He See\'s Someones Cards
 

Here is a nice question, the answer to which I haven't thought about and will not necessarily think about anytime soon. But it is a good exercise in poker thinking, so I pose it to generate some discussion.

You are an expert player and are playing in a tough game with other good players. You realize that one of the players can see a third player's cards. No one else realizes this. Does that advantage more than make up for your disadvantage? Might it depend on, the game, the number of total players, which seats they are in (assume they are sitting next to each other), or whether the player whose cards can be seen is a live one or not (assume the player who sees the cards is an expert who will make use of his information but won't make it obvious)?

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

I think the advantage makes up for your disadvantage. The reaosn being that you know what they're doing, and they don't know that you know. It's a bit like multiple-level thinking, and you're one level ahead of your opponents.

As for the number of players, I haven't thought about that and nothing instinctively comes to mind. I guess the more players the better? Because you know more then they know so have an edge over more people, not sure about that one!

Having them seated to your imediate right will be the best place. But I think you have an advantage reagrdless.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

You haven't thought about the answer?

Didn't you ask this, or a similar question, several years ago?

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the advantage makes up for your disadvantage. The reaosn being that you know what they're doing, and they don't know that you know. It's a bit like multiple-level thinking, and you're one level ahead of your opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you a trivial situation where you're still screwed. You're playing Limit Hold'em, perhaps 5-handed, and the guy 3 to your right can see the hole cards of the guy 2 to your right (in other words, directly to his left). Now whenever you are BB, the cutoff (CO) in essence becomes the button, and his stealing range goes way up. Your only "advantage" is that you know the CO is on a button steal range. You are hosed.

I haven't thought about it, but I doubt you can make up the equity when he's SB, or UTG, etc.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the advantage makes up for your disadvantage. The reaosn being that you know what they're doing, and they don't know that you know. It's a bit like multiple-level thinking, and you're one level ahead of your opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]
You know what they're doing, but you don't know why they're doing it because you don't know either of their cards. For example, the player whose cards are seen raises on the button preflop. The cheater is in the SB and reraises. You are in the BB with AJ. What do you do? One possibility is the button was making a steal attempt and the SB knew this and knew his otherwise marginal hand had him dominated. Your AJ could easily be the best hand. But another possibility is that the button had a strong hand and the SB had a monster. Your AJ could be dominated by one or even both. So even though you know what the SB is doing, since you don't know why, I don't see it as being a big enough advantage to make up the disadvantage.

Maybe this example is too contrived, but I think it will usually be the case that you see what the cheater is doing, but you don't know whether it's in reaction to the other player being strong or weak, bluffing or value betting, or whatever the scenario might be.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

I misread the question; I thought the players are colluding.

Well that changes everything, I'll need to think about it. I imagine it will depend on the number of players involved. The more players, the better your advantage I'd say. Becuase you know more then they do, and thus have an advantage over them. I think there will be a point where the number of players in the game will make up for the cheaters advantage over you.

As for the position the cheater has to be on your right, because you only have that information when he's acting before you.

....more to come!

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

Say it was a stud game. I can see the cheater's board, he has paired his door card. The player who's cards he can see makes a raise with a suited board, and the cheater folds...

I can make inferences about the third player's cards based on the cheater's actions. In this case, I think he has a made flush.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

I think it makes up for your disadvantage easily. YOU have the biggest advantage at the table.

Player A (the sucker) knows nothing except that Player B (the cheater) always seems to outplay him.

Player B can always outplay Player A, but has no idea what you have. And Player B has no idea that you know he can see A's cards.

You know that if Player B and Player A are in the hand, then Player B has the better hand or a very live draw that he will likely be paid off for.

I think I'd rather be 3 handed with them. You probably need to limp into most pots and let those 2 dictate the action. Ideally, you'd be sitting directly after Player B.

Anytime Player B folds and you have a marginal hand, you fold as well. Preflop, there probably won't be many hands that Player B folds except for total junk hands where he wouldn't want to be in the pot with you, and when Player A has a monster. Unless you've got a pretty strong hand, you might as well fold too, because what Player B does on the flop is great information to have.

Anytime Player B folds and you have a real strong hand, you'll probably be able to outplay Player A, since you can put him on at least a fairly strong hand (Player B probably wouldn't fold any lousy hand as long as Player A's hand was easily beatable). Plus if you have a nut type hand, you'll probably get a ton of Player A's chips considering Player A will know the only player he can ever beat is you, and he won't want to fold a strong hand when it's down to the two of you.

