Did I do the right thing? Ethical Q

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
everytime one of them wins, as a pair they just break even. One player gets his money back, the other loses his money, and the winner gets an equal amount of money from one other player. Combined result = 0.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one scenario. The thing is, they can run one good hand, with a weak one to back it up, thus increasing the overall chance of one of them winning in the end. Wouldn't you love it if every time you had aces, you had two other cards, even if they were junk, to play on the side to back up your aces?

Also note that they don't just break even, they win all the money in the pot that they didn't put there. This could mean a big win if they don't get caught or noticed by someone skillful enough to adjust to what they are doing.

Now if you KNOW that two people are colluding like this, you can take advantage of it only when you are STRONG. Notice you need to be somewhat stronger than usual, because even with one good hand and one junk, they still have a comblined chance of winning that is higher than if you played against just one of them. Only when you can identify situations where you are getting the right pot odds vs. your chance to beat them both can you really slam them. If they're complete idiots, this may be easy to do. But if they're at all saavy, you might wait all night and never really get a +EV situation. The effect of their collusion can be very strong if they use any discretion at all when running their team plays.

In no limit you can hurt them both much worse when you beat them, which is why the whipsaw / best hand collusion tactics are more often, and more effectively used in limit play.

Either way, the best policy is to just turn them in. You might beat them tonight, but if you don't turn them in, they'll do it again tomorrow and take some unsuspecting fish for a bundle, and that's bad for poker. Team play is hard to detect, and you shouldn't ever let it slide when you do catch it.

al

[youtalkfunny]

I think OP did a great job.

The problem I have is with the idea that these two cheating scumbags were not banned immediately.

Splitting them up, IMO, accomplishes nothing--you've still got two cheaters in the room. You may think you have disarmed them, but what if they have other tricks up their sleeve? You know they are not above bending and breaking rules in an effort to steal money. Why on earth would you want these people in your room?

At my last job, there was a husband-wife team that pulled this crap in a lousy $1-5 stud game all the time. Everybody knew what they were doing. Finally, enough players squawked about it that management had to intervene. And they made the same ruling--they could stay, but not play at the same table.

Terrible decision, IMO. It would've been much better for the room to ban them, to send the message that cheaters aren't welcome here, even if it means throwing out rake-paying players.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, did the floor realize they were doing this openly and out loud? It would seem to be a matter of them not knowing the rules since they weren't trying to hide what they were doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the time my hand came up the floor had backed off their "watching" and had not clued in the dealer. Other than the "protection" comment they did not have "proof" of the act.

Yes they knew the rules. These were not a couple of newbee buddies. They are hard core players. They said they were from the SoCal area and regularly played Oceans 11 and the Bike. I had no good reason to think they were not experienced players.

Their typical play was with one acting late and one acting early with one or two players in between. With a more or less weak/tight table they were making a fair amount.

Since this is a spread limit game it is ideal for the squeeze play. Most of the players are weak/tight to one degree or another and will fold when faced with a big bet.

I talked to the floor tonight, and yes they are banned now. He said the tape showed a total of 6 hands that looked like they were either sharing strat, squeezing or sharing cards. The sharing cards thing I did not see, but I guess they saw one hand that looked like they traded cards.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
At the very least, they'd never play at the same table again in my room.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have the right to refuse to deal cards to players who are allowed to play in the room?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
but I guess they saw one hand that looked like they traded cards.

[/ QUOTE ]


wow.



i think the question about whether or not they knew that what they were doing was THAT wrong is relevant...because anyone who wants to do this stuff you would THINK would be smart enough to be a bit more discreet about it.
I mean...he actually said OUT LOUD 'i'll provide some protection for you'.
It sounds like they were insanely blatant about what they were doing which is kind of weird if you ask me.

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
He said the tape showed a total of 6 hands that looked like they were either sharing strat, squeezing or sharing cards. The sharing cards thing I did not see, but I guess they saw one hand that looked like they traded cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this happen without someone noticing?

Player 1: "Crap, A7 off."
Player 2: "What suit is your Ace?"
Player 1: "Clubs, why?"
Player 2: "I have the 8 of clubs -- and a seven! Let's trade!"
Player 1: "Okay!"
Dealer: "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

[Lottery Larry]

Next time, do it a little more quietly, nail them on those monster hands with some slow-play, THEN have the floor step in and reveal their cards.

Get their money first. They deserve it.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Casinos have a great deal of leeway to decide who plays what, where and when, and they don't need much of a reason for making these choices. I've seen this type of thing before, two players allowed to play in the room, but not together at the same table.

al

[Mountainhawk]

It just seems weird to me to say 'We know you are cheaters, so we aren't going to let you play at a table together, but feel free to still play in our room.'

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this happen without someone noticing?


[/ QUOTE ]

They were in seat 8 and 9, so the corner and next to the box. One played right of his chips (seat 8) and the other played left of his chips (seat 9). So they were playing with their cards close together. It would be very easy if they were SB and BB and the table was paying attention to the other end of the table as action started.

I did not think about them doing that, but thinking back there were a couple of times when the dealer mixed their cards up on the deal since there was so little room between them. Seat 9 kept his chips spread out instead of stacked high.