Online collusion discussion @ Paul Phillips' blog

[The T.A.]

http://extempore.livejournal.com/

Read Phillips' latest entry. Stories like these make me worry about online poker's future, as well.

[whiskeytown]

hell, Felicia had stories like this at the Orleans last year - even got some threats for her trouble.

Of course, that was before she became famous for writing "Playing poker like the chemos"

RB

[Vince Lepore]

Phillips is right. These two fellows that he spoke of and others like them are indeed cheating. I agree with him in total. Some people that would never think of colluding in live tournament play or live poker do not believe that it is cheating when they do it on line. We need Alan Schoonmaker to tell us why some people feel this way.

Vince

[FeliciaLee]

It was actually the Four Queens, but close enough.

People cheat all the time, whether they know it or not, whether they intend to cheat or not. We are built with a personal bias that is impossible to overcome. I've cheated before, you can read one of my old posts here about playing a SNG against a maniac.

How did I cheat? Well, when we got down to four, I was so angry at the maniac that in one hand when I flopped a set of nines, I checked it down with the other player in the hand, although the board was not scary, and it was a hand I would created a side pot with any other player.

Yes, this was when I was first really getting into NLHE, and no, I didn't realize that checking it down when I had a very good hand was unethical. But I still did it, guilty party right here.

Anyway, yeah, a lot of people don't even realize that they are cheating, and would not otherwise do it. Paul has always been one to expose things like this, as have I. I think it's the one thing we have in common, lol.

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

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
It was actually the Four Queens, but close enough.

People cheat all the time, whether they know it or not, whether they intend to cheat or not. We are built with a personal bias that is impossible to overcome. I've cheated before, you can read one of my old posts here about playing a SNG against a maniac.

How did I cheat? Well, when we got down to four, I was so angry at the maniac that in one hand when I flopped a set of nines, I checked it down with the other player in the hand, although the board was not scary, and it was a hand I would created a side pot with any other player.

Yes, this was when I was first really getting into NLHE, and no, I didn't realize that checking it down when I had a very good hand was unethical. But I still did it, guilty party right here.

Anyway, yeah, a lot of people don't even realize that they are cheating, and would not otherwise do it. Paul has always been one to expose things like this, as have I. I think it's the one thing we have in common, lol.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common misconception. Checking it down with a big hand with the express purpose of knocking out an opponent is completely within your rights as a player. DISCUSSING or previously arranging to do so with the other player in the hand is strictly verboten, however. Of course, checking down with a set mainly hurts yourself, as you know, since you likely could have extracted some value for your set from the other player. There is almost an implicit "check it down unless you are big" industry standard in SNG's now with allin players. I still get mad when people bluff vs the dry side and allow the other player to live, but it is completely within their rights to do so, so long as they have no financial interest in the allin player.

I have had many instances in the past in SNG's where as the big stack, I had control of the table, and to an extent could control who placed where, and have used this to knock out players in 4th that I felt were a threat or that just had pissed me off before. This is completely and totally my prerogative. Now, if I were playing the same SNG, and my buddy who was splitting a % with me was amoung the final 4, THAT is collusion if I try to position him in the top 3. Whether or not trying to help your buddy get into the top 3 when you have no financial interest in it is collsion is murky at best. Most would say it is, but they are your cards, and you can play them as you see fit.

As an aside, I get accused of colluding once every 2 weeks or so when I keep the short stack alive in SNG's as the big stack. OF course, my motives are purely criminal, but many just don't get that.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a common misconception. Checking it down with a big hand with the express purpose of knocking out an opponent is completely within your rights as a player.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an interesting distinction to be made here (and one I do not believe is in any way enforceable).

Felicia checked her hand down to SPITE the maniac. This is not strategic.

I understand your point, but it seems like there is a subtle difference here, enough to where it feels more like "cheating" is an appropriate word.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
Felicia checked her hand down to SPITE the maniac. This is not strategic.

I understand your point, but it seems like there is a subtle difference here, enough to where it feels more like "cheating" is an appropriate word.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly!

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a common misconception. Checking it down with a big hand with the express purpose of knocking out an opponent is completely within your rights as a player.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an interesting distinction to be made here (and one I do not believe is in any way enforceable).

Felicia checked her hand down to SPITE the maniac. This is not strategic.

I understand your point, but it seems like there is a subtle difference here, enough to where it feels more like "cheating" is an appropriate word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I realized this, but in no way whatsoever is this cheating, collusion, or anything of the sort. And of course it's strategic; her strategy is to KO the jerk. Bluffing off 99% of your chips just to try to come back and win is a strategy, and thus strategic. It's a DUMB startegy, but strategic nonetheless.

Felicia can rest easy. This I have thus decreed! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but it seems like there is a subtle difference here, enough to where it feels more like "cheating" is an appropriate word.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can feel bad later about cheating, and you can feel bad later about being petty and spiteful. Feeling bad about it doesn't make it cheating, it makes it a violation of your personal code of conduct.

There are no rules against being petty. If there were, you could never fill a final table at a major tournament. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[FeliciaLee]

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]