Online collusion discussion @ Paul Phillips' blog

[riverflush]

All these concerns are very legit, and strike right at the heart of what plagues online poker in general: a lack of transparency. You ultimately have no clue who you are playing, who's in the room, etc. In a casino, you get to stare at your opponent face-to-face and confront any situation openly. Even with complete strangers, an odd trust develops after a few hours of play, when you begin to feel out the table and can see everything happening. This can NEVER happen online. I've become more and more disgruntled with online play in the past few months. The lack of personal contact is really a hurdle I'm having a hard time getting over. It's a totally different game no matter how the cards are dealt.

Dave over at Big Slick has a great article about this exact scenario in his blog archives. I'm too lazy to go digging for it, however. It was right along the lines of P Phillips' discussion.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I consider this cheating is because of a few reasons. The main reason has to do with the fact that I would NOT have checked it down against any other player. The difference between cheating and good poker strategy, in my mind, is asking yourself if you would do such-and-such against another opponent of the same caliber. If you answer yes, then there is no cheating. If you answer no, you have purposely cheated according to TDA and Stars tourney rules. For example:

[ QUOTE ]
7 Penalties A penalty MAY be invoked if a player exposes any card with action pending, if a card(s) goes off the table, if soft-play occurs, or similar incidents take place. Penalties WILL be invoked in cases of abuse, disruptive behavior, or similar incidents.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is from the TDA. Softplaying was definitely a factor in my case. I only softplayed to improve my chances of eliminating a verbally annoying, maniacal opponent.

[ QUOTE ]
Soft playing or chip dumping is grounds for disqualification from the tournament. Any unethical play may result in the termination of the offender’s account.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is from Poker Stars tournament rule page. It was a Stars tourney.

I may use a more strict interpretation of the TDA rules than others, hence the reason that Roland Waters did not disqualify the cheating team at the Four Queens, whereas the next day, David Lamb barred both of them from the Classic, as well as firing Roland Waters.

Things like these are very tough to enforce, unless they are so blatant that one cannot help noticing what is happening (the case at the Four Queens).

I have seen very obvious colluding, chip dumping and softplaying occur where nothing is done. Then I have seen two complete neophytes who were unaware of the softplaying rule check down a hand, only to be accessed the maximum penalty.

It is a tough line to hoe.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all fine and well, but if you did not hold the nuts in position on the river, there is no way in the world anyone can say you were softplaying. You couls EASILY be trapping, and would be smart to do so versus many opponents.

The "would I do it vs a different player of same caliber" argument is also ineffectual, as different opponents require different strategies. Ultimately, your strategy was to knock your opponent out.

With such a strict interpretation of rules, A Huge stack keeping a small stack alive at the bubble could EASILY be construed as chip dumping. As with anything else, context is key. You have/had plenty of other things to worry about, Felecia; your play on this hand shouldn't be one of them

[riverflush]

Just realized that it looks as if Dave may have taken down his archives at BSN. Might have to Google it.

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
he main reason has to do with the fact that I would NOT have checked it down against any other player.

[/ QUOTE ]

That does not make it cheating. It would be cheating if you played your hand differently than you would have for some personal gain. If I understand the situation correctly the result would have been the same had it been "any other player". That is, had you reached your goal, a player would be eliminated. Perhaps your strategy should include this type of play against any other player also. In tournaments implied collusion is "accepted" strategy in that players check hands down all the time in an effort to knock a player out. That is tournament poker. It is part of the game.

Your action does not qualify as soft Playing. Soft Playing is not playing your hand against an oopponent in an effort to keep from losing or taking chips from him. Usually you see this done among friends in live games.

Vince

[Vince Lepore]

excellant point!

vince

[Voltron87]

I have been accused of collusion in SNGs several times, for using the SS keep alive tactics. I folded to a shortstack BB from my SB for 100-200 more 4 straight times, and the opponents (who I had stolen 2500 chips from- making me a near lock for 1st [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) complained and sent in emails.

When someone is all in and two other players are playing on the side, there is nothing wrong with checking it down to maximize the chances of an elimination. If you and I are playing on the side while someone is all in and I communicate to you "I have a flush draw-check" that is cheating. The 1st example is also unprovable, like you said.

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
folded to a shortstack BB from my SB for 100-200 more 4 straight times, and the opponents (who I had stolen 2500 chips from- making me a near lock for 1st ) complained and sent in emails

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played a significant number of SNGs. When I first started playing I would get irate when I saw the big stack let the short stack slide. After I realized the logic in this play (for the big stack) I believe that it is smart tournament strategy.

Vince

[riverflush]

I don't think many would consider it "smart" tournament strategy. That's probably a minority opinion here on 2+2.

[Vince Lepore]

Are you saying that if you are against players that will allow you to constantly steal their blinds rather than take a chance of going out fourth in a 3 payout sng it's not smart for the big stack not to play against the small stack?

Vince

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think many would consider it "smart" tournament strategy. That's probably a minority opinion here on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I thank my lucky stars for that every day.