Hello,

A recent debate has surfaced at my local poker room and it seems as though people are split 50/50. I'm curious to hear what the 2+2 community has to say about it.

First a little background.

I live in Kansas City, Kansas where Hollywood just opened up 2 years ago. It took a lot of business away from the other casinos. Hollywood is the closest casino and virtually the only option unless you are willing to drive across state line for limit poker or a bad 1-2 nl game.

I was finishing up my last year of college. I started out playing 1/3 at hollywood where I started out as the fish, just like everyone else. I began to study the game and learn how to play through online articles/videos. I transitioned to online where I was having more success. My friend, Anthony, has been playing poker for a living for about 9 years. Unfortunately he made some poor life decisions and bought a corvette, a motorcycle, and a nicer apartment. He informed me how tight he was on money and that he couldn't even play 1/3 at the time. I offered to back him for 1/3. I expected to make a little money but mostly I thought I was doing a friend a favor.

4 sessions into our deal he hits table share of the badbeat for $6800. I kept reinvesting in him and that got him into 2/5 NL and after a couple big cycles and some successful shot taking he was playing 5/5 PLO.

He was telling me how juicy the 5/5 PLO game was and that I was burning money by not playing it. I don't like burning money. I played a couple sessions and ran super above EV. Beginner's luck is real haha. I quickly withdrew my online roll to play the PLO game.

Hollywood is the only local casino that has any PLO and it usually spreads 3 days a week. In most instances there is only 1 PLO game running but occasionally a second one will spread. Anthony and I are well known around the poker room and generally well liked.

It's not a secret that I'm backing him either, the regular PLO players know.

We've never soft played or checked it down against each other or made signals or anything like that. Nobody has ever accused us of cheating. We always play honestly.

Then this hand comes up.

Game has only been open for 30 minutes or so. I doubled up against someone and busted against Ryan. I'm a little agitated about how I lost but thats poker so I rebuy.

Ryan ($3000): Local semi-regular that knows both of us by name. Haven't seen him around for a while though, may have been busy with work since he's an engineer, I'm not really sure. Extremely aggressive player that is very knowledgeable about the game. Likes to raise it pre in late position especially when he has a big stack.

Anthony ($480): Tight aggressive, has a loose image. Plays position but usually has it.

Me ($500): My image varies game to game, I can be pretty spewy at times, especially since I find live poker to be slow and I'm impatient. Also capable of playing tight and aggressive.

Anthony is on the button and straddles for $10, several limpers and I'm in the hijack with AAT9 one suit. I decide I'm going to limp because I think there is a high probability that either Ryan or Anthony will raise given that they are both aggressive players.

Ryan limps and Anthony raises to $75 with JT86 double suited. Several people call and I repot. Ryan folds and Anthony goes all in and 2 others go all in with us.

Anthony ends up scooping the entire pot. Anthony receives a phone call from a poker buddy and Anthony begins explaining the hand to him. Ryan states that its impolite to talk about winning a big pot especially since Carter is right next to you and had aces cracked.

Anthony informs Ryan that I don't mind and that I'm happy he won the pot since I'm backing up. Obviously I wanted to be the one that won the pot, but if I'm going to lose then I'm happy it's going to him.

Ryan brings up that it seems very odd that he is sandwiched in between both of us, especially since we both have short stacks. He states it forces him to tighten his calling range since we are both on the same roll and that its not fair to him.

He also states that we shouldn't tell people that he's being backed. I personally think it would look much more sketchy if we kept that a secret, played in the same game, then someone found it out on their own later.

I appreciate your opinions 2+2

There's no ethics in poker. The only question is whether the room requires you to disclose it or allows it. Now whether a room should do this or not is another question.

I definitely agree that it's less sketchy if people are aware of it.

At several local games, there are people who I know are staked/backed by other players in the game. As long as they aren't colluding, I couldn't care less.

Anthony ($480)

Anthony is on the button and straddles for $10

Anthony raises to $75 with JT86 double suited

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepare to earn lots of money.

