Op, put yourself in the "fish's" shoes. (God, how I hate that term. So de-humanizing.):

So, you're sitting at a table with you 75-80bb's, hoping to catch a big hand and come away winner. Two guys sit down. One is obviously a shark by how he carries himself. Both players buy in full. Over the coarse of the session, you notice the shark keeps commenting on the other guy's play, obviously coaching him, and the other guy continually defers and accepts Daddy's advice (or at the least doesn't challenge it).

Do you feel comfortable, knowing that these guys are obviously on a team?

Fast-forward, two nights later: the same shark sits with another reg you've seen around. Same situation: Shark casts his pearls of knowledge and the other guy totally accedes.

Again, do you feel comfortable playing with them? Then it dawns on you that you see this shark being chummy with SEVERAL decent regs in the room. Then you start to wonder exactly when you aren't playing against a team...

See where this goes? People get the perception that they aren't playing against 8 other individuals and get nervous. And why shouldn't they? As you say yourself, you and your crew are doing pretty well.

What your not seeing is that your only viewing things through your eyes.

You don't mind it in that game because you deem everything is on the up and up and don't care who stakes who, that's fine, continue to play and be happy.

Do you consider a fishy player to be out of his mind for having suspicions of something shady going on in your situation? How about a reg who isn't part of your staking operation and want's to cry conspiracy?

The point is not whether or not you actually are cheating. I am sure you aren't and fwiw I would have no problem playing in the game.

The point is that it is not that crazy for a toursit fish, or some reg, or whoever else to feel uncomfortable playing against you and your horses.

Management also has the right to make sure their customers are happy and if your business makes people uncomfortable, whether justifiably or not, they will address the problem by not letting you play with your horses.

I hate to say you told me so. One guy calls us "The Corporation" and he loves playing against us because if we don't all play the game doesn't run or it's just him and I HU which he is a bigger underdog in.

I can't sit with them, they can sit with each other as far as I know. I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't sit together though, although that would make even less sense.

It doesn't impact the way I play. I know this because I'm the one playing. I have played millions and millions of hands online and I have played plenty live. I have gone through mental game coaching to fix tilt leaks and I've trained to know when my play is altered.

I play bigger pots vs my horses because they play back at me bc I play LAG. It's easier to get in bigger pots with people who play back at you light.

I did call what some people said ignorant because they're just spewing out random assumptions without knowing anything like you just did. How do you know how I play? How do you know my game is influenced? How do you know I don't just play unexploitably? You don't even know what casino I play in. You don't know anything and you just call me a cheater without ever seeing me play or knowing who I am.

Btw, as I explained before, I like to play at their table so I can spot leaks. In live poker you have so much more information (tells, gameflow, ect) that just seeing a HH isn't enough. I talk about this way before this issue arose in my PG&C thread.

Ty sasha. I wasn't trying to insult anyone in this thread, but this is the type of person I wanted advice from (someone who stakes/wins/ect), along with someone like AnusThermopyle who I know will give me a very accurate description of the floors role. I will certainly handle things like this in the future.

I do understand that perspective, and you explained it very well. I just don't feel right being shady about everything. I'm very logical, and it's just hard for me to come to terms with the fact that this goes on allllll the time with other players who are shady about it, and people don't care. But when someone tries to be honest about what they're doing they're villainous for it. It is what it is though. Clearly no use in trying to explain things, just have to adapt.

He loves it. He doesn't play smaller than 10/20 and he would rather play 4 handed than just me HU. He's also rich, obviously, and we're good friends. He knows I would never cheat him. Like I said, this is his idea. He knows he can play me HU anytime, and we have dabbled in some HU matches. He would rather beat me by beating them and he wants me there to see it.

Also, we played against more than just him, but anytime he plays it's a "private game" so he can ignore some of the rules he doesn't like. There isn't anything unethical about this. It's no different than sitting at a table by yourself knowing that you have an edge.

No, I don't think it's unreasonable, but the game has rules built in to prevent collusion. Like when the river goes check-check a winning hand must be shown, at showdown any player can ask to see a hand - these are to prevent collusion when you see suspicious play. There is no suspicious play going on.

People aren't complaining about me cheating, they're just complaining about how "they don't like it."