When Player B raises, assuming you are right after him, you should probably call with medium strength hands and better. If Player A also calls or re-raises, then Player B clearly has a monster, and you should get out. If Player A folds, then you don't necessarily have to put Player B on a great hand. If your hand was good enough that you'd consider calling or re-raising based on Player B's bet alone (and without extra information), then you should feel even more confident in making that move now.

Hands where Player B is just calling will be tougher to figure out. Clearly if Player A is in the hand, Player B either has him beat (and isn't worried about a draw...no implied odds!), or Player B is on a cheap draw and feels pretty confident that A will pay him off if B hits the draw. I would have to think in most cases, Player B would at least have Player A outkicked, and likely if Player A is doing the betting, they each have at least a pair (I doubt A would bluff B too much when he is getting his butt handed to him). If you've got top pair or better, raise the pot and see where you stand. If player A calls and player B folds, you've got to feel pretty good that you have player A beat. Player B couldn't have had too much (and probably wouldn't be on a draw since he wouldn't fold into a 3 way pot to a feeler raise with a good draw, although he could fold an ok hand here just to avoid getting in a big pot with you). And if Player B didn't have to much but still had Player A beat, then we can feel pretty good that Player A doesnt have too much (although he might be on a draw). A either thinks your bluffing or is on a draw.

If you raise in that situation and both players call or either one raises, you are in trouble, but not in as much trouble as Player A if B calls him.

If you don't have a hand when player B calls A's raise, then it will be even an easier fold than it would be without information.

Player B is also going to have to let Player A wins some hands, and probably let him win some hands where A is completely bluffing. But that should only help your odds. If Player A bluff raises, and B calls, you will fold unless you've got the nuts or near it anyway, and if Player A raises and B folds, you'll be even better off than you would be if you assumed that B would never lay down to a bluff.

Re: He Sees Someones Cards
 

Fixed your title

Re: He Sees Someones Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]

Fixed your title

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that if a random person disagrees with David Sklansky on the use of an apostrophe, David Sklansky must be right.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

Good point, so it accually turns back into poker, and getting reads on one or both of them.

Re: He Sees Someones Cards
 

If you're going to correct punctuation, you should at least do it correctly. "He Sees Someone's Cards" would be correct.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good point, so it accually turns back into poker, and getting reads on one or both of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, so maybe there is some advantage in that if you have a good read on one of them, you may now have a read on the other as well. I didn't think of that. I still doubt it would be a great advantage, though.

Re: He Sees Someone\'s Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to correct punctuation, you should at least do it correctly. "He Sees Someone's Cards" would be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, thank you.

Re: He Sees Someone\'s Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fixed your title

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that if a random person disagrees with David Sklansky on the use of an apostrophe, David Sklansky must be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in this case, he got it wrong. Typo, I'm sure.

Re: He Sees Someone\'s Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fixed your title

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that if a random person disagrees with David Sklansky on the use of an apostrophe, David Sklansky must be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in this case, he got it wrong. Typo, I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah it was a silly joke based on some of Sklansky's SMP arguments.

Re: He Sees Someones Cards
 

I actually experienced something of this sort last Sunday, at the MGM Grand 6pm tourny.

I could see the person to my right cards, and the person directly across from me knew I could see the third party's cards, I also think he knew I knew he knew.

This went on for a few hands while the person not protecting his cards simply folded, so at first I thought it was some strange move on his part, but once he actually bet a hand I told him he needed to protect his cards more.

BTW, I didn't need to do anything to see his cards, he was just very sloppy. In order to not see them I'd have to take action to deliberately look away.

Re: He Sees Someones Cards
 

I'd say that you couldn't recoup the advantage for a few reasons:

1) His play has been completely randomized by another person's cards. If he has suited connectors and sees the guy next to him has two of the same suit, he will likely play the hand differently than if the other person didn't. Because he knows his odds of hitting his flush just dropped dramatically. If he's holding KK and sees that the guy next to him is holding KJ, he knows that he has almost no chance at a set and might play differently. And you will have no clue as to how his play has changed as a result. The person's cards he can see may offer some clues through his betting, but in most cases it would be too vague for you to make great use of.

2) The player would be able to manipulate the pot odds far better than you would and would be able to force you into far more mistakes than you could him. Say he has a nut flush draw but saw that the guy next to him folded 2 of the same suit pre flop. He now knows that he has 7 outs instead of 9...while you have no clue that he has the information and how he is using it.

