Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views, and gossip

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-2018, 01:01 PM   #26
Defarse
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 71
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Chip counts when chop was offered?
Defarse is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 01:04 PM   #27
Sect7G
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calling a spade a spade
Posts: 10,721
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by illdonk View Post
If somebody is three-handed for a six-figure payout, worrying about a potential message board thread with under 1000 views is probably not very high on their list of concerns.
Not if the thread were to go by viral as Chainsaw has been known to deliver viral worthy threads.
Sect7G is online now  
Old 06-19-2018, 01:23 PM   #28
matthmit
newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 26
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

say what you want,but the guy would shove river 100% of the time vs any other player,also 4bet pre with JJ...but it's his wife so...
matthmit is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 01:42 PM   #29
Dominic
Tripod
 
Dominic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vegas
Posts: 64,403
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasha Foxxx :) View Post
Maybe I'm a dumbass and have no idea how to play tourney poker, but how did the AA vs JJ hand not go all in. I thought that it would go all in on the turn.
I mean, I can see her playing this as passively as she did - the other guy is short. She doesn't want to get it all in vs. her BF with one pair and a big lead over the other guy. Nothing wrong with C/C this down...and when her BF bets the river, she knows he must have it - so what? No different than knowing someone's betting patterns who you play with all of the time.

If they did get it all on on the turn and their hands weren't as strong, they'd be being accused of chip dumping. Can't win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by illdonk View Post
Obviously the correct metastrategy is for the third wheel to plant seeds of doubt about the relationship.

"Oh, you two are dating? That's weird, I thought I saw him/her out the other night with..."
This is brilliant!
Dominic is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 01:47 PM   #30
BulltexasATM
adept
 
BulltexasATM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: HTown
Posts: 963
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

I was playing in the WSOP PLO event last week and his table was right next to mine. Saw Kristen come in and deliver some food to him and then they kissed and she left.I was thinking who is this tool she is with. Now I know. Thanks NVG!
BulltexasATM is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 03:34 PM   #31
Ten5x
centurion
 
Ten5x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 139
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

If the dude refuses the chop and is aware they're in a relationship/shared bankroll, it's really just the fault of the 3rd guy. Nothing the casino can or should do really. It should be obvious you're at a disadvantage over normal situations, but maybe he thought he was still +EV despite slight collusion likely happening.
Ten5x is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 03:43 PM   #32
U shove i call
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,258
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by matthmit View Post
say what you want,but the guy would shove river 100% of the time vs any other player,also 4bet pre with JJ...but it's his wife so...
Pre flop the call can be explained by ICM quite easily they both have 3x the shorties stack. The river action i agree with that stack to pot ratio and hand strength he would jam vs every other player.
U shove i call is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:21 PM   #33
Punker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Punker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: McJesus saves
Posts: 7,201
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

It could have never been made into a thread.
Punker is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:33 PM   #34
theman200050
centurion
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vegas
Posts: 107
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ten5x View Post
If the dude refuses the chop and is aware they're in a relationship/shared bankroll, it's really just the fault of the 3rd guy. Nothing the casino can or should do really. It should be obvious you're at a disadvantage over normal situations, but maybe he thought he was still +EV despite slight collusion likely happening.


The only reason you're at a disadvantage, is because you know the other players left will be playing " together". They shouldn't be playing together if everyone believes "they" will play like this.


People saying what do you do about this, how about ban them from playing the same tournament? It's really simple and may be harsh, but if they act like this when given the opportunity, then who's to say they won't act like this again?

I watched the whole stream and yea it was horrible. The JJ vs AA hand was laughable. His A6cc fold in the sb to her button 15bb or so open jam was a call, but that wasn't as bad as the JJ vs AA. But him trying to say that folding A6cc in the small blind, to a button 15bb open jam 3 handed was probably a "right ICM fold", while he had the most chips, was pure nonsense. I think she had Q8o or something

One hand where he opened the button, she called in bb, checked flop and turn heads up, then she lead mini on the river with Q high and he folded Ace high or something. Looked so weak it was funny

My question is do the tournament directors not have any obligation to uphold the integrity of the game? Penalties or even banning people who play like this?

The whole twitch chat and even the announcers were talking about the JJ hand. Even the third player Burns or whatever brought up his suited Ace fold to her shove, minutes before he busted, and it was extremely awkward to watch. Should the tournament director not try to protect the third player from obvious collusion?
theman200050 is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:56 PM   #35
Rich Checkmaker
banned
 
Rich Checkmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,443
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Implicit collusion is allowed and should be expected. Should a satellite player bet a dry side pot with the nuts when a player is all in and on the bubble? It's impoosible to force them to play differently.