Just think about what I do for a living... aside from playing poker, I coach/stake it. I take peoples fishy thought process and fix it to make them a better player. It's hard for me to just jump into their point of view and say it's ok, but I'm trained to try to change their thought process. Obviously that isn't what I should be doing here, it's just a little insight as to why I'm so hard headed about this issue. I'm not trying to be ignorant to other peoples points of view, I'm just conditioned to change their thought process.

So op is saying its not fair that other players get to do scummy things and he cant. What?

If you really are a pro then you should realize that degens are gonna do whatever they have to do in order to stay in action. That's the way things work. If you don't like it, or think its not fair, then you should choose I different line of work.

I assume you're not a degen, and I understand how lucrative your little operation was, but it boggles my mind how you can't understand how much it ruins the integrity of the game.

6 months from you're going to look back and realize how foolish and lucky you really were. I'm surprised they didn't 86 you. Gl

] youre in their house; they make the rules in their house. At your house, you make the rules (take yer shoes off, w/e). when they make a ruling it doesnt matter what you think about it. and you are wasting your time thinking about it's fairness. they don't need a 'good reason' to make a rule in their own house, and expecting such is nonsense...

] good for you for letting everyone know you are playing out of the same bank-roll w/ your horses... to do otherwise would be questionable if youre playing at the same tables imo.

] 'I'm just conditioned to change their thought process' ??
I can understand the sentiment myself, but giving them credit for a 'thought process' in the first place is perhaps too generous? like you said, the 'don't like it'. ie. they feel a certain way... it has nothing to do with logic, and that may be a standard they arent concerned with?

limon tweeted the other day; 'nobody knows less about poker than ppl who run poker rooms'. bingo, and appropriate.

you put up with the bull****, it's another cost of doing business...

] some places could decide to look at this as 'loansharking' even if that is far from the truth, so consider yourself lucky with the result...

Is it possible to play a bigger game 4 handed with everyone knowing the situation? If this rich guy knows and doesn't care then I don't see the harm. When other rec players are involved, I can see an issue.

Look at the bright side. A guy w money will play you short handed w other players you back. It is now possible to have a home game and play w no rake or small rake or just tip dealers.... Saves you all money. Now it's win win.

So, the players at 1-3 complained and you can't play with your crew that play that level.

Am I right in assuming that your crew that play the 10-20 are a different group?

I admit I misunderstood the "same bankroll" situation and retract my commentary about hand situations. I still maintain that the room has every right to do what they need to do to protect their business and player perception becomes a huge part of this. Even if they fully understand and see it the way you do, if it starts hurting their bottom line, they'd be foolish not to do something about it.

Kydd the best advice you can hear from this whole mess is to understand where management is coming from.

You didn't get 86'd, the world isn't crashing down.

Management handled this very well imo and you should be grateful it didn't end worse for you.

Do what they say and follow their rules. Your in their house, not the other way around, they are being more than fair given the circumstances.

Going to gaming or escalating this in any way is a huge mistake.

Best of luck.

SNGers who stake guys in other STT formats (and i think up to 45s) aren't supposed to and sometimes not allowed to play in games against their horses.....seems like its pretty much the same thing going on here

An example: BigBluffZinc stakes some players at the $30-200 6m hypers on PS and also plays the same games....if he tries to register a lobby that one of his horses has already sat, he wont be able to register

online SNG != live cash

Not even a close comparison

Look, almost every room is going to have a house rule that says something like this... "The house reserves the right to require that certain players do not play in the same game."

The reason they have this rule is to protect the integrity of the game or as you may see it, "keep the fish happy". It basically means you are SOL because as you said, they can do whatever they want. Whether they're right or wrong makes zero difference.

I know of Kydd, don't know him personally or any more than anyone on 2+2 so my opinion on the matter is pretty neutral. I have played w/ him/his horses many times at ssnl (1/3, 2/5, 1/3/6). I play a lot at the casino and know of him and probably all of his horses.

As far as I am concerned, he does things the right way. From what I have seen, Kydd doesn't even talk strat at the tables. After a sesson, he will go to a separate table to coach up his horse. It's not like you guys are even that public and after playing w/ most of your horses, they have never even mentioned staking, you, or anything of the nature.

I am actually quite surprised that the floor knew of this and this info. even got to them. I didn't think many of the 1/3-1/3/6 player pool was even that observant.