3) He'll be able to read cards far better than anyone at the table. Say he's holding AK. He saw that the guy next to him had folded A2 off. The board is AKK. He now knows that it is absolutely impossible for you to have AA's, while there's no way for you to know the same.

Because your information is so vague, and his is very concrete, he just has a massive advantage that I don't believe you could overcome. Over the long run he'd nickel and dime you through better decision after better decision just because he has more information that anyone out there.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

Poker is a communal game. If the situation at my table arose I'd craftly mention that "Players should really protect their cards in a place like this." and I'd 'incidentally' point at the one exposing his cards to his opponents with my index finger. The table should co-op with ethics to prevent this sort of thing from happening. And that sort of co-op should be the extent of collusion in poker.

It is a form of collusion to peak at another's cards. One player is collaborating his opponents information with his own, despite the fact that the "sucker" is unaware. You should not be put into a postion where you feel you have to outplay a team, even if it is an interesting problem. The "sucker" is teamed with the cheater. If the "sucker" doesn't take the hint, then I'd tell him flat out that the X seat is peaking.

Just because one is in a position to be "in on it" doesn't make it right. And it certainly is not in the best interest of the game. This is a place where the pigs get slaughtered. I wager that almost as often as not the play would backfire. Basically, if I was forced in the situation (like with a gun to my head), I'd view it as an unreliable tell. It is in fact a tell of a tell. Player B reads A like a book and as player C, I have certain reads on player B which may or may not translate into reads on player A. Sometimes these reads I get on player A will be false reads and I will lose money. This is especially true if I am greedy and try to adapt too much to the situation.

If the colluders were on my left I'd play much tighter because I feel that player B will play more aggressively towards A, since he is able to make the perfect play against him.

B is likely a greedy pig. That's probably why you spotted him in the first place. So he will try to adjust his play too much to player A, even if he is an expert. He will try to isolate against the weak player too many times. Re-aligning your strategy towards him (and consequently the team) should not be too tough. Be more inclined to re-raise, but do not get out of hand, unless you want to be a greed pig that gets slaughtered also. Taking down 1, 2 or 3 pots by isolating yourself against the cheater with decent holdings should show a nice profit in a game like that. However, I would avoid raising wars and I would not try to "out-bluff" him because this tell is far too unreliable.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

i think the guy just magically see the cards, he isn't sneaking a peek.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

Even so, it is still collusion. The information is collaborated. Whether he wispers it to his friend or whether he peaks, or whether it''s "magic" is not relevant. Saying that it's sneaking a peak is logical because:

1) The "sucker" is unaware.

2) The cheater knows exactly what the sucker has.

Acting on this tell is not always logical because:

1) It is unethical as violates some of the collaborative ethics of the game.

2) It is unreliable as you do not know what the cheater is thinking.

It's a risky thing to do. One misread, and you get slaughtered. That's why I recommend a tight/aggressive strategy against the cheater. There are several reasons to do it this way:

1) The cheater won't catch on so easily.

2) Re-raising him occasional will put him to the test.

3) This is the way that we play poker. This is the way that we make the most money.

4) Pigs get slaughtered.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

I don’t think you suffer any disadvantage at all. In fact, according to my calculations Player A (the peeker) gains expectation at the expense of Player B (the flasher), you gain expectation at the expense of Players A and B, and Player X (any other player at the table) gains expectation at the expense of both you and Player A.

Counterintuitive? Remember, according to game theory, everyone should be playing their optimum strategy, which is defined as the strategy that gives the maximum expectation when opponents are playing their optimum strategy.

Now, all the Player X’s are playing the same optimum strategy that applies to the no-cheating game. But you and Player A are no longer playing your optimum strategy against Player X (because you’ve both deviated from your optimum ordinary-game strategy to take advantage of Player B). Therefore, Player X’s expectation has to go up--if it did not, then the original strategy could not have been optimum. To put it another way, you and Player A are willingly giving up a tiny bit of expectation vs. all the Player X’s in order to gain a large amount of expectation vs. Player B (and in your case, against Player A). For you and Player A, these are your new optimums.

Any game theorists out there to check my logic?

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any game theorists out there to check my logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

No game theorist here, but there are a few things that might be pointed out. First, in the real world for a normal (non-colluding) game, no player is an optimal player in the game theory sense. No one (currently) knows what an optimal strategy would be... even the best players cannot fathom the entire game tree and therefore their play deviates from optimal.

