Is this cheating?

[ohkanada]

Actually I am fairly sure that in the past year or two, Fossilman discussed how mucking in this situation makes a lot of sense. The fact that El Diablo added that he is "friends" with the BB, only makes the situation more interesting.

Would I muck? Probably not, but if you are stealing with impunity vs the others and gaining your stacks as the others are waiting for the low stack to get busted, it is +ev.

Ken

[eMarkM]

Folding a borderline hand, sure, even a fairly strong hand. But aces? Where did Greg advocate that?

[ohkanada]

Unfortunately I only vaguely remember the post or discussion. I can't remember if AA was discussed. If you are willing to fold any average to above aveerage hand, then I see no reason why you wouldn't fold AA. I will email Greg and see if he can respond to this post or let me know if I remmeber things wrong.

Ken

[KuQuAT]

If you're going to fold AA (and therefore presumably any two cards) in the SB under these circumstances, you could avoid implications about which hands you would or would not play by not viewing your cards in the first place. Just dump 'em when it's your turn without a peek. Obviously, if another opponent called or raised, you'd look. Otherwise, just ship 'em to the muck.

That said, the table might be more disgruntled, not understanding your motive. They might think that you were chip dumping for external reasons, and not to keep the bubble from bursting.

Further, you'd be announcing to the table that you intend to continue to run them over, which may or may not be good tactics. Of course, if you're intentionally driving them toward tilt, you could (if legal in your tournament), make a big show of not peeking, flash your cards quickly so that everyone can see, and muck. You'd have to understand psychology better than I do to risk this, though.

[Ulysses]

OK, as a number of you guessed, this hand didn't really happen. About a month ago (when I decided to play some tourneys) I went back and read a number of old Fossilman posts. I was pleasantly surprised when reading the results that I made the same move as Greg in almost all the situations. There was only one where I made a completely different move than Greg - it was a situation where I thought the move was to raise but Greg folded to keep the short stack around. I couldn't find the post easily (else I would have just used the numbers/scenario from the post instead of making something up), but I do recall the situation was such that each round of blinds wss similar to the amt he could win from busting the small stack. Anyway, this thread stuck in my mind, since I hadn't considered folding there and Greg's reasoning made a lot of sense.

When I posted this message, I had just read Felicia's post about cheating in a tournament and Greg's post came to mind. I started thinking, are there situations where people would not give a second thought if the players were strangers, but would really question the act if the players were friends?

Given the number of "this is cheating or not depending on your intentions" responses, this seems to be such a situation. Does this mean these types of infractions should not be against the rules? I sure hate the idea of such subjectivity coming into a TD's decision process.

Here's another scenario I've noticed in satellites. Let's say there are 18 seats and 20 left. There are two small stacks who will blind out if everyone just folds. The big stack has a huge advantage and there's almost no way he can lose. He just folds every hand. Except for the times when a real loudmouth idiot is in the blinds. Those times, he goes all-in. If the loudmouth loses all his blinds, he could bust out before the short stacks. Is this cheating, playing more aggressively vs. a jerk?

Finally, what about the standard calling of a short-stack then checking down. That happens all the time and often one of the players has a hand that he would have bet were it heads-up. Is he soft-playing because he's playing differently due to the all-in player?

Just some thoughts I have had re: certain tourney situations maybe not being so black and white.

[ohkanada]

Ha, I knew Greg had posted something like this.

The interesting thing is if Joe nobody would have posted this I am sure even more people would have claimed cheating.

Ken

[fnurt]

I think there are very few check/fold/raise decisions that would qualify as cheating without taking any other evidence into consideration. Almost any move is capable of being replicated by a totally clueless player. Try inventing a hypothetical situation where you would tell the clueless player, "if you make the wrong move here you'll be thrown out for cheating." I don't think you can do it.

You can't get away from the presence of subjectivity because you will always have to look at the surrounding evidence. Nor can you get away from the fact that there will be some grey areas that are tough to call. All I can say is, as I expressed above, we shouldn't let the grey areas prevent us from making decisions in the absolutely cut-and-dried cases.

For example, let's take Felicia's recent article which many of us have read. In her story, two friends are heads-up after the flop and they do a lightning fast check-check-check all the way to the river without even looking at the board cards. Now in this case, the soft-playing is obvious and should be punished.

Let's assume that instead, the players had made a big show out of it. Maybe one of them studies the board, looks back at his hole cards, stares down the opponent, then reluctantly checks. If they had played it this way then it is unlikely anything would have come of it.

To some people this is deeply troubling, to see only the dumb cheaters get punished. But there is no way around it, and you still have to punish the ones you can catch. We don't let a murderer go free because a "smart" murderer wouldn't have left those incriminating fingerprints at the crime scene.

