Ok, bit by bit:

You're not forcing anything. Nemo is still playing this guy, with or without the bribe being allowed/offered/denied. If Nemo had not offered the guy a bribe, what would you say? He would've still kept playing him.

The reason you offer the buyout is so that you get guaranteed money, you stop a guy from whining and you feel it's more worthwhile than playing him.

If you make $200 a month off a guy and he offers you $50, you'll probably say no. If he offers you $500, you probably say yes. It's not a "you have to pay me or I'll play you" it's "I'm going to be playing you every time I see you because it's valuable to me."

I mean, if somebody is sitting you over and over, how can you not see that you have to give them incentive to stop sitting you if it bothers you? That incentive might mean you outplaying them. It may also mean you moving down (you eliminate their incentive to play you this way). But, like many things in life, the exchange of money would be a pretty easy solution some of the time.

That's just not true. Like I said before, if somebody makes you an offer, you would assign a value to it and compare the value of playing that person and make the better decision. Having options is good, having mutually beneficial agreements is good. Not having choices is generally bad.

In this instance, since so many people are opposed to it, I am more than happy if this is not allowed (as stated before). But the implications in your post are way over the line imo, and go from opinion to falsehood in this instance. You may just not be familiar with the intent of these people. Nobody is sitting players and asking them for money, this has only happened (in every instance I've heard of) after the one reg is whining and asking the other to stop playing him over and over.

Your alternative of "just play them over and over" is perfectly acceptable, and on at least FTP probably the only choice for a guy like Nemo at this point.

But for the marginal regs he sits, you don't think it's a good idea to allow them to make Nemo an offer to stop him from sitting them? It's not good to have that choice?

it's not a scammy situation, as a matter of fact it's probably not against any written rule either. but it's not good for internet poker business and it's clearly understandable why fulltilt would want to prevent this or at least react when someone reports nemo for doing this

..... Moving to another site wont save my enemy, I pack my bags and head out to the brave new world.

can't the other guy just request to change his screen name ? lol :P

This is awesome because I really believe you would do it.

Im obv smart enough to find the player even if he switched screennames or moved to another site and changed screennames, It would be a matter of 2-5 games and I would figure it out, unless the guy was smart enough to realize that I would be smart enough to know this so he would play entirely different for alot of games. In G1shots case I highly doubt he would be capable of thinking that far and anyway if he tried to change his game already which I already consider very bad then he might just make himself look like a fish and then I would continue to join him for different reasons.

Did I tell you nemo, that my niece from san fransisco drew nemo for the movie

thats awesome!!

I agree, but what do you do when someone follows you as Nemo did even to the 45mans? I will admit I am probably being a bit paranoid, and extending way to far, but if the game were such that, one player, or a group of players were so good they could team up, and harass lower stake players into paying a monthly fee.

If some 1K regs were big enough dicks (or business men) they could add some passive income to their rolls just by teaming up against the regs at say the $100 or $50s for a month or so... I find this extreme example unethical and bad for the games, so why not a smaller scale version as well?


Yeah... all the above said, I still think it's a minor issue at the moment and not something I think the sites should worry about except in extreme cases. More just something to keep in mind i guess...



I completely agree with this. And I for one am not the 'Holier than thou' type, I've crossed the line many times myself. I'm just saying we might not have all the variables here. It's one thing if he just sits and is polite the whole time, it's another if he stalks and talks about raping his mother. Not saying he did, just thinking that I can't make a judgment call here as far as the ban goes... although I still lean towards Nemo's side a bit, it seems a bit extreme and doesn't 'fit the crime' given the nature of the problem, but my mind could be easily swayed with more details.

[QUOTE=ChicagoRy;18905743
If you make $200 a month off a guy and he offers you $50, you'll probably say no. If he offers you $500, you probably say yes. It's not a "you have to pay me or I'll play you" it's "I'm going to be playing you every time I see you because it's valuable to me."[/QUOTE]

I don't know if you analyzed this enough. If I make $200 from this guy, he offers $50/month, it might be worthwile because I then have the time to get $200 playing someone else, rinse and repeat. They save $150/month, I get $50 + my time.

They get a good deal, and I can build a network of people paying me $50/month.

It's very easy for you to say the second, just to be looking for the first.

I bet your primary game is not HU SNGs and/or you are a part-time "for fun" player.

You pretty much nailed what I was going to say to those claiming that paying a non sitting fee is unethical/douchey/extortion etc etc. It can very well be mutually beneficial.

I have to keep confirming that OP posted in the HEADS UP community. Perhaps its cash game bums chiming in, but I just feel like a lot of the posts in here are extremely misguided.

I know the thread keeps getting thrown in several directions, but what do you think of the skeleton email?

I personally think that disallowing someone from sitting someone else is ridiculous, especially if its the normal stakes of the person sitting the other and if there is harrassment, then just chat ban the person harrassing. The 7 day ban is a little much as well, but under the circumstances might be merited. Disconnecting the player from running games is just criminal imo and FTP should refund buyins ASAP.

lol, I sort of expect that to be the case. But in FTPs eyes, I think this is basically their line of thought.

The most interesting question here is how would PokerStars deal with this exact situation? I think they might find a more eloquent way of saying "stop doing this!", but in practice there would be little difference.

Obv there is merit to the line of thinking that it can be mutually beneficial decision to charge someone, but when you're going out of your way to hurt his hourly (ie: sitting 45 mans to marginally hurt his hourly, lol) instead of simply charging someone who frequents the same games you frequent, it's really apples to oranges. Situation one involves a conflict of interest basically out of coincidence (rational self interest), where as the second situation involves an imposed conflict of interest out of spite. Because you let emotions enter the equation and the site can basically deduce you were acting out of spite instead of rational self interest, you've screwed yourself because you've created an atmosphere that is not enjoyable for your opponent.

=-=-=-=

Would you do this in real life if we could imagine that HUSNGs ran at casinos, and how do you think a B&M casino would handle the situation?

You are thinking about this the wrong way...if a 1k reg wanted to sit me at a $100 table, I would be more than happy to play him. It would probably be a -EV move on my part, but I would be a much better player by the end of it : ) Too many regs are afraid to play other regs, so when they finally do, they make a ton of mistakes in trying to get too fancy. Because the games are so dry at higher stakes you gotta practice playing other regs at some point, might as well be at the cheaper stakes. But more important imo is that its no fun beating a fish...its alot of fun beating a reg

lol @ Nemo I guess we really will be playing alot of games...first one was fun

closed by request