Is this unethical?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[David]

I agree with you Lori that it is unethical and forbidden by the rules, BUT, it is a weapon used against me at least once EVERY single big buy-in tourney I play there.

I have never disconnected during a hand (except when everyone did) in a tourney at Party since I got DSL a couple of months ago. I have had to make some very tough and sometimes costly decisions without this benefit. In my opinion they should just change the rule to state "You will have one "non-act" allin protection per tournament which may be used if you become disconnected from the site or at any time if you don't want to call a bet". I know this sounds really stupid, but it is much closer to reality than what we have now. I often feel I am playing by a different set of rules than my opponents. When you are down to 131 players and are facing a bet for all your chips the temptation is to close the client and save those chips. I have never done so, but I have had it done to me numerous times. Three weeks ago in the Saturday $200 close to the money, not 1 but 2 players disconnected when facing a big bet from me when I had flopped top set and both of them made their flushes. Cost me the pot. I feel I was robbed even though I made the money. That pot, I am sure, cost me possibly several hundred or even thousand dollars in prize money.

Party should either change the "disconnect" to "all-in at any 1 time" in a tourney or go to a time bank.

The way things are now is a sham. The site by their inaction is condoning the actions of these players and by doing so they are stating it is OK to do this. If they continue to condone these actions then they cannot complain if all the players insist on the same protections.

I am sure some will think I am off base here, but play in some of these tournaments where tens of thousands are on the line and have it done to you a few times and see how you feel.

[Rushmore]

Earlier in the thread, you question your definition of "reverse implied odds." I think you got it right, actually.

What you're getting wrong, on the other hand, is this:

You make the assumption that this player can properly adjust his play so that he can eliminate the reverse implied odds, and that the way he can do this is, of course, to avoid paying the price on flop raises and all turn bets (and, presumably, river bets where he might pair up or actually back into the best hand with ace or even king high, etc, but would have been bet off the best hand by a bluff bet on the end).

Problem #1: The way he avoids this is to raise allin preflop/flop. So he's robbing Peter to pay Paul, at least partially, because he IS putting extra chips into the pot, just not the full price.

Problem #2: There's no way to effectively play so that you KNOW you will always be playing speculative hands. You can play suited connectors till the cows come home, but you're going to flop top pair every so often in a situation where it needs to be protected with a raise or a check-raise. You cannot effectively protect your hand (especially from early position) if you're sitting there with 3 small bets when the hand is dealt. Therefore, he's losing money there, and that is good for you.

Problem #3: He will make his draw on the turn a fair amount of the time. He will not get paid the full price, which is to say that you will not be charged the full price to see his winner. This is great for you.

There's global warming. There's the situation in Haiti. There's that whole thing with that damned Mel Gibson and that movie.

This isn't worth worrying about.

[Piers]

No it’s not unethical. If you don’t like it move to a different table.

Personally it’s the guys that play as tight as me, don’t call my pre flop raises and don’t call to the river with trash, that piss me off.

[ QUOTE ]
However his strategy of always min buying cost me some money for sure

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you’re being greedy. Just take what’s on offer; no one has to give you their money.

[aces961]

I honestly can't believe I'm reading this post. I mean really what do you expect a weak player to do when shortstacked. It looks to me like he has two choices on how to use his chips when he is short. Either put them in with a hand that can win unimproved or put them in with a draw, and you have the nerve to complain when he puts them in with a draw.

[Ulysses]

There is not even the slightest hint of unethical behavior here.