Well that is the thing. I have anlways heard of wealthy recreational players pushing 'professional' players outside of their comfort zone stake wise. If everyone at the table is reducing their variance, not telling the rec player, and getting an advantage in that way then there is something suspect about it imo.

Seems like with any discussion of EV, stinkypete isn't far behind with his take on the situation.

Way to keep up with what this thread has been talking about.

Wow, back off bud. Obviously your idea of wit is just an incisive observation humorously phrased and delivered with impeccable timing.

and this is the problem with disclosing it. people who don't have a clue will think something shady is going on, when the're nothing shady about it at all. what baudib is describing is NOT what matusow was talking about.

How do you know?

If the only argument against this is that it 'affects the way players play' then I'm going to have to say its a pretty weak leg to stand on. In poker players are allowed to play their hand anyway they want so unless you are going to regulate how loose or how nitty players are allowed to be then their agreement does not affect the game.

If another argument is that Guy may assume someone is tilting from losing a pot when they are getting a % back then that too is a weak argument. Some players tilt hard, some players don't tilt at all so if Guy assumes someone is tilting off a hand thats his own risk because that is HIS read and unless you plan on going to all the live $1-$2 games and correcting peoples reads then thats on Guy if he makes a decision based on someone he thinks is tilting.

I don't care about the topic at hand, I'd just like to say you have fantastic taste in games

and for the record, this isn't nearly as bad as chopping action with someone else at the same table. that happens all the time, and its not generally seen as a huge problem (though it possibly should be).

-There are no "sides" to morals (my main point it that this is what is lacking in the online arena and giving it a bad name).
-I have engaged in discourse on a variety of topics that don't pertain to the balck eye to which i referred.
-I am not acting appalled. I supported JM until the text chat was released and I am now very apppalled.
-I don't play online, as I have stated before. I play in a B&M(stating I don't play online because i can't afford it is an unsubstantiated cheap shot).
- The NVG tabloid is the entity that raised questions as to the validity of the PPP in the first place.

GG, lots of luck with your future endeavors

further edit: why am i the one concerned with how you online players look? that's effed up. continue with your: yeah, so what of it attitude.

Most major theories assume that ethics need to be taught. This is why its so important for parents to teach things liek values of sharing (not equity chopping though...) Primarily because evolutionary wise the most selfish offspring are the most likely to survive. Ethics are generally something that children acquire through socialization and modelling.


For example
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l01625565320m874/

I think the reason some people feel the opposite is that they equate innocence with ethics.

no he wasnt

i would like to know how they kept track.

i would get suspicious if someone was writing something down after every all in, lol.

the big question is if they did this AFTER a 3rd player was out...if they made sure that they only did this once the action was heads up, then it is completely fine....no different that running x times, saving some, saving the last bet, etc, etc. If the did it even after squeezing someone out (ie, going all in on any street, with guy in the hand) then it is definitely collusion (it should have been handled that whether he folds or not, they do not chop those all ins, if a 3rd player was in).

this is pretty standard in live poker. (with the exception that you can save some of the last bet if a 3rd person was pushed out, as long as the remaining players keep AT least what that person had in their stack in the post on that last bet).

Thiiiis.

again, this illustrates why the fact that most people don't understand all-in EV is a problem.

you can still run it as many times as you want even if a 3rd player was involved in the hand, as long as everyone's all in. there's no problem here. for the same reason, there's no problem with an equity chop.

So guy is an idiot then!

maybe im missing something. i got into an argument over this at a home game. both times it was raise reraise etc and 3rd player was squeezed out of the pot, then me and other player were all in, and both times we happen to have 50/50 equity.

obviously now it is ok to run it 3 times , 10 times etc. splitting it by equity is basically running the flop/turn/river an infinite number of times. therefore nothing wrong with an EQUITY CHOP.

if you aren't splitting by equity or running the board several times, then it seems like cheating to me.

It was scummy of the high stakes players to even sit with Guy Laliberte. They know they are taking his money. I understand it's not a black and white issue, and that it's not as simple as "stealing." That doesn't make it not scummy. This is one of the things about poker that many successful players like to shove under the rug, but it certainly is troublesome that this game is so ethically fuzzy.

I don't really know where to begin with this post lol

this is right and only hopeless nut huggers will disagree

If they were splitting equity from all-in pots, then that's ok.

If they had a financial interest in their partner winning money at the same table, that's not ok.

Does a thread really have to be created for every asinine thing that spews out of the Matusow brother's mouths?

The main players in this supposed cheating or collusion are players that have shown no cause to have their good names dragged through the mud either explicitly or implicitly.

Matusow's career has become a huge failure, funny how he wasn't throwing around conspiracy theories when he was winning (afaik). Now he has to resort to rumor and conspiracy peddling to keep his name in the spotlight. The guy is a joke.

yes, he was.

/thread

post of the year.

It is now scummy to sit at a table with players that are worse than you. You read it here first.

Do you seriously think that Guy Laliberte doesn't know, with 100% certainty, that he is the worst player at the table every time he sits down with these guys? He knows these guys are total professionals.

He plays with them because he wants to play with the best and learn from the best. The guy is worth 2.5 billion dollars. Do you think he's going to sit in the micros and grind? Come on now.

The facetious nature of your remark is appreciated. That was a good one.