Ethics/Rules Question

[Oasis88]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't violate rules to claim you are going to make a certain action when you are headsup.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except this is binding in a live situation right?

fact. A couple years ago I was playing a mix NLH/PLO8 300 buy in game. The game was played with a rake and seemed to be run well. On the end I had bet the turn and as I was reaching my opponent, HU on the end of the PLO8 hand said "I'll call whatever you bet". It was not in violation of any rules. This is effectively the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Paul B.]

There is a thread in the archives by Daliman on the same topic with all the possible arguments. It's obviously not unethical or against the rules.

[darks]

that's the game, part of it actually [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[phishstiiix]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't violate rules to claim you are going to make a certain action when you are headsup.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that this sort of chat would take place on the bubble, i don't think it's OK at all. To downplay the effect of collusion because it's heads-up is to miss the point: obv the actions of sb and bb in a bubble situation would affect all the players' equities dramatically. This sort of chat in a cash game is very different to identical comments in a STT, especially on the bubble where everyone is affected by everyone else's actions.

If I was the small stack on the bubble and the sb folded a hand that they otherwise would have pushed i would not be happy with this sort of chat. Having said i think that happening is rare- everyone realises that more often than not the BB is talking crap anyway.

Even so i would leave it out of my game- it may be profitable but if it does have an effect on the sb's actions then its definitely bordering on collusion imo. It's effectively like the BB deliberately acting out of turn in a live STT to protect itself against a push, and in some circumstances to protect the sb against getting called (which is probably bad for both players anyway). Giving away info like that out of turn to protect some players at the expense of others is definitely suss, at least to the extent that it affects the actions of the game.

[DevinLake]

I don't understand your argument. If sb folds a hand he would have otherwise pushed, it may affect everyone's equity at the table, but only if the BB was, in fact, going to call.

How is this collusion?

Also, it is not the BBs responsibility to make sure he doesn't adversely effect the equity of the other players at the table.

If his was the case, it shouldn't be allowed for a medium stack to make a -$EV call against another medium stack on the bubble. Because, this greatly effects the medium stack's equity who may have been making a +$EV play. It transfers equity to the small stack. So, would you consider this collusion?

Also, if the bb taking actions to keep the sb from pushing on him was collusion or against the rules. Should it not be allowed for him to take a long to time fold to the sb's previous pushes to make sb thing twice about pushing the next time? Or, what if the bb has a crazy calling range, which keeps the sb from pushing what he'd normally push in that situation? Is that collusion?

What BB did was fine. My sign in at a couple sites is PlzWarnMe, simply because of the amount of times someone would warn my about my pushing in chat. It's helpful for the most part. It lets me know they are getting sick of my pushing and may be getting ready to spite call me. It also lets me know they don't know sngs, so they won't be playing the bubble well, shoving wide enough or calling appropriately.

Personally, if the BB told me he was calling, I'd shove wider.

[starchyy]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, if the BB told me he was calling, I'd shove wider.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. He is basically wanrning you not to push, meaning he can't be all the strong.

[phishstiiix]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your argument. If sb folds a hand he would have otherwise pushed, it may affect everyone's equity at the table, but only if the BB was, in fact, going to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many bubble situations where the equity of the BB is

getting a walk> calling a push> folding to a push.
(Maybe if BB had AK or so, with certain stack arrangements)
So if the sb pushes, the bb will call but would have motives to urge the sb not to push in the first place.

If the small blind has a hand that is +EV to push against an unknown BB hand, but -EV to push and get called (even by ATC), then sb obviously gains from knowing when he will get called (or has reason to believe there is a greater chance of getting called than normal).

This is a very common situation where the equities of both BB and SB would be increased by such a comment working.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, it is not the BBs responsibility to make sure he doesn't adversely effect the equity of the other players at the table.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is anyone's responsibility to act within the rules of the game. Where the BB gains an unfair advantage from breaking these rules it is cheating.

[ QUOTE ]

If his was the case, it shouldn't be allowed for a medium stack to make a -$EV call against another medium stack on the bubble. Because, this greatly effects the medium stack's equity who may have been making a +$EV play. It transfers equity to the small stack. So, would you consider this collusion?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this analogy. You are comparing a normal game situation to one in which the BB deliberately breaks the rules for their own advantage. No reputable casino that I know of, online or otherwise, allows a player to verbally state their intended future action (binding or not) before it is their turn in a tournament situation. When it is done to gain an advantage over other players, I don't see how this isn't cheating.

[ QUOTE ]
Should it not be allowed for him to take a long to time fold to the sb's previous pushes to make sb thing twice about pushing the next time? Or, what if the bb has a crazy calling range, which keeps the sb from pushing what he'd normally push in that situation? Is that collusion?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, because taking a long time to fold or having a 'crazy' calling range is not expressly forbidden. Deliberately stating your intended action out of turn is.


I don't mean to sound like I'm making a big deal about this though lol because I agree that most of the time the sb will take no notice, or may even push wider. But if, for example, I am playing a regular STTer who says this infrequently it would definitely affect my pushing range from the SB.

I would not make this part of my game. If it affects the sb's range then i think its unfair practice, if it doesn't then its just a waste of time [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. Even if it doesn't have a huge effect, any unfair practice is bad practice in my book.

[ender]

It's not unethical because it's heads up.

It means he's weak.

[phishstiiix]

its not actually hu, it was folded to the sb.

other players not in the pot can obv be affected by the remaining two players' actions in the pot.

[DevinLake]

I guess ur argument is that it is against the rules to type "i'm calling" in chat...can you point me to this rule in the ToC of some poker sites?

I was not aware that it was against the rules, that's where my dumb analogies come from because I though ur original agrument was dumb.

There is no way to prove what effect the BB saying he's calling is going to have on the sbs actions. So, it could actually increase SBs raising range which would be good for everyone at the table then by your argument?