I think he should have to make it public if you are in the same game.

not allowed on stars

Doyle and Slim survived for years by sharing a bankroll and playing the same games

they were shady

Lol yeah, okay...

just pointing out that it should say something. At the very least that not putting it out there is prob not the way to go

Is it allowed? Sure.

Is it sketchy? Absolutely. I'm not making a judegement on the people involved, but just saying "We're not signaling each other or anything" is the same as accepting the word at face value of the salesman selling the wonder oil that his is better than all the others.

On purpose or not, decisions are affected knowing you'll only lose part of what you bet if you decide to stay in. You might fold a marginal hand knowing how your buddy plays or stay in thinking your horse is weak based on a tell you've picked up against his opponent that is strong. That third player may fold against two hands where he may stay in against one.

I believe that if you think it affects things, you should let the table know you're financially invested in someone else at the same table. I also think tournaments should require anyone with a piece of another disclose it on the sign-up forms to keep it all on the up and up.

When I play at the same table with my brother or wife (tournament settings most of the time) we don't hide the fact that we know each other or our relationships if it comes up. In the case of my wife and I we're obviously financially invested in each other so it can go unsaid. When it comes to my brother we're financially invested in each other to the degree that if one of us cashes (after our own expenses) we cover entry fees for the other and pick up the dinner tab. We'll make a general comment about who's going to be buying dinner or something when we're getting settled and move on.

I meant to move this to B&M.

Sorry IP mods.

You have done absolutely nothing wrong. The most important thing is that you are playing each other normally, if that is happening no one can expect you to do anything else in my opinion.

Regarding telling people that you are backing him: I don't think you should be required to tell people. If you aren't keeping it a secret and people know that's fine. But really, should you announce it to the table every time you play at the same one? If a new player arrives do you have to inform him? What if you play a tournament together, do you have to announce it to everyone there?

I stake friends from time to time in live cash games. Generally speaking I'll try to sit at a different table if it's in option (awkward winning/losing from/to friends). But, if there aren't many running or they're at a particularly soft table I will sit in. I also don't play them any different than I would another person (bar reads on them from longer history) and I think it's unreasonable to expect more from people, especially considering how upfront you guys were.

It's not unethical to play against someone who you are backing. There's an assumption in poker that players are going to play their hardest against each other regardless of their relationships. I don't think that you need to inform the table that you are backing someone as long as you don't hide or lie about that fact.

But it was a huge faux pas for you to say that you were happy that Anthony won the hand because you were backing him. After all, what are the other players supposed to think after hearing that? I don't think that you really did anything wrong but at that point you should have considered a diplomatic exit.

Person A staking person B is not the same thing as them sharing a roll. In fact to B he should not play any different from normal. There are some minor things A could do that I don't really want to discuss but should be obvious, but none of that comes into play here. First of all super lol at him thinking he should have to play super tight yet gets it in with JT86ds lol. But it's also just plain not true. He should play exactly as tight as he would normally, the fact that you get x% of his profits only makes it a lower-stakes game for him, it doesn't change the optimal play (technically it he's going to try to make the most +ev plays he should actually be slightly wilder if he isn't up a bunch on the stake because he can't lose money but if he gambles and wins he gets a %, but if it's a long-term stake this is a pretty negligible part of it).

That said, I generally think backing deals should be more private things unless he's given you permission. It's not about hiding it from other players it's just personal information that shouldn't have to be public much like someone's salary.

Also this should probably be in b&m or something not nvg.

Nice way to throw gasoline on a fire, Anthony.

And I really don't think Ryan means that you should not let the table know you and Anthony have an arrangement. I think he really means that he thinks you two should not be playing at the same table. You are right in that the best policy is to be open about any such arrangement.

Maybe think about turning off your deal when you are in the same game? ie, his wins/losses are his own when you sit in.

Whether or not a room has a rule that backings should be disclosed (and i've never played in one that did to my knowledge) I would personally disclose it. Also, I would make it a point not to play at the same table as my horse or vice versa.

You can say that you play the same way all you want but I believe that you wouldn't even know if you are taking advantage.

I was playing in a 20/40 LHE game with a guy for several years whose wife joined the game. They claimed that they played no differently when both were at the table. I found that to be false. The most rudimentary and trivial difference was that he wouldn't chop except when playing against his wife. Now I didn't care about that because it made sense. But that was the catalyst for huge fights with other players and ultimately the casino separating them when possible.