FWIW someone like me would just move to another table if I was playing w/ you and one your horses b/c it is much easier to play vs 8 fish than 6 fish and 2 very solid thinking players. But like I said, I wasn't even aware the fishy player pool at the casino even knew of you and your horses.

Agree w/ what was previously stated. The fish are just looking for an excuse b/c they're fish.

Kidd Dynamite qoute
"I wasn't trying to insult anyone in this thread, but this is the type of person I wanted advice from (someone who stakes/wins/ect), along with someone like ANUS Thermopyle ...

I hope this was a typo.

The thread reminds me of another (deleted) thread about the Foxwood's cell phone rule.

Two players were texting each other during a hand, admittedly discussing the other players, and were upset about being asked to leave or turn off their phones!

I would not want to play at your table.

I don't have any big problem playing with folks using a shared bankroll (husband+wife, dad+son, etc), and I actually appreciate it when these folks make it pretty obvious what is happening. When you know who might be playing differently, you can adjust.

So *I* would prefer KD and his horses be well-known. And as long as I didn't have to face a posse of them, that's fine. If there's a team that's actually overtly cheating (signaling each other, say), they need to be taken out into the desert and buried up to their necks. But if it's just a case that they might be soft-playing each other, or playing based on getting a partial kick-back if the backer loses to the horse, I can accept it.

But I play a lot of poker. I think I have a pretty good idea whether I'm at a serious disadvantage.

I'm not the problem. It's the recreational players who feel outgunned and disadvantaged playing against what they see as a "team". Thus, OP's insistence that he only wants to hear from experienced, high stakes players is wrong-headed. They aren't the target audience, and they probably aren't the problem.

It isn't about whether what he's doing is unfair to other players. It's not about who is right and who is wrong. It's simply about "can the casino do this" and "is there anything I can do to convince them otherwise". I think the answer is "yes, they can do this", and "no, you should do what they say and perhaps revisit the issue in 12 months".

I think most people on 2+2 greatly underestimate the fear of being cheated the causal player has. Players are more sophisticated than they used to be, but playing in a casino the first time is a scary proposition.

When I worked in Vegas (pre-boom, I left in 2001), every day I would have a guest express to me that the 1-5 stud players were probably all professionals playing as a team waiting for the sucker to sit down.

Exactly right. This is why OP should listen to the "low stakes" or whatever people he's not interested in hearing from. It's the inexperienced, superstitious players that are affected by his team, and they're the ones who are complaining. Whether OP thinks he is being unfairly persecuted is not the issue, it is whether the behavior of OP and his team is affecting the bottom line of the card room.

Another thing to understand is that the long-term perception of the cardroom is something management is going to consider. If there's a basic idea that this room allows "cheating" (regardless of the reality) they have to do what they can to put a stop to it asap.

I understand that I don't have any posts in any high stakes sections here, and I've only been managing a 16 table room for a couple of years, so apparently I'm not important enough for OP to listen to, but maybe he'll deign to hear the advice of someone who has to deal with these issues from a management perspective daily.

Management is atrocious at rivers. It seems to me all they care about is the bottom line. If you can convince them that not letting you play with certain people is affecting their bottom line in an adverse way, maybe they will change their minds.

I played with OP for about an hour or so when I played at rivers. I don't know if any of his horses were in the game or not, but I didn't see anything fishy going on at all.

And if you want to review your horses' play, why not just sweat them in a session instead of sitting in?

No, same crew.

I was told that one particular player spread rumors that we were colluding. He is a compulsive liar and also talks about he has made $500k in the room, used to be a red pro, ect. For whatever reason some people respect him and listen to him (I think you know who I'm talking about).
Anyways, I'm just guessing that this lead people that I don't even play with to complain.

Yes, def a typo. Just had anus on the mind I guess. Much respect for AT. What they did is collusion to text someone about a player during a hand. Much different from what I'm talking about.

I've accepted the fact that rec players aren't going to like it because the aren't going to understand. I've pretty much heeded all advice sasha gave.

I want respectable poker opinions on whether or not this is ethical because I wouldn't try to reverse their decision (no, this does not mean I would contact the gaming commission) if people who have more experience than me could explain to me why it's unethical.

Barring disagreement from RR and/or Lattimer, I'm shutting this thread down based on Kydd's recent post reports. Basically he's complaining about people complaining about him. And that's just silly given the direction of the OP and his responses.