If you're the third player you throw ICM out the window and make all your decisions based on pure chip EV.
Rich Checkmaker is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 05:02 PM   #36
mamelas
centurion
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 100
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasha Foxxx :) View Post
Maybe I'm a dumbass and have no idea how to play tourney poker, but how did the AA vs JJ hand not go all in. I thought that it would go all in on the turn.
You're not dumb. It doesnt matter about any icm chop situation or possible collusion, meta relationship dynamics. This is the most important point. Bets were sized so small on all 3 streets as to avoid busting Foxxen. Anyone saying anything different is just plain ignorant.
mamelas is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 05:02 PM   #37
Wilbury Twist
Pooh-Bah
 
Wilbury Twist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 4977 miles from Kells
Posts: 4,364
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

I just assume this happens in poker all the time, although rarely when you're down to the final three. When the two players are professionals, you ultimately have to trust that they are exactly that – professional. They will always seek to do the right thing, make good decisions, and not harm the good name of poker.



Okay, so maybe there ARE times to be concerned...
Wilbury Twist is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 05:27 PM   #38
sungar78
adept
 
sungar78's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: White Castle
Posts: 1,158
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilbury Twist View Post
I just assume this happens in poker all the time, although rarely when you're down to the final three. When the two players are professionals, you ultimately have to trust that they are exactly that – professional. They will always seek to do the right thing, make good decisions, and not harm the good name of poker.



Okay, so maybe there ARE times to be concerned...
somebody needs to tell her to get that ****ing drink off the table.
sungar78 is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 05:31 PM   #39
sungar78
adept
 
sungar78's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: White Castle
Posts: 1,158
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auld guy View Post
Soooooo many issues with this idea its not even funny....

Who decides who sits on the panel?
Who pays for said panel?
What qualifications should be required to be eligible to sit on a panel?
What happens if the panel is not unanimous in their thinking?
Would there be an appeals process?
What damage is done to the game from the thoughts of 'I have the nuts but what will the panel think if my opponent has the 2nd nuts vs the bottom of his/her range'?
How would this be replicated in a fair and consistent way across hundreds/thousands of card rooms across the country and/or worldwide?

Give me another 10 seconds and I can likely think up another dozen reasons why its just not workable.

I don't think it needs to be done in your $30 Weekly Jeronimo. I'm just saying that maybe it would be a good idea in the majors/SHRB. Also, most of these questions are not that tough to answer.
sungar78 is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 05:40 PM   #40
sungar78
adept
 
sungar78's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: White Castle
Posts: 1,158
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madlex View Post
We're going start penalizing players for poor poker plays? Great idea!
I'm not gonna type a paragraph here. Big difference between being a fish and colluding to gain an edge.
sungar78 is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 05:49 PM   #41
madlex
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,875
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sungar78 View Post
I'm not gonna type a paragraph here. Big difference between being a fish and colluding to gain an edge.
Big difference between knowing somebody colludes and being able to prove collusion. Using a panel to decide if a player is bad enough to make a certain -EV play is a terrible idea.

Why less money has to be involved to go the legal route if the casino punishes players for collusion without being able to prove it.
madlex is online now  
Old 06-19-2018, 06:05 PM   #42
TheJacob
veteran
 
TheJacob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,486
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Checkmaker View Post
Implicit collusion is allowed and should be expected. Should a satellite player bet a dry side pot with the nuts when a player is all in and on the bubble? It's impoosible to force them to play differently.

If you're the third player you throw ICM out the window and make all your decisions based on pure chip EV.
Again. This just confuses the issue. Implicit collusion is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Two players working together to increase their combined equity without communicating is not implicit collusion. That's explicit collusion.

Any time you take an action to purposefully help another player to the detriment of your own equity that's explicit collusion. It's a pretty simple standard: You are expected to do what you believe makes you the most money.

Last edited by TheJacob; 06-19-2018 at 06:12 PM.
TheJacob is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 06:32 PM   #43
Dominic
Tripod
 
Dominic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vegas
Posts: 64,403
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJacob View Post
Again. This just confuses the issue. Implicit collusion is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Two players working together to increase their combined equity without communicating is not implicit collusion. That's explicit collusion.

Any time you take an action to purposefully help another player to the detriment of your own equity that's explicit collusion. It's a pretty simple standard: You are expected to do what you believe makes you the most money.
You could argue that’s that what they did.
Dominic is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 06:49 PM   #44
madlex
Custom User Title
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,875
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJacob View Post
It's a pretty simple standard: You are expected to do what you believe makes you the most money.
True, but what makes you the most money might depend on how many percent of another player you have or if you are in a marriage with combined finances.

If player A swaps 15% with 6 other players and only has 10% of himself, it’s in his best interest for everyone of them to finish ahead of him.
madlex is online now  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:00 PM   #45
Rich Checkmaker
banned
 
Rich Checkmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,443
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJacob View Post
Again. This just confuses the issue. Implicit collusion is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Two players working together to increase their combined equity without communicating is not implicit collusion. That's explicit collusion.

