Was Hachem being unethical?

[BigBiceps]

This is not unethical.

First of all he could be lying. Second of all he could be wrong about what is Watkinson holds.

If you eliminate talking, then the game should be played solely online.

[NLfool]

well you're probably the only person who will probably know. Sometimes it's the tone, the way he stresses certain words etc. No one here was there and it's hard for people to understand exactly what you're getting at. Especially when it's so ambiguous that he somehow doesn't want a call in that spot with KK?

[Ezcheeze]

Watkinson had over 100k.
If what Hachem did is ok then it's ok for me to tell a friend who is sitting at my table to fold when I have them beat and I know I have them beat and they know I wouldn't lie to them. The whole table can here me thats fine, my friend will still be able to lay down his QQ to my KK, which drastically hurts the EV of the other players at the table because a player who was supposed to go broke and move them up the prize pool didn't.

[Ezcheeze]

There's no problem with talking. And I admit it's not too bad if the players involved are essentially strangers and won't know for sure if the guys lying or not.

However, it could be a tremendous problem if the players ivolved know eachother well and know you wouldn't lie to them. At that point IMO it becomes very close to collusion.

[Gabe DV]

Assuming Hachem really wanted him to fold (questionable), isn't it much more likely he thought Watkinson had AK?

[Ezcheeze]

We really shouldn't get into a stategy discussion here as that isn't the issue but AK would have been an easy fold for Watkinson. He never would have taken all the time he did to consider calling.

[Jusbe]

[ QUOTE ]
However, it could be a tremendous problem if the players ivolved know eachother well and know you wouldn't lie to them. At that point IMO it becomes very close to collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, certainly if that's the case.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
Watkinson had over 100k.
If what Hachem did is ok then it's ok for me to tell a friend who is sitting at my table to fold when I have them beat and I know I have them beat and they know I wouldn't lie to them. The whole table can here me thats fine, my friend will still be able to lay down his QQ to my KK, which drastically hurts the EV of the other players at the table because a player who was supposed to go broke and move them up the prize pool didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Here's my problem.

There are certain spots where friends who discuss strategy can put their friend-opponents on specific hands that are 100% certain, only because of their prior strategy discussions. Perhaps Hachem and Lee discussed the night before when talking strategy - "Minh Ly will call anything once he is in BB at 50k or less, so I will 100% push ONLY with KK and AA in that spot" (please completely disregard strategic correctness of that). Now, this situation arises, Hachem pushes. Without a word, Lee now KNOWS his QQ is no good.

This of course is a very contrived scenario, but I think you can understand what I'm getting at. Regular opponents know more about how each other play than unknown opponents. Friends who discuss strategy know more about how each other play than regular opponents.

In the situation that you described, I'm much more worried about a guy like Hachem giving Lee (I have no idea if they know each other or whatever) a subtle nod to keep him from going broke as opposed to making these types of comments that everyone at the table is equally able to benefit from (specifically, Minh can make a big laydown if he also believes Hachem).

[Ezcheeze]

[ QUOTE ]
In the situation that you described, I'm much more worried about a guy like Hachem giving Lee (I have no idea if they know each other or whatever) a subtle nod to keep him from going broke as opposed to making these types of comments that everyone at the table is equally able to benefit from (specifically, Minh can make a big laydown if he also believes Hachem).

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as the players at the table besides Minh Ly, Lee Watkinson, and myself are concerned, the talk might as well be a nod because they can't benefit from the information.

In fact, if Watkinson was talked into a fold when he would have actually called then the EV of the rest of the players was significantly decreased. This in and of itself of course is nothing wrong as lots of things can increase or reduce their EV. But something with this whole situation doesn't sit right with me. I really wish some of you could see it and I hope they show it on tv though thats doubtful because it was before the actual "final table" of 9 players. Being there and watching it happen, to me it just looked like Hachem saved Watkinson from losing his chips. That shouldn't be part of poker.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
After some time Hachem turns to Watkinson and says "I know what you have."
Watkinson replies "You know what I have? OK tell me what I have."
Hachem says "There are other players behind you I can't say yet but before the cards are turned over I'll tell you what you have."

Watkinson claims to have folded QQ and Hachem says something like "Of course I knew you had QQ."

[/ QUOTE ]

...

i don't see any reason to believe that Hacham actually knew what Watkinson's hand was in this spot. he didn't, after all, tell him before the cards were turned up or even before Lee told him what he had himself.

if i were a totally impartial observer of this hand, i'd see him angling about as hard as he could for more callers.

the problem that arrises for Minh is that say Hacham actually does know two hands at the table, his (AK) and Lee's (AQ) then he could be telling Lee the truth but not be able to advise Minh properly before seeing his cards. In fact, there's only a couple hands (duh) that his JJ isn't in great shape against, especially considering the size of the pot yadda yadda.

so yeah, i'm unconvinced that a) Hacham knew anything more than his own cards b) anything shitey went down here.

c