Final game of a poker season. Top 10 people make it.

The top 9 are set in stone and the final spot comes down to Albert and Bob. Albert needs to finish two spots ahead of Bob to make it to the finals.


Final tournament comes down to 3 people. Albert, Bob and Charlie.

Albert has 1.5 times as many chips as Bob, Charlier has 2/3 of Bob's stack.

Bob is on Albert's right.

So the short version is, Albert needs to win, and have Charlie come in second.

Is it ethical for Albert to somewhat blatantly dump chips to Charlie and only attack Bob. When Bob folds his big blind, Albert would always give Charlie a walk. If Bob opened, then Albert would often reraise. If Charlie opened and Bob folded, Albert would fold. If Charlie opened and Bob called, Charlie would call and only bet or try to take the pot when Bob played and Charlie didn't.


So, he is not colluding in the sense that he is trying to help a friend win over another, this is for purely personal reasons. But he is blatantly trying to help Charlie at the cost of Bob, and even at the cost of himself.

It is an interesting situation, just not sure if its ethical.

Ethical? What difference does that make? The question is, is this legal? Is someone cheating?

For the most part, everyone is accepting of the implied collusion common later in tournaments. Is that sort of behavior so different than described in the original post?

If there isn't an explicit arrangement between the players regarding chip dumping, I can not find fault with the action. Every player is acting in their own self interest. Yes, someone is getting unorthodox help to make 2nd place. But it doesn't seem illegal, it seems like focused self interest.

I see no problem here. The league set up a complex set of rewards that incentivizes some strange decisions. No one should be surprised, alarmed or penalized. No one is cheating, they are trying their hardest to win.

DrStrange

I've got no problem with this, any other strategy would be foolish.

This kind of thing is to be expected based on the league format. No one can fault Albert for playing according to his best interests.

It would be a different discussion, however, if Albert were doing the same thing because he had bought some of Charlie's action and wanted to make Bob bust out so that Charlie could finish higher in the money.

But of course that's not the case. As-is, Albert is doing nothing wrong.

Albert and Bob before or during the game:
Albert: I need to finish two spots ahead of Charlie, help me out for $50?
Bob: Sure

Unethical and more importantly cheating.

Albert and Bob before or during the game:
Albert: Good luck
Bob: You too.
Albert does everything he can to keep Bob alive in the game. Just remember though this strategy can very well blow up in his face and allow Bob to win which ends Albert's invite the final "table".

It is in his best interest. Unethical? Maybe to Charlie's perspective but shouldn't be to anyone else.

Those of us old enough to rememebr Priemere League Poker and other shows with this se up know this is absolutely the correct strategy. The best episode ever was when Gus Hansen told everyone he was going all-in on every hand, and the actually blind shoved every time to win that episode (and advance iirc).

He's not softplaying to help his friend but himself so I have to agree with the rest here. Interesting situation though.

Manipulating the game to further your best interests is entirely ethical. it is only collusive if you are acting in someone else's best interest.

This is no different than doing something like softplaying a short stack on the bubble so you can continue to abuse the midstacks.

As long a syou are acting in your best interests, you are fine