Suppose you're gonna blame everyone but yourself for where this one is predictably taken.

Your attempts at making it personal arr laughable and show the weak ess of your argument.

Please read everything I have written in this thread again. Apparently you are missing some key words and some hyperbole. I think it is fairly easy to tell which was which, but ask for clarification if there is anything you do not understand.

Stop.

If you are trying to imply that I claim that softplay between regs does not exist then you are being dishonest and trying to imply something I have never said. Of course it exists and I have seen it plenty.

What I have said is that sometimes what appears to be softplay between regs is actually OMC versus OMC leveling each other (OMCs make up a larger than normal portion of regs that softplay).

That is obviously not true and completely misses the point I was making about OMCs leveling each other. An OMC doesn't have dozens (or even hundreds) of hours played with the stranger like they do with another OMC where they learned long ago he will never bluff nor ever make a thin value bet. The calling/raising ranges go up significantly when faced with someone who never bluffs or never makes thin value bets. Especially when the person in question themselves is an OMC.

Of course they won't. I am not an OMC who they have played a lot with. Of course they won't play the same against me as they would against other OMCs with which they have had tons of experience.

For some reason your are having a hard time hearing my point. Do you not understand leveling? I don't know how I can explain this simple point any clearer.

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions.

When considering an action, have you ever considered your opponents motivations for being at the table? Has that ever factored into your decision?

How about you just stop using "hyperbole", instead of expecting others to know what your serious claims are and what parts of your posts are pointless?

I take into consideration how I think a certain person plays, based on past observations (or stereotypes based on their appearance if I haven't played with them before) not their motivation for being at the table.

I imagine you think the motivations for OMCs to be at the table is to be social, kill time, have a hobby, without losing too much money.

....yet you think these guys are "leveling" each other with 5th level thinking. Total BS.

Of course not. I know that sometimes in written communication, hyperbole can be misunderstood, but even though it was hyperbole, it should be clear enough that it was and I would be glad to explain it to anyone who needs the help

What is even better thougb is that even as hyperbole it was close enough to reality to not really matter in the point I am making.

LOL.

Hyperbole does not equal pointless.

Actually it is the opposite. Hyperbole can make points much clearer.

If there is anything you do not understand, just ask for clarification. You might learn something. Besides, any hyperbole I used did not change my point one bit. You could take it literal and I still stand by what I said.

Then you are missing out on a ton of what drives OMC infested games. I could try to explain it if you like, but I am pretty sure you are beyond hearing anything I would say.

Sort of.

Close enough to get you points on a test, and close enough for the conversation.

Since you seem to need everything spelled out clearly, I would qualify your statement to be replace "OMCs" with "many OMCs in reg infested games".


You are missing the dozens (if not hundreds) of hours of interaction where patterns get drilled into even the most unthinking persons decision tree.

Leveling doesn't have to occur on a conscious level. It could be unconsciously learned over a long time.

If it makes you feel better, I have already admitted that softplay exists between regulars. I just think a lot of people fail to understand that some of it occurs not due to agreed upon collusion (which is illegal) but because of regulars knowing each other enough to the point that it occurs naturally without collusion.

I am actually surprised that my Alex Foxxen/Kristen comment didn't get more play. I think it was spot on, but I assumed more people would react to it.

OK, one more try...I've played with plenty of OMCs, and I rob them blind with bluffs. I also have played with plenty of people I'm friendly with, and if they are tight players, I also rob them blind with bluffs. If they're calling station, I kill them with value bets. I do everything possible to take as much money from strangers as I can. I do the same to take money from friends at the table, and I'm better at taking money from my friends, because I know them better. Some may think this means I am greedy, but what it really means is that I'm not a cheater. The point of the game of poker is to win money from others. Sure, many people have other goals, and I have additional goals, but if you aren't trying to win money at poker, you're doing it wrong. In fact, if you're not playing for your personal self-interest, you are effectively cheating. This is why chip-dumping in tournaments is against the rules - you're supposed to play to win (on your own), not with the goal of helping another to win.

If one player doesn't do everything he can to win the chips of another player, he is effectively cheating. Now, if he treats everyone that same way, and just gives his money away to everything, no one is going to complain, even though he is technically breaking the rules of the game. But if he does everything he can to win the chips of a stranger, but not to win the chips of another regular, this is a completely unfair rules violation. And yes, that includes if he refuses to ever bluff someone who never calls without the effective nuts. You can't use the excuse of "OMCs don't bluff". Bluffing is part of poker, an important part. There is no one who plays poker regularly who doesn't know that bluffing exists and is a tool most people use to at least occasionally win pots. Refusing to bluff someone who you know could easily be bluffed is not a legitimate choice, it is softplay, and a violation of the rules of poker, just as surely as checking behind on the river with the nuts is a violation of the rules of tournament poker.

