is running well. He's a good player.

But I do think it is cheating.

Re: PM me
 

If I knew for a fact that two players at my table were on IM, I would not feel comfortable even if I thought they were honest people. It is unreasonable for anybody to say that they are actively corresponding with somebody at the same table, and expect everyone to be comfortable with the idea.

Also, in the unlikely event that Party security did pick up on this, I don't think that anybody involved would have the right to complain about their account being frozen.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I knew for a fact that two players at my table were on IM, I would not feel comfortable even if I thought they were honest people. It is unreasonable for anybody to say that they are actively corresponding with somebody at the same table, and expect everyone to be comfortable with the idea.

Also, in the unlikely event that Party security did pick up on this, I don't think that anybody involved would have the right to complain about their account being frozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely insane. At limits above 30/60 online, many of the players know each other personally. They know each other's aim. They know each other's phone #s. This is just a reality of online poker.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I knew for a fact that two players at my table were on IM, I would not feel comfortable even if I thought they were honest people. It is unreasonable for anybody to say that they are actively corresponding with somebody at the same table, and expect everyone to be comfortable with the idea.

Also, in the unlikely event that Party security did pick up on this, I don't think that anybody involved would have the right to complain about their account being frozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely insane. At limits above 30/60 online, many of the players know each other personally. They know each other's aim. They know each other's phone #s. This is just a reality of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't want to berate the point because I know it is useless, and that there is a whole high-stakes subculture out there.

But that is what the chat window is for. That is why observer chat is allowed. You want to say high to a friend... open up his table and type in "Hi" for all to see.

No problem with that. IM, the other players can't see. Although this would not be enough to deter me from playing, IMO it is unreasonable to expect anyone to be comfortable with this situation.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are high. Trying to enforce some sort of "one player to a hand" rule online is beyond retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no talk of enforcement here, which I agree is virtually impossible. The question is of right and wrong, not if it can be feasibly monitored.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you ever give advice to each other while in a hand?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. We're both good poker players and are plenty capable of playing our hands by ourselves. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] We're also often playing multiple tables each so it's not like the other guy is sitting there annalyzing the hand all that much anyhow.

[ QUOTE ]

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?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, but we do give player run downs when one of us comes to the table sometimes...like their tendancies. Not during hands though.

What we do is most definately not cheating.

I'm sorry so many of you are so sensitive to it, though.