Encouraging your table to stall in a tourney (long....as usual)

[FlFishOn]

" It is an accepted strategy and generally accepted as ethical..."

...and clearly collusive.

I'll say it again. It is a distinction with only a tiny difference.

In a B&M setting you might suffer sanctions for discussing such things but online most anyone who plays regularly has no such expectation. Offenders will maybe be warned, maybe not. Online tourneys will likely never meet the same standards of B&M poker.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
but online most anyone who plays regularly has no such expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]



The problem is that online there are lots of players who just don't know that they aren't supposed to discuss such things.

That's why I will polite tell them to 'please not discuss strategy or team-stalling at the table' or something like that.

I guess it's kind of similar to a T/D giving a player a 'warning' in a live tourney.

I don't do it much....there have been times where I've seen the discussion where I just didn't bother.

I've probably mentioned it to an opponent 6 or 7 times or so...and most of the time they politely apologize and agree they shouldn't discuss it (or someone else backs me up).

Again...on Stars this is no longer an issue on many of the tourneys because the chat is disabled before you get to that point (but not on all of their tourneys/satellites...not sure on this one).


If the player is particularly aggressive in their team-stalling discussion then I'll either tell them to stop or I'll report it to C/S.

I don't have 'the expectation' that all tourneys (online or live) are automatically going to run smoothly.
But if theirs is an error of ignorance (and it usually is...they just don't know...or casually 'forget' that they aren't supposed to talk about it) then how will it stop if they aren't asked to stop OR if support doesn't step in and say "that is not apporpriate at the table" etc etc etc.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Quite frankly, I'm a little puzzled by Mike's attempt to draw distinctions between where it would be ok to discuss stalling and Bob's situation, which Mike agrees crosses the line. Both are unaceptable in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]


I see Mike's point in this...but yes, drawing distinctions can lead to some problems.

I'm not about to go around telling my table that we should all stall now...but it looks almost like the stage has been set for that to be almost okay if you aren't TOO bad about it.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
" It is an accepted strategy and generally accepted as ethical..."

...and clearly collusive.

I'll say it again. It is a distinction with only a tiny difference.



[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. In the hand both players are adopting a strategy to maximize their expectation. Experienced players often don't follow it early in a tourney because there isn't as much positive expectation from knocking a player out as there is from winning the pot and getting the other player out improves their chances of winning the pot. They may also not follow it later in a tourney when they hold a monster, as the odds of knocking out the all-in player by themselves are already very high, and the possibility of getting more chips in the pot is more valuable than having another player in with a chance to knock out the all in player.


The fact that both players employing a check down strategy see it as a postive expectation play and hope that together they have a better chance of knocking out the all-in player than either would alone doesn't make the play collusive, any more than using the ref to screen out your defender puts you in collusion with the ref--as long as you don't discuss, signal, or agree with the other player to employ the strategy.

Discussing such a strategy is clearly collusive and violates the one player to a hand rule among others. The distinction is not at all insignificant or meaningless.

--Zetack

[nbajam]

Of course if this was on Pokerstars, Lee Jones would have written you a 20 page response immediately and given you exactly what you wanted (a seat you didn't earn), right Bob?

[MicroBob]

ummm...not sure why you needed to bump this.


it is true that i believe stars cust-support is superior to party's.
i am not alone in having this belief.

i do not believe that stars would have awarded me the seat however.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
ummm...not sure why you needed to bump this.


it is true that i believe stars cust-support is superior to party's.
i am not alone in having this belief.

i do not believe that stars would have awarded me the seat however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you would have gotten the same result probably (some compensation), however, instead of taking 20 emails back and forth with people who don't understand english, it would have taken 1.