How can a fish put a squeeze play on S, S or D if they are all on the same roll? The entire point of a squeeze play is the one in the middle is scared of a call coming from behind and so the raiser has higher fold equity. If the one in the middle is not worried in the slightest about the one behind calling then a squeeze play cannot work. They only have to worry about what the fish holds, not what the one behind them holds. The other way - they can apply a squeeze play almost at will as they do not have to worry about the second player calling, only the fish in the middle. Also, if 2 of them and a fish are contesting a pot, they have the ability to call down or value bet much lighter than the fish as they are playing against 1 hand while the fish plays against 2. This leads to a non-level playing field where they have the advantage over the fish.

This is not saying that they did or did not cheat however they could hold an unfair advantage at the table without having to softplay.

OP makes a great point. This is exactly why the Dang brothers do not sit with one another at the same table (besides the fact that they share an IP, that is).

With regards to Dolly, Slim, and Sailor, anyone with half a brain should realize that regardless of whether there is no soft play amongst one another at the table, it is still collusion if they are chopping up the profits won after the game.

Player A can lose a pot to Player B and lose nothing at the end of the night. If that's not an unfair edge I don't know what is. Even without meaning to, you would almost always at some point be making squeeze plays that benefit your team if you just played your game as you normally would. You would actually have to go out of your way not to benefit from this shared bankroll deal.

I don't know, it sort of sounds like you admitted to cheating and then when you actually got called out as a scumbag, you went ahead and changed your tune with this "play money" story (which just goes to show you don't mind cheating if you know there are no consequences for it).

who won?

Here's a hypothetical. Three players on the same bankroll are playing at the same table. When they find that they are the only ones in the pot, they go at each other hard, bluff a ton, and call down light. They shift gears playing pots against anyone else, so they have an inaccurate table image for any opponent who has been paying attention. Is this an unfair edge? Is this any different from multi-accounting under a new name to try to get action?

it´s funny how everybody is doyle this and doyle that, legend blablabla when in reality he was part of the scum of mankind until tv poker started.

lol at the ****** colluding play money

My thought exactly, bluff one of your partners get caught. Do not lose money, now everyone else is going to call you. I do not believe for a second that those 3 did not use every advantage they had and it would be a huge advantage to have a partner at the table. Most gamblers of their caliber believe their the best when setting at a table, when they agree to share money after the fact it is still a scam anyway you look at it.

I won't play in a game with three or more Asians, either. They are usually very loose and like to gamble it up, and I can't adjust to their style. I am a winning player against complete idiots and ABC (by the book) players, but not against tricky ABC (American-born Chinese) players.

If I happen to beat them, I am scared they'll run into me at the parking lot and use their kung-fu skills on me. Or drag me back to Houston with them to work in their restaurant. So either way, I lose.

Let me make it easy for you.

ABC (by the book) player re-raises you all in pre-flop, fold, it's AA or KK
Asian player re-raises you all in pre-flop, snap call, it's AKo.

There's no question it's easier for some people to claim they were cheated than to admit they were outplayed. So stories about being cheated need to be taken with a grain or two of salt.

That said, one can imagine that cheating was much more rampant in the old road days. Doyle and his buddies played out of the same bankroll; they either had no moral qualms about it or did and decided to do it anyway. One also can imagine that they ran into their fair share of cheaters in the games they played in. They also know that poker is a game of both skill and chance and if they gave themselves an edge by playing out of the same bankroll, it's not hard to imagine that they might have crossed others lines as well.

I'm not saying they cheated, I simply don't know and I wouldn't make an accusation without facts. But I don't buy the argument that they were great players and therefore didn't need to cheat, so they didn't do it.

What's a squeeze play?

I definitely see this as collusion. I actually reported two players I suspected of doing this on stars a few weeks ago. They looked into it and found they were colluding and banned them both from the site as well as refunding some money. I think it's far worse than using a different name to get action.

That's just sad...

I LOL at the responses to this post. Do you really think that today's players aren't colluding? This happens all the time in today's games. Wake up people!

[ ] Thread started by Johnny Hughes

Is this a level, Andy? The Squeeze Play.

if you cant beat a bunch of moronic colluders you shouldnt even be playing

how do you over call HU?

I figured Johnny Hughes would be all over this thread like a hobo on a ham sandwich.

how tilted would you be if u crushed every session but only got 1/3rd of your winnings?

Given that he has 18k posts and has been a member since 2002, I would say yes, he probably knows what a squeeze play is.

lmfao

BINGO BANGO doesn't really do a lot when you are referencing PLAY MONEY!

Now who's the sucker?

i wonder if those nl games were played capped or uncapped

if capped the advantages to 3 players playing out the the same bankroll would seem to be nearly impossible to overcome for the locals imo. for the posters who are saying it doesn't seem to be an advantage, consider how you would feel if you were in a 3 handed pot in a cash game and knew the other two players shared a bankroll. Not a staking situation, but a shared bankroll.

that hand with doyle and moss is totally irrelevant to this discussion imo. thats just doyle knowing where he's at (unclear why he didn't raise imo)

this also happened in a different era and should be considered in context. consider how tough it would be to judge many of our own relatives actions in those time periods

It really was no different than multi-accounting today.

However, poker is an amoral game. If it isn't a rule that you can't do something, it is allowed. The rules are arbitrary. I'm sure back in those days nobody went up to them and said, "we won't play unless you guarantee you three are playing with separate bankrolls." Therefore, they did nothing wrong. As for today, the equivalent of multi-accounting, taking pieces of other players in WPT and WSOP events is allowed. This isn't just a couple of percent. Tom McEvoy has written that Phil Helmuth had a significant portion of his action in the 1990s, for example. I'm sure they didn't avoid tournaments in which the other played.

Since on-line sites have decided multi-accounting is against the rules, it is wrong to do so on their sites. It is wrong solely because of the rules, not because of any higher standard.

Last Christmas I went with a dozen friends to play in Vegas out of a common bankroll. Absolutely no intention to collude, but since there were limited tables, we usually sit two at a table. You just find yourself in situations were playing out a common bank allows you to chase draws without outs if you are both in the hand and he seems to have TPTK. Other than that the only other edge I saw would be signaling and rising to chase people out, pure colluding that we did not do.

About the old days, I see stupid to talk about unfairness of the Doyle, Amarillo, Sailor team. Anyone with a couple brain cells could spot that those three were a team, and they were free to not sit at that table. In those days games were harder to find and the players very bad. It was more about the local degens throwing their money to them that about pure poker skills. If you waited enough those amateurs would give their money to them with no need for shady things that would sooner or later end up with your head split open... That’s why they hand to drive hundreds of miles to find a game, and that’s why they are still around, even if I would not be amazed if Doyle knows every trick in the book.

And to those that both claim that poker should be a mystical honor thing or glorify it as a pure gutter should calm down. It should be as fair as possible, but it never is because people would look for any edge, legal of not. Like in sports, like in life. Is your job to stay sharp and judge what are you dealing with and get away when you don’t like what you see, or beat them at their own game if you don´t have the luxury of leaving the game.