Is this unethical?

[X-Calibre]

I was at a 6 max stars table the other day and one player kept buying over and over at the table with the min buy-in. He was bad, so obviously i wanted him at the table. However his strategy of always min buying cost me some money for sure. After many orbits it was clear what he was doing. When ever he would get somewhat short stacked, down to his last few bets, he would wait till he flopped a drawing hand and then raise once or twice to get all his money in before the turn with everyone else calling along. Once the hand ended he'd either keep playing with his winnings or immediately rebuy for the min.

It was obvious he would change his play when down to the felt. He would make irrational raises and reraises in multiway pots whenever he was short stacked. He would get 1 to 2-3 on his money then on the turn when the flush misses i would bet (if my hand was good) others would fold and i couldn't charge him to see the next card because he'd already be all in. Essentially, he was able to eliminate reverse implied odds on his drawing hands.

[daryn]

i'm not sure what you mean exactly. what is your question? is what unethical.. a certain style of play? no.

[X-Calibre]

Well, to me, this is like all-in abuse in a tournament. Get your money in when you have proper pot odds to do so without having worry about paying more later.

In both TOP and holdem Sklansky has a specific example for when its improper to play a drawing hand. The example explains that you need to be mindful that there are 2 more streets to play. That is, even though you are getting 1:2 pot odds on the flop for your flush draw reverse implied odds make it so that you will be getting less than 1:2 on your money by the river. This players style of always min buying frequently allowed him to ignore the 4th and 5th street and what they would cost him to see his draw hand to the finish.

[driller]

I thought that implied odds meant, that while the currtent pot odds would not justify a certain play, the money that would be in the pot in the future justified the play. Seems to me that by going all in, this player denied himself the future winnings that hitting his draw would yield.

[X-Calibre]

Well you can have reverse implied odds. I think that is the correct term for this example but maybe not. Sklansky gives an example in his books where a particular player can be confused into thinking he has correct pot odds to make a call on the flop because the pot is giving him 1:2 but the player is not taking into account the fact that he will have to pay another bet on the turn if his draw misses. I guess that's really just improperly calculating pot odds and not reverse implied odds.

[spamuell]

Essentially, he was able to eliminate reverse implied odds on his drawing hands.

Exactly. Every time he did hit his flush against your TPTK or his straight against your set, or whatever, you saved like 3 bets paying him off, probably more.

You're complaining?

[X-Calibre]

yeah i'm complaining, cause mathematically, i'm losing EV. On the turn i can't make it fundementally incorrect for him to continue play on his now 1 in 5 shot at a flush.

[JayLeno]

You need a cleenex to clear your wining eyes!
If he can take advantage of the possibility to by in constantly at the minimum rate it must mean that he has lost each time he makes a new buy in!?!
Therefore he must lose a lot and other around the table must have taken his money. If your not one of them - sad!
It isnt against the rule so stop wining or leave the table - you dont HAVE to play him - there are enough tables to avoid him!!!!!!

[DaPlaya]

[ QUOTE ]
You're complaining?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. While it may be annoying that he does not have enough there to win any substantial money from him, these short-stack "experts" are mostly all fish.

The only person i know that uses this tactic successfully, does not imitate that style at all. He enters short, may rebuy once, then is gone.

As long as this site allows the standard 10X small bet buy-in, it is absolutely not unethical. Stupid, yes. Unethical, no.



This is why UB has the larger buy-in requirements. Or they used to anyway. I don't play there anymore.

[morgant]

it is withing the rules of online poker, he is just buying in for the min. and there is nothing you can do about it. certain live casino's have a rules like on 2 or 3 minimum buy-ins etc....but in cyberspace dems da rules, so the rules are the code of ethics.