A level headed discussion about Implicit Collusion, 2p2, and AP

[Exsubmariner]

Mods, please feel free to move this if it seems to controversial, but I feel like I need to get it off my chest and out into the open.

Human relationships are tricky. I like to contemplate them and read about economics and study people in general.

Perhaps this concept is old hat to some, but for those who haven't considered it, I think it's important to get out into the open for discussion.

I haven't weighed in or followed the Absolute Scandal until recently because I feel it is a re-run of previous episodes where cheating was exposed in the online world. I no longer play online, mostly prompted to stop by these earlier episodes.

Anyone familiar with tournament poker should be familiar with this concept.

In poker, sometimes when a player with a short stack at the end of a tournament is all in, multiple other players will call and they will all check down. That's because one hand out against the all in player is not as good a chance of eliminating him as the multiple hands. That's implicit collusion. Multiple parties have an interest in something and don't exactly cooperate, but don't work against each other either.

The case of a cheating poker site is similar. Poker players who make their living online are dependent in a way on the poker site. The poker site needs to keep operating in order to provide a venue for the players to make their living. Therefore, if there is knowledge about the site cheating, it is in the best interest of the players to keep mum. The appearance of integrity is far more important than the integrity actually existing. Banking establishments and securities trading companies have been aware of this for centuries.

Those of you out there who have chosen poker as your living should keep in mind that you may value integrity, and may want it to exist at your favorite site, but at the same time, you can't cut off your nose in spite of your face.

Shutting down AP and depriving them of their reputation is not going to fix the problem of online cheating. Seeking relationships with sites as outside auditors will go light years beyond the mob witch-hunt every time there is a cheating episode.

A political organization similar to the PPA seems to be a viable solution from my view. I can envision an organization that watches the poker sites, collects hand histories and other data and analyzes it for such incidents, then assigns a rating to the sites based on how they handle the incidents. You have transparency in a situation like that, which is not what ganging up on a poker site gets you after a situation like this one. The poker site just shuts up and doesn't cooperate at all.

Bottom line, implicit collusion is either a problem or a solution between sites and players with regard to cheats.

[Blarg]

Implicit collusion is rife in life in general, not just online poker. You get it at brick and mortar for the same reasons you get it online, and you get it in business for the same reason you get it in poker.

AP's calling someone who already worked for them their independent outside auditor is pretty rich. More like, "Here's your chance to get yourself fired. Now write a report!"

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Implicit collusion is rife in life in general, not just online poker. You get it at brick and mortar for the same reasons you get it online, and you get it in business for the same reason you get it in poker.

AP's calling someone who already worked for them their independent outside auditor is pretty rich. More like, "Here's your chance to get yourself fired. Now write a report!"

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Blarg, implicit collusion is everywhere in the world. I think that the key to avoid being hurt by it is to exercise some social intelligence when entering into relationships. If you enter into a relationship where you are giving up your right to have any say other than the termination of the relationship, you are seriously screwing up. What's more, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to exploitation, loss of control over your environment, or just plain being taken for granted.

I think this is the situation that the vast majority of 2p2 online poker pros have found themselves in with regard to this latest episode. We've seen that movie before, as well, with potty and the affiliates and we'll prolly be seeing it again in the future.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Implicit collusion is rife in life in general, not just online poker. You get it at brick and mortar for the same reasons you get it online, and you get it in business for the same reason you get it in poker.

AP's calling someone who already worked for them their independent outside auditor is pretty rich. More like, "Here's your chance to get yourself fired. Now write a report!"

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Blarg, implicit collusion is everywhere in the world. I think that the key to avoid being hurt by it is to exercise some social intelligence when entering into relationships. If you enter into a relationship where you are giving up your right to have any say other than the termination of the relationship, you are seriously screwing up. What's more, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to exploitation, loss of control over your environment, or just plain being taken for granted.

I think this is the situation that the vast majority of 2p2 online poker pros have found themselves in with regard to this latest episode. We've seen that movie before, as well, with potty and the affiliates and we'll prolly be seeing it again in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is anything wrong with implicit collusion per se. I am not sure that you need to get hung up on the concept. All it means is that two or more parties will independently realize that the best solution for themselves provides a mutual benefit with another party or parties to the detriment of another.

The ethical problem is where implicit becomes express and one of the "colluding" parties does so at the suggestion of the other.

Using the poker example, it is good strategy to sqeeze out short stacks. Many players know this, and most realize it happens and is within the rules of play. Therefore, it is a natural part of the game and if the potential scenario is thought through logically, the player (being the shortstack) would realize that getting squeezed out by the bigger stacks is inevitable.

For real life you should always exercise prudence and think through how any deal will play out. You must assume that individual parties may act to fulfill their interests in a manner where one party benefits to the detriment of another. If there is a stong possibility that that party will be you, perhaps you should rethink the deal or avoid it all together.

Finally, I am not sure the characterization of the relationship between pros and the online operators as implicit collusion is apt. There may be a codependence, but I don't see the collusion angle. The site is to provide fair, secure gaming to attract customers (pros included). The pros are just there to win, which does not provide any collateral benefit to the site. In fact, the pros and operators play the game of "who can get the sucker's money first?"

[Exsubmariner]

You make some good points, Oski.

I take exception to one thing, though.

[ QUOTE ]
For real life you should always exercise prudence and think through how any deal will play out. You must assume that individual parties may act to fulfill their interests in a manner where one party benefits to the detriment of another. If there is a stong possibility that that party will be you, perhaps you should rethink the deal or avoid it all together.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the one thing that anyone in business who makes deals a lot will not think of in those terms. Good deals are deals where the pie gets bigger. Everyone wins. There's more to go around. If you are in a deal where the pie is only so big, two dimensional thinking is going to hurt you every time. You need to look for ways to increase the pie.

Perhaps it would not be possible, given the nature of poker, that such an arrangement could exist between sites and pros.

One thing is for sure, limited thinking and adversarial relationships aren't going to solve the problems.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
You make some good points, Oski.

I take exception to one thing, though.

[ QUOTE ]
For real life you should always exercise prudence and think through how any deal will play out. You must assume that individual parties may act to fulfill their interests in a manner where one party benefits to the detriment of another. If there is a stong possibility that that party will be you, perhaps you should rethink the deal or avoid it all together.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the one thing that anyone in business who makes deals a lot will not think of in those terms. Good deals are deals where the pie gets bigger. Everyone wins. There's more to go around. If you are in a deal where the pie is only so big, two dimensional thinking is going to hurt you every time. You need to look for ways to increase the pie.

Perhaps it would not be possible, given the nature of poker, that such an arrangement could exist between sites and pros.

One thing is for sure, limited thinking and adversarial relationships aren't going to solve the problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

By all means you are correct. I was limiting my points to zero sum situations in order to carry out the poker analogy. Of course, the best deals are not zero sum, but many are (even if they are not intended as such), human nature has proven to be quite distructive time and again.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

Shutting down AP and depriving them of their reputation is not going to fix the problem of online cheating. Seeking relationships with sites as outside auditors will go light years beyond the mob witch-hunt every time there is a cheating episode.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that we should look for more fundamental solutions.

I do think the witch hunt has its value though. A friend of mine (it really was a friend, heh) when I was in college used to go out with some people and create some general mischief. I think they were throwing chairs from a balcony or something. One day a cop pointed to just one of them and said, "The next time I see one of those chairs, that guy is going to jail".

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
One day a cop pointed to just one of them and said, "The next time I see one of those chairs, that guy is going to jail".


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that those on the witch hunt right now have no legitimate authority. They aren't cops. They're little more than a mob with some figure heads that think they have more authority than they do.