|
|
#13
11-13-2006, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#15
11-14-2006, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#16
11-14-2006, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#17
11-15-2006, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#18
11-21-2006, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#19
11-22-2006, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
