possibly important info if you play with twin/h@ll

[Jason Strasser (strassa2)]

I met with Lee Jones right after the PCA when he came back to Durham (he's a Duke alum) and he told me that the rebuy trick in the 10-20 game is likely something that is going to be gone soon. The rebuy trick is nice, in my opinion, but it opens up this entire dynamic where people will "ask for reloads" and then the lines start to blurr. I've seen some spots where players have said, "sure go ahead and reload" to another player, then call the all in preflop.

Lee Jones expressed that the games on stars are capped NL games, and that the site has a duty to protect this cap, if they choose to enforce the cap.

I think once this whole softplay story really hits them, they will sit down with a list of concerns/demands (I told Lee that HU NL tables would be popular) and re-evaluate how they are going to structure these 10-20 NL games.

Hall and Twin have also just been totally miserable recently. I've had no real problem with this, but they are constantly berating other players, filling up chat with crap when they get sucked out on, and are just hurting the games that they live on.

The game is evolving, however, and I wouldn't be surprised to see different faces dominating that game. Johnsmiley (Dustin Dirksen) has really improved recently since his FTP sick run and is consistently outplaying the duo, especially Twin. I think Durr is a constant favorite over those two in the shorthanded games, and there are other shorthanded players where Hall/Twin definitely do not have the best of it with (Ca_Dreamin, Curzdog, Me).

I'm fairly confident both those players will have to make adjustments to their game and their attitude if they want to see the types of consistent successes they achieved in prior days.

-Jason

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A good majority of posters here are drinking hater-ade

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you used the phrase "hater-ade" disqualifies you from posting in this (or probably any other) thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the use of hater-ade is actually the only redeeming characteristic of any of his posts. Why are you sipping hater-ade on hater-ade?

[Jacques]

My shot at listing the problems caused by this behavior.

1. Checking it down lends to smaller pots and less rake for PokerStars

2. Checking down reduces variance for the players involved since their heads-up pots stay small. This makes it easier to go through a bad streak, less likely to go broke or having to move down or go on tilt.

3. Players not familiar with their behavior will have their read of twin/h@ll distorted. They may expect them to check it down more they actually would against unknown players.

4. Appearance of collusion for the players who notice this, this hurts all winners in the game as well as PokerStars. Some people won't play because of this.

5. After a relatively secret agreement is in place, it is much easier to broaden the agreement to include things much worse, especially when both players are doing bad.

6. It saves energy and time not to have to think against a tough player, not to be underestimated when playing 6-8 tables.

[Sponger.]

Jason,

I think we all would love more 10-20NL gossip in the future. Thanks!

Regards,
Sponger.

[kerpowski]

Emailed a stars host I know about whether this type of softplaying (checking down once pot is HU) was considered collusion... snip of response:

"It is worth noting that repeated softplaying between two players, regardless of the situation, is considered a form of collusion and completely unacceptable at PokerStars in both cash and tournament games."

[Ansky]

It's too bad that they make special rules for their celebrities.

[Keepitsimple]

[ QUOTE ]
Jason,

I think we all would love more 10-20NL gossip in the future. Thanks!

Regards,
Sponger.

[/ QUOTE ]

[psuasskicker]

You seriously think it's ok for friends to take it wasy with each other because they ar running bad?

I used to play weekly in a local pink chip game where guys who were friends with each other would regularly check it down against each other. Lots of weird and little shady bettings going on (one guy used to bet his wife's hands a lot).

Only reason I played in it was cause everyone in the game was so bad it was still really profitable even with these things going on. Tough high stakes NL players doing this? No thanks...

- C -

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Emailed a stars host I know about whether this type of softplaying (checking down once pot is HU) was considered collusion... snip of response:

"It is worth noting that repeated softplaying between two players, regardless of the situation, is considered a form of collusion and completely unacceptable at PokerStars in both cash and tournament games."

[/ QUOTE ]

what's weird is this is entirely contradictory to what stars support said to me in the quoted emails above.

c

[TonyDanza]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that if something is explicitly allowed according to a GOOD set of rules, then it is almost always ethically acceptable.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are now trying to apply both a subjective and objective standard to what is ethical. By your logic, what these two guys are doing is ethical because they are not violating a "GOOD" set of rules. Then you apply your subjective standard and determine that PS's rules are "GOOD" wihtout any basis. I think the real issue is whether PS's rules are GOOD. I also think that many people have advanced reasons why these rules are not GOOD. Is a set of rules good that does not prohibit such type of collusion? I, and many others, would argue, NO.

I think part of your argument is that because someone agrees to play on a site with such a rule, they are in fact agreeing to this behavior and adopting it as permissible or "ethical". I do not think this is the case. While they might be adopting it as permissible (which is highly debatable), they are surely not adopting it as ethical.

Justin, I don't know you at all except that I normally respect your posts and obviously consider you to be a good player. I just think you are way off base on your definition on ethical in this case.