Second, the colluding game exhibits an entirely different decision search space, such that even if real world players were playing optimally for a regular game, said strategy would most likely be non-optimal for the colluding game. In other words, the only player that can possibly play optimally in the colluding game is the one who is peeking.

The player aware of the peeking can minimize his losses under this situation, but he will never be able to formulate an optimal strategy that will be +EV vis a vis the cheater UNLESS the cheater is playing with non-optimal strategy for the new (collusion) game-- which he may very well be in order to maximize his winnings vis a vis the passive colluder.

Finally it's doubtful that the active colluder is playing optimally since there are over 552 versions of this game, and even in the three player case, there exist two choices-- he is cheating unobserved, or his cheating is observed but he is not certain of that fact.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any game theorists out there to check my logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

No game theorist here, but there are a few things that might be pointed out. First, in the real world for a normal (non-colluding) game, no player is an optimal player in the game theory sense. No one (currently) knows what an optimal strategy would be... even the best players cannot fathom the entire game tree and therefore their play deviates from optimal.

Second, the colluding game exhibits an entirely different decision search space, such that even if real world players were playing optimally for a regular game, said strategy would most likely be non-optimal for the colluding game. In other words, the only player that can possibly play optimally in the colluding game is the one who is peeking.

The player aware of the peeking can minimize his losses under this situation, but he will never be able to formulate an optimal strategy that will be +EV vis a vis the cheater UNLESS the cheater is playing with non-optimal strategy for the new (collusion) game-- which he may very well be in order to maximize his winnings vis a vis the passive colluder.

Finally it's doubtful that the active colluder is playing optimally since there are over 552 versions of this game, and even in the three player case, there exist two choices-- he is cheating unobserved, or his cheating is observed but he is not certain of that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I also think its sort've crappy that the initial thread purposefully skips over the ethical question. Poker should be treated with more respect than this.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

[ QUOTE ]

Counterintuitive? Remember, according to game theory, everyone should be playing their optimum strategy, which is defined as the strategy that gives the maximum expectation when opponents are playing their optimum strategy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good so far

[ QUOTE ]

Now, all the Player X’s are playing the same optimum strategy that applies to the no-cheating game. But you and Player A are no longer playing your optimum strategy against Player X (because you’ve both deviated from your optimum ordinary-game strategy to take advantage of Player B). Therefore, Player X’s expectation has to go up--if it did not, then the original strategy could not have been optimum.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part is incorrect.

Consider the following 3-player, zero-sum game. Each player simultaneously chooses one of two options A and B. The payoffs are:
- if all 3 choose the same option, each gets nothing
- if two choose an option, and the last player chooses another, then the odd man out pays each of the other two one dollar. There are two pure-strategy equilibra - all three choosing A and all three choosing B.

Suppose we are in the all choose A equilibrium. If players 1 and 2 both deviate and choose B they will gain at 3's expense.

Basically, equilibrium analysis in games is (pretty much) always restricted so that it doesn't take into account multiple players deviating. Also, I suspect that you understand this bit, but if you have a 3 player poker game and player 1 changes from the equilibrium strategy and 2 and 3 keep playing their equilibrium strategies, then we know 1 will be worse off. Without further information, we can't say whether 2 and 3 will be each better off or not, though they collectively will be. If, however, 2 is made worse by this deviation by 1 then it must make 3 better off and vice-versa. However, if both one and two deviate we don't know how this would affect the third or the first two for that matter.

Re: He Sees Someones Cards
 

i dont think it makes any difference because even tho you know, what the other guy sees another guys cards it doesnt help u in the least bit, because you still dont know if the see er is reacting to his new found information or if hes just playing his hand as usaual

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

Let the player exposing his cards be player A
Let the player seeing player A's cards be player B

Suppose player B is on the left of player A and you are on the left of player B. You know player A's starting criteria is weakish and you know player B plays well enough to try and isolate when the opportunity arises.

Since you know player B will make the isolation play, you can re-isolate when you feel you have player B's hand beat given you know player B might be raising light to isolate player A.

This gives you an advantage. Information and patience are the keys to success.

Re: He See\'s Someones Cards
 

well i thought about this for a while and i came to the conclusion it would be a disadvantage for you even though you can deduct what hand they both have compared to each other and that is an advantage to you but the expert who has seen two sets of cards has the bigger edge and therefore you are at more of a disadvantage to this player if you end up heads up with him in this pot, if he folds you are at a huge advantage because you can probably count on the fact that they both have matching cards. is this over the full game or just one hand?