Any time you take an action to purposefully help another player to the detriment of your own equity that's explicit collusion. It's a pretty simple standard: You are expected to do what you believe makes you the most money.
Actually thats what implicit collusion is. And the dude bet his hand all three streets simply because his hand is so strong betting larger probably gets even less action. You can't force them to have any bluffs against each other, so they play accordingly. I don't think they are working together at all and I think the AA and JJ hand proves it. They aren't 3betting light against each other so JJ goes down a ton preflop against a 3bet even 3handed. What does she have when she 3bets? Pretty much no pairs smaller than jacks, maybe tens. Then he flops a set and bets 3 streets, she figure it out by the river and I don't think he signaled her. Maybe I'm naive. Everything in the hand looked fine to me.
Rich Checkmaker is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:19 PM   #46
sungar78
adept
 
sungar78's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: White Castle
Posts: 1,158
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madlex View Post
Big difference between knowing somebody colludes and being able to prove collusion. Using a panel to decide if a player is bad enough to make a certain -EV play is a terrible idea.

Why less money has to be involved to go the legal route if the casino punishes players for collusion without being able to prove it.
Here's another idea and then I'm gonna try and and give way less mental energy to this whole fiasco.

Let's first acknowledge that we already pay out of the prize pool for dealers, tournament floors/directors and cashiers for multiple days. A hired team of three auditors for the final table is not gonna be that much more expensive.

A simple way to conduct this process, assuming you could find people who were qualified.

a. The panel of three is sequestered during final table.
b. After final table they're each given an anonymous hand replayer of the hands at the final table, up until a chop, or heads up. Let's keep in mind that most final tables are likely to be under 300 hands.
c. They flag hands believed to be suspicious (i.e. Dentale hand from a couple years ago where someone jammed 1.2 BB into his BB and he folds, or whatever the **** he did) If multiple judges flag the same hand individually they are reviewed and acted upon.
d. Additionally itm/final table players are able to report on possible chops/interests to assist judges afterward. Players can self report as well, in the interest of transparency.
e. In regard to 'not being able to prove collusion,' where there is smoke there is generally fire, moderate penalties can be imposed, and the alternative is not being able to protect against collusion.
f. Players are allowed to contest decisions.

I haven't heard any other solutions, not saying this is the best, just an idea.
sungar78 is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:27 PM   #47
3fiveofdiamonds
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 813
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Checkmaker View Post
Actually thats what implicit collusion is. And the dude bet his hand all three streets simply because his hand is so strong betting larger probably gets even less action. You can't force them to have any bluffs against each other, so they play accordingly. I don't think they are working together at all and I think the AA and JJ hand proves it. They aren't 3betting light against each other so JJ goes down a ton preflop against a 3bet even 3handed. What does she have when she 3bets? Pretty much no pairs smaller than jacks, maybe tens. Then he flops a set and bets 3 streets, she figure it out by the river and I don't think he signaled her. Maybe I'm naive. Everything in the hand looked fine to me.
I don't think anyone is accusing them of signaling each other.

Quote:
I don't think they are working together at all....they aren't 3betting light against each other so JJ goes down a ton preflop against a 3bet even 3handed
I think people will see this as a contradiction. It just gives them too much of an advantage and OP is asking what is the fairest way of handling the situation for the odd man out.

I'm not sure the answer, but I think it was fair of them to offer a chop and the other guy should have taken it or tried to negotiate something that he felt was fair for him considering the circumstances. If he is adamant about not making a deal, then oh well I guess.
3fiveofdiamonds is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:37 PM   #48
Crazy Joe Davola
old hand
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,885
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Thread title should be changed to more accurately reflect its contents.
Crazy Joe Davola is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:45 PM   #49
Sam Ganzfried
centurion
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 117
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

One solution would be to not allow couples/people with certain close personal and/or financial relationships from registering in the same tournament (or at least at the same time, obv it is fine if one busts out and then the other registers after). Some online sites have rules like this.
Sam Ganzfried is offline  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:50 PM   #50
mamelas
centurion
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 100
Re: How could this situation have been handled better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Checkmaker View Post
Actually thats what implicit collusion is. And the dude bet his hand all three streets simply because his hand is so strong betting larger probably gets even less action. You can't force them to have any bluffs against each other, so they play accordingly. I don't think they are working together at all and I think the AA and JJ hand proves it. They aren't 3betting light against each other so JJ goes down a ton preflop against a 3bet even 3handed. What does she have when she 3bets? Pretty much no pairs smaller than jacks, maybe tens. Then he flops a set and bets 3 streets, she figure it out by the river and I don't think he signaled her. Maybe I'm naive. Everything in the hand looked fine to me.
Correct. Nobody in the world would ever bet that sizing post flop after flopping that monster. Preflop is understandeable but not post. Im curious to know what Burns woulda thought if he woulda watched the whole hand.
mamelas is offline  

Closed Thread
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online