Now let's assume they play it the smart way, but after a while someone notices, hey, these two never play a hand against each other. They go to the TD, who probably doesn't have enough evidence to go on. But the next time it happens, the TD can ask to see the cards they checked with, can ask them why they didn't bet and observe their reaction, can give them a warning about softplaying and see if it affects their actions. In other words, he can gather more evidence and hopefully make the right decision.

I think insisting that every case of cheating be objectively verifiable in a way that would satisfy every single observer just isn't realistic. It works this way in the real world too; mental intent is an element of most crimes, and we can't really know what goes on in someone's head, we just gather the evidence and make our best guess. Not everyone will always agree, but we do the best we can. Heck, they even found 12 people who thought that OJ didn't do it.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
When I posted this message, I had just read Felicia's post about cheating in a tournament and Greg's post came to mind. I started thinking, are there situations where people would not give a second thought if the players were strangers, but would really question the act if the players were friends?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very delicate subject, and extremely subjective. If a poker player has any awareness whatsoever, he is going to know the difference.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the number of "this is cheating or not depending on your intentions" responses, this seems to be such a situation. Does this mean these types of infractions should not be against the rules? I sure hate the idea of such subjectivity coming into a TD's decision process.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was such a special situation. It is not often that the participants willingly admit they were cheating.

There are things to look for to differentiate "good play" from "cheating." If a party admits to softplaying his friend, you have an easy answer. Not all answers are this easy to come by. What does their body language tell you? Are they checking down monsters, or just marginal hands against an all-in opponent? Are they reluctant to reveal their hands at showdown, hurriedly sliding them into the muck? Do they only check it down when they are in the hand together, or when each of them is involved separately with other opponents? Does one raise, the other reraise in an attempt to get the pot head's up, then check it down through the river? Does one opponent adjust his end play to the extent of raising and reraising his "friend," only to fold the hand for "one more bet" after the river card is dealt?

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another scenario I've noticed in satellites. Let's say there are 18 seats and 20 left. There are two small stacks who will blind out if everyone just folds. The big stack has a huge advantage and there's almost no way he can lose. He just folds every hand. Except for the times when a real loudmouth idiot is in the blinds. Those times, he goes all-in. If the loudmouth loses all his blinds, he could bust out before the short stacks. Is this cheating, playing more aggressively vs. a jerk?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would this be considered cheating? You are using the information that you know about this opponent to your advantage. You are playing against him in the same fashion you would play against any other opponent of whom you have the same knowledge, of the same caliber.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, what about the standard calling of a short-stack then checking down. That happens all the time and often one of the players has a hand that he would have bet were it heads-up. Is he soft-playing because he's playing differently due to the all-in player?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on the quality of the hand. David outlines this clearly in TPFAP. Checking a monster is clearly not ethical. Checking a mediocre hand which does not have enough of an advantage to bet into a dry side pot is simply good poker.

Great post. You have many good points and concerns. This kind of awareness of cheating going on at the tourney table is something that only comes with experience. During my first 50-100 tournaments, I probably could not have spotted cheating, even in it's most obvious forms. Today I bust players palming chips, shorting pots, colluding, chip dumping and softplaying all of the time. There is a fine line between making a good play, and softplaying, at times, but there is a line, and it can be seen clearly given enough experience and awareness at the table.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
www.felicialee.net

[FeliciaLee]

Very good point. That is what the IWTSTH rule is all about. It should be used whenever cheating is suspected, but never to "find out how he plays."

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's assume they play it the smart way, but after a while someone notices, hey, these two never play a hand against each other. They go to the TD, who probably doesn't have enough evidence to go on. But the next time it happens, the TD can ask to see the cards they checked with, can ask them why they didn't bet and observe their reaction, can give them a warning about softplaying and see if it affects their actions. In other words, he can gather more evidence and hopefully make the right decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

[fnurt]

Nice post, Felicia. I think we said some of the same things.

I think you might have misunderstood the hypothetical about the loudmouth, which I didn't address in my post. The point is that you are not acting the same way towards this guy as you would towards any other player of the same playing ability, stack size, etc; you are deliberately picking on him because he is a jerk.

I don't really know the answer to that situation. Imagine the scenario where the big stack only raises when a black player is in the blind because he doesn't like black people. I don't see how this, or the hypothetical posed, could ever be punished, but on some level, you're supposed to be playing your own stack, not trying to dictate who qualifies and who doesn't. You could be punished for chip dumping to a short stack to try and help him qualify, even if he's not a friend of yours; maybe you're doing it because he seems nice, or because he wears a Dodgers cap and you like the Dodgers. Trying to determine who qualifies by picking on the player you don't like seems just as wrong, on some level, as trying to determine who qualifies by chip dumping to the player you like. So I do think there is arguably some kind of grey area here.