Yes backing is different than playing from the same roll but it causes the same tricky spots where subconsciously you may be making choices differently because of inherent edges.

Of course there is a conflict of interest having horse and staker at the same table. I'm not saying it isn't possible for the two to play each other hard, but it naturally creates a conflict. Whether or not rooms care or will do anything about it is a different story. Most rooms don't care because all they care about is making money, just like online sites like Stars doesn't care about seat scripting.

I've also pointed out many times about this in tournament play, but no one seems to care. Players that share a pool of money, like the group of Germans, create a huge conflict and open up the possibility of collusion along with players that are staked playing with their stakers. I think tournaments should make players disclose this at registration and it be announced when they are at the same table. IF they don't do this and it's found out later they should be legally bound to lose their buyin and return any winnings.

Gambling is full of scumbags and a huge % of them will look for an edge any way they can will cheat win they can. It's crazy how people still think poker should get more respect when it's full of scumbags and companies only looking out for their bottom line and not caring about the reputation of the game.

It should not be allowed.

Backer and the horse are in the same hand against a 3rd person. Horse bets a significant amount, obviously not going to fold this hand later. Backer, between the two, can think to himself... "I can fold this, and if he wins, I get half. If I don't, I could lose my money to 3rd person, and my horse could lose his money to the 3rd person, so that's more losses. And if I call and the horse wins, no biggie, he is going to give half of that back to me."

It is not fair play. When Doyle and Slim did it, they were travelling the circuit where there were few games at fewer stakes, so you played where you could, and often that may have been at unusual stakes with a need to reduce variance by sharing. Given the number of tables at casinos and online, I doubt this is necessary anymore and they would not likely do it again.

This was similiarly a problem at my local casino's Friday Night Drawings. If you get a hand that is a full house or better, they give you a card for that month. Put that card in the drawing, you get $200 if they draw one of your cards. 5 drawings, not bad.

Problem came up when a bunch of regular old guy players decided to all put the same guy's name on the ticket. If the guy won, he would split it among his friends, having no way of knowing who's ticket it was originally. Not a particular conflict of interest.

However, given there is "no ethics in poker" the group started to run the hands more without betting, allowing any two cards a chance to see if they draw to a full house. Sometimes they bet, but they definitely were more willing to just let it run because the ticket profits were split. Then the one guy showed up instead of the group on Fridays. The rest of us like the Friday drawings because it encourages more people on Fridays, with a chance for some money from the drawing. However, one guy shows up representing the group, it isn't promoting the action, and I feel robbed even if I didn't get my name drawn.

1. I don't think you should be obligated to disclose such information.

2. I don't think you should play in the same game.

If you can adhere to #2, then your conscience should feel cleared regarding #1.

When both play in the same game, the Backer and his Horse might think that they're playing like they would usually play, but trust me, it's near impossible to do.

Playing in the same game in limit poker is questionable. Playing in the same game of NL, is even more questionable. And playing in the same game of PL, is THE most questionable of them all because the biggest trap game there is, is pot limit Omaha.

I would feel uncomfortable knowing that there were two astute players in my PLO game where there was a backer and his Horse playing with me. It would suck if others felt the same. And I wouldn't be shocked if they did.

"I'm happy he won the pot since I'm backing up."

might any problems come about as a result of this?

you were right to make it public knowledge. the other players were wrong to allow it.

No rules stating you can't do what your doing, you seem honest enuff to post that your trying to figure out a right way to approach this, i would just make sure you show down every time your in a pot with your horse to let everyone know your playing as aggressively as you would vs anyone. Yea you can say your going to softplay your horse but if your horse has the 2nd nuts and you have the nuts your still going to take that money its still 50% money hes going to have to make up.

I have backed many players in games ive played in as i play in a generally small poker community most of my backing involves makeup so hell yes im going to take my own horses money

If there was other games that you could play then i would suggest trying to play in them but there is nothing you can do if there is only one 5/5 plo game and it spreads 3 days a week