fr
If its a freeroll and only 2 at the table,i dont see any probs,just when 3 show up,its back to poker,I cant see half the table doing it,lol..geesh,I would not have went along if i was the 3rd person.it only works for 2..:icon_sant
If its a freeroll and only 2 at the table,i dont see any probs,just when 3 show up,its back to poker,I cant see half the table doing it,lol..geesh,I would not have went along if i was the 3rd person.it only works for 2..:icon_sant
regardless of it being ethical there is no advantage to it. Just play HU or 3 handed whatever it is and there will be no difference unless you find yourself at a disadvantage in those situations. Just play it straight and be glad you have free chips in the pot.
Related is the situation where there may be 3 or 4 players and 5 or 6 no shows and you 4 players are bunched at the table. When you get the most fortunate opportunity to be the last live player to act, it effectively gives you the button in 4 or 5 out of 9 or 10 hands.
What are the ethics there?
And I agree, it was totally unethical to introduce donuts into this serious philosophical discussion!😉
What are the ethics there?
And I agree, it was totally unethical to introduce donuts into this serious philosophical discussion!😉
I have been in similar circumstances many times, as i am sure others have as well. In a tourney where only 2 or 3 of the 10 players are present. Usually it is at the start, not an hour into the event, tho. Yes, i agree that it is collusion, but i will agree to take the blinds, and not fight the other players, IF all agree. Mind you, i am a fanatic about ethical play, but this is a circumstance where no one is being cheated or taken advantage of, except for the absent players, who would lose their chips any way.
It's collusion. I've had tables like that, but what I do is try to steal most of the blinds, and then if I get any action back I consider whether the hand is any good. That way you strengthen yourself more than the opposition, and the way it generally pans out is that sometimes you'll be going in with the worse hand, but you can generally make up for that with the blinds you take in between. Of course, that's when you've got either a single other person in or a couple of tight players who haven't adjusted for the sit-outs.
Also, bear in mind that the sit-outs make things play rather more like a short-handed game in terms, although the blinds don't come round as often - it's the best of both worlds.
Also, bear in mind that the sit-outs make things play rather more like a short-handed game in terms, although the blinds don't come round as often - it's the best of both worlds.
well, it sounds like I am in the minority here, I don't think this is cheating, and I have done it often. I don't like the term collusion because that implies cheating. But if I am at a table with one other I see nothing wrong in alternating blinds, I didn't sign up for a heads up tournament, that is a crap shoot over who gets the best hands. I do ask in chat about co operation, once the other guy said no and I took him out. But most of the time the other player sees the advantage and we gather chips while the sun shines. Nothing wrong with that. In my opinion
I'd rather play and treat the blinds from the missing players as a bonus.
Of course, I'd probably never have this particular dilemma because I play on PokerStars and almost never open the chat window until it winds down to the last few players. I find an open chat window distracting. The "GO ALONG WITH US JOE" would fall on deaf ears.
Of course, I'd probably never have this particular dilemma because I play on PokerStars and almost never open the chat window until it winds down to the last few players. I find an open chat window distracting. The "GO ALONG WITH US JOE" would fall on deaf ears.
LeanAndMean said:
I also am in the minority it seems. This happens so often in freerolls. I really hate the guy who sits out for first hour and then shows up for hour 2 to all in his way back in game. If I find I'm at a table with only 1 other live player, I often will make a deal with other person to try to eliminate 7 or 8 sitters b4 1st break. Being at a table full of sitters puts you at a severe disadvantage trying to accumulate chips from a single opponent compared to those who have a fuller table. Look at it this way, option A] Fight to death with single opponent for a possible stack of 3Xs starting chips while people on other tables are stacking multiple opp. or option B] work with single opponent to play/steal blinds quickly for a 5Xs starting stack by the time table is split up? I see this as not much different than deal making at final table and/or running cards multiple times in a cash game. I believe it can be collusion only when it's done in private against a player actually in the game. How can you collude against players that don't even play a hand?
