Mike Matusow made claims that the regs equity chopped every all in they had with each other when Guy was at the tables.

Is this cheating?

mike matusow also claims full tilt will pay back their players

Am I the only one that doesn't see/get the problem with equity chopping?

Guy could never win

Congratulations, you've just unraveled the secret that some people split action in poker.

I get the impression some people just want to start threads.

^^it is collusion

Maybe if two people on the same table agreeing to an equity chop with similar wraps or something only let the better draw get it in, but that's not what Matusow said, so no.

It's just amazing the black eye that online poker has received last few years: UB/AP/FTP, superusing, MAing, account sharing, PPP, whatever.

And the attitude that many online players have is, "yeah, so what of it?"



Simply Stunning. I've seen more ethics at my nephew's bday party. he is 8.

I thought he meant they were selling action to play guy.

What team cardrunners did to isildur was way worse.

I was under the impression that ethic (quantities?) have a propensity to have an inverse correlation with age.

i don't want to thinks so, but it makes sense. never thought to look up any studies on this....

Splitting the cash afterwards without the knowing and consent of a third party player involved in the game is blatant cheating, technically because the extra action produces a fake perceived dynamics and the mark will ill-adjust according to a pseudo gameflow. He who doesn't see this would better avoid playing poker unless supervised by wiser people.

[QUOTE=atthebottom77;28157791]It's just amazing the black eye that online poker has received last few years: UB/AP/FTP, superusing, MAing, account sharing, PPP, whatever.

And the attitude that many online players have is, "yeah, so what of it?"





Simply Stunning. I've seen more ethics at my nephew's bday party. he is 8.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%....most of these so called "great" players are kids not using there own money in fixed games where they sre guaranteed min loss protection. This game is run by crooks and people are always trying to angle.

The HS online games are a joke outside of HU cause players table block and then sit only allowing the fixed games to begin.

I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore since it would have the unintended effect of making it seem like there can be "sides" to a debate that doesn't exist, it's just dumb people extrapolating things that aren't there while still lamenting how tragic the "black eye that online poker has received" while simultaneously being dependent on that "black eye" to engage in any kind of discourse about poker in the first place. So, naturally, they look for stuff anywhere they can so that they can act appalled at the behavior of people they don't know that may or may not have happened in games they don't play in, not just because they can't afford to, but because as far as I can tell these people don't even play poker. They just tune in to NVG like it's a tabloid or daytime talk show.

kevmode asked

Very accurate post I think, but you're wrong about the debate. There are sides to it, and it seems reasonable, it's just that the people most interested in discussing it are really just following i like a soap opera or sporting event.

I dont see how an equity chop is any different than running it multiple times from an ethics prespective. I also dont really see how it can be collusion since the agreement doesnt affect anyone's EV, and doesnt change the way people act on their hands, since the agreement can only happen after everyone is all-in.

Good luck keeping any kind of reputation when you do this against a man who can pay $35 million to fly in space. Now where's the evidence? OH, just maybe one of the rats will spit the story for a buck.

Only among regulars and not with Guy ?

If they offered same to Guy, i dont see anything wrong with that.

They sold action to each other beforehand. They didn't soft play each other, or middle Guy in any pots. The deal only applied to all ins because Guy was sitting so deep. The deal to sell action would allow the regs to play with less variance, and thus playing deeper.

I could see both sides.

This. Yeah were just reducing variance.
It's like saying, I only wanna run it once vs Guy laliberte, but 20 times against anyone else. That's not cheating.

nothing wrong with it in theory if there's nothing wrong with running it twice.

it should be disclosed though. a big part of nosebleed poker is knowing who to take advantage of when they're running bad/tilted etc.

if you're under the impression that someone is steaming because they just got 2 outed on two consecutive hands, when in reality they're crushing because they have all that money coming back via the equity chop agreement, you're lacking some very relevant information that you should be entitled to.

in theory it doesn't change the EV of decisions like splitting action does, so there's no real conflict, if disclosed.

pushing people out of pots after they've already invested money by raising and then having a third player reraise, then splitting the profits is the very definition of collusion.

The first part of this is collusion whether you split the pot or not. But splitting the pot isnt by itself collusion if it doesnt affect your actions prior to getting all-in.