I know you believe that some softplay exists, but you think that some of what appears to be softplay is just the result of lots of history, etc. I'm saying those other things you think are just OMCs being OMCs, are also softplay. Even if they aren't consciously trying to softplay anyone. You're supposed to be trying to win other people's money at a poker table. That is the "rules of the game". If you're not trying your hardest to try to figure out how to win the most money from every player during every hand, you're violating the rules. If you only try to figure out how to win money from some players but not others, you're also a cheating scumbag.

If I may summarize you argument, you are saying that a player who isn't trying to play perfectly is cheating?

A person who comes to the table not looking to win everyone else's money at the table but to instead enjoy themselves playing poker socially and not lose a lot of money, get their $1 per hour of comps, maybe enjoy the thrill of getting the table share of a bad beat jackpot is cheating?

Not only are you wrong, but you are missing a lot that would help you understand other players.

Playing poker for money is not the only reason to play poker. In fact if it was, most people would be cheating by your definition. Most people lose terribly. They are playing for other reasons.

Is someone who calls a preflop shove with 7-2 offsuit cheating? After all, they have to know that they are not favored. By literal definition they are gambling, not trying their hardest to win other players money.

In the context of everything you wrote, this is clearly not hyperbole, but in reality it really is. It is absurd.

I think by saying this you are losing whatever support you had. I know my bluntness can come off as a$$holeness to some (to me, if we agree on 99%, but disagree on 1%, I would rather focus on that 1% because that is where I think interesting things happen. This disagreement turns a lot of people off (even though it is only 1%)), but I think your statement is going to lose you whatever support you had.

If they call that bet because the other player is their buddy and they want to pass chips to him, it is cheating.

You're attacking a straw man; of course lots of people come to the poker room with goals besides making money. But if a player does his best to win my money, but doesn't do his best to win your money, he is cheating. And doing his best to win your money would include bluffing. I'm not talking about motivations for playing, I'm talking about the poker actions (bet, call, fold) made at the poker table.

That's the shortest version of my argument and I think it's very clear. You are free to disagree, I don't feel like discussing it any further.

Player doesn’t need to play exactly the same way against every type of player.

The hands he chooses to play, doesn’t matter.

How effective his strategy and tactics are does not matter.

All of his motives don’t matter.

What matters is that when decisions are being made, he is making what he believes at that point in time, to be the best decision for him and him alone. This choice need not be correct. Others might also benefit from his decision but if that isn’t the motivation, so be it. The key is he is doing what he thinks is for him.

There are still some edge cases where acting in your best interest might be considered cheating.

Odd how you keep calling other people's arguments strawman when you seem to e the only one making them.

I can see why you why you refuse to discuss it further. You want my arguments to fit in your little box and they don't so you get frustrated. You really want it to be collusion when much of it isn't.

A player's motivation for playing directly affects how they they play. It affects their decisions.

I am sorry you cannot understand why an OMC reg would play one way against another OMC reg while playing differently against a stranger without direct implied collusion being involved. It is literally no different than how a thinking player would play a hand different against a maniac than he would against a rock.

I think it’s a fine line between playing different against certain opponents and soft play.

I think it’s a spectrum.

Worst to least bad:

1. Two players share a bankroll and intend to chop up opponents money. Whipsawing opponents and understanding squeeze spots. Signaling and or cheating some other way.

2. Two players playing together trying to squeeze pots

3. Two friends avoiding playing big pots and changing their play - two omcs checking down 2nd nuts vs 3rd nuts etc.

4. Two friends playing a little soft against their friends only betting 1/4 pot instead of punishing

5. Two pros avoiding each other

6. Icm implications late in an MTT implicitly colluding against ss

—-

My line is somehwere around 4 as far as being unethical

The more I think about it there’s really only one type of harmful soft play and it’s in cash games.

MTTs there’s too much strat and icm to consider to say certain folds.

Maybe there’s a unique scenario where 2 or more players from the same stable are taking it to another level of checking down pots.

Idk I guess it’s on a case by case thing.

But the soft play ruins live low stakes poker, I think that was my intention. Like why even show up and play to check hands down. And also you should be protecting the integrity of the game by playing hard against everyone. Even if that means avoiding pros if that makes any sense.

When you write "soft play ruins live low stakes poker" you aren't being honest. The truth is it makes live low stakes poker different than you would like it to be so it ruins it for you but you don't get to determine what other people like and the fact that they still play the games is their actions showing what they like.

I guess that’s fair… for the older crowd that wants to bleed the social security I guess a slower loss rate keeps them passing the time more.

It’s not even so much that the soft play is ruining the game. It’s that 1-2nl is often saturated w this player type. So live low stakes becomes ruined in essence by this player type who takes up seats instead of action players who we all want to be playing w instead.

Sorry for double post but I forgot something and didn’t want to edit my first post..

I actually probably ruin the game for them more than they do to me considering I don’t play low stakes very often and I’m usually raising too many pots and going hard to rivers when I do play.