Excellent observation....
I've had this happen (being the only active player left) at Carbon Poker, where you can register 2 hours before a freeroll. I was in a race to hit the raise button as fast as I could, and my position was not getting MUCH better (but it did improve somewhat), as you're getting no more than 1 blinds at a time. But ethics aside, splitting those blinds amongst 3 people (especially if they are not fast on the raise button) would not improve your standing much, if at all.
BelgoSuisse said:
I've had this happen (being the only active player left) at Carbon Poker, where you can register 2 hours before a freeroll. I was in a race to hit the raise button as fast as I could, and my position was not getting MUCH better (but it did improve somewhat), as you're getting no more than 1 blinds at a time. But ethics aside, splitting those blinds amongst 3 people (especially if they are not fast on the raise button) would not improve your standing much, if at all.
To the minorities above, I don't think the problem people have is with alternating blinds. The problem comes in when it was openly discussed as to how to take the blinds, that's when it's considered collusion. It's kind of the same as the unspoken tourney rule when there are 3 players in a hand, 1 of which is all in; the other two (who are not all-in) usually have the "unspoken" rule to check the hand down unless you have the nuts. BUT, if either of the two players were to actually say "let's check this down so we can knock out player 3", then it's collusion.
I agree with the above on when it becomes collusion. Just splitting the blinds, and not playing too hard against the other live opponents is theoretically reasonable poker, because you're avoiding the toughest opponent at the table (and generally the biggest stack if the rest are sit-outs). There's obviously nothing wrong with that since it's pretty standard poker strategy.
Checking down an all-in is similar, in that your goal in the tournament is not so much to amass a lot of chips (though that helps) as to move up the placings, and you do this by eliminating the all-in players. If you think you can only win the hand through bluffing, then it may be +ve to bet, even though it risks letting the all-in back into the game, and if you've the nut hand then by all means get the money in to maximise your profit, but the in between hands where you don't really know where you stand the equity from increasing the chance of knocking an opponent out can mean it's just good poker to do so, so long as you don't explicitly agree to do it.
As for what is collusion, it might worth giving some kind of definition. I'd define it as discussing information or strategy with another player to gain a mutual advantage.
Note that by saying mutual advantage you can exclude any heads-up action where you talk about your cards or show a card to induce an action - that's a whole separate discussion. Any thoughts on the definition?
I'm sure it can be improved, but it's one to start with...
Checking down an all-in is similar, in that your goal in the tournament is not so much to amass a lot of chips (though that helps) as to move up the placings, and you do this by eliminating the all-in players. If you think you can only win the hand through bluffing, then it may be +ve to bet, even though it risks letting the all-in back into the game, and if you've the nut hand then by all means get the money in to maximise your profit, but the in between hands where you don't really know where you stand the equity from increasing the chance of knocking an opponent out can mean it's just good poker to do so, so long as you don't explicitly agree to do it.
As for what is collusion, it might worth giving some kind of definition. I'd define it as discussing information or strategy with another player to gain a mutual advantage.
Note that by saying mutual advantage you can exclude any heads-up action where you talk about your cards or show a card to induce an action - that's a whole separate discussion. Any thoughts on the definition?
I'm sure it can be improved, but it's one to start with...
Oh the joy of no shows...
Had the unfortunate task of being the only living player at a 10 seat table in a fr for 1 hour and 20 minutes. Click raise, click raise...such intresting play. It was so bad I almost went in to shock when the first live guy showed up and by then I'd all ready ko'd 2 tables worth of no shows or more. This particular game allowed people to sign up starting Thusday for play on Saturday. Ya, I made the money, lol.
Had the unfortunate task of being the only living player at a 10 seat table in a fr for 1 hour and 20 minutes. Click raise, click raise...such intresting play. It was so bad I almost went in to shock when the first live guy showed up and by then I'd all ready ko'd 2 tables worth of no shows or more. This particular game allowed people to sign up starting Thusday for play on Saturday. Ya, I made the money, lol.