Defense against the squeeze play...

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]


I think I'm misunderstood. They aren't doing the button raise/SB 3-bet thing every time it's folded to the button. They are at the very least selective about their cards, not playing "any two". In actuality, it has folded to button on several occasions, and button had elected to fold and then SB and myself agreed to chop. Remember, this is short-handed and it often gets chopped, so there are far more orbits than your standard full ring game. So when I say "4 times in 45 minutes", it means there are probably just as many times it didn't happen. Now when it does get bet/3-bet to me in the BB there's a more than decent chance of at least a hand out there.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, sorry, I understand now. This situation sucks. Gotta tell the floor I guess. I would leave, too, (potentially breaking the game, it sounds like), and tell the floor why you are leaving.

Honestly with cheating as a giant unknown, I sometimes wonder how it's possible to make money playing cards. The only evidence is the empirical evidence of actual winrate, nothing else makes sense. I think the biggest things in our favor are:

(1) That if someone is smart and disciplined enough to cheat and not get caught, they are good enough to beat the games without cheating.

(2) Cheaters will be bad players who overestimate their own ability, and they will think that are winning players without their partners. In those games they will be big fish and give their money back. Even if they are with their partners, they will move up and move up and get Peter Principled.

(3) If you're going to cheat, why pick Limit Hold'em as your game?

[Captain R]

[ QUOTE ]

Honestly with cheating as a giant unknown, I sometimes wonder how it's possible to make money playing cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

You need to get out to Bay101. I don't know if there is cheating or not, but if there is it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot since there are so many bad players giving away money.

[Jon1000]

[ QUOTE ]
(3) If you're going to cheat, why pick Limit Hold'em as your game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has to do w/ the fact that there are very few no limit games in the Bay Area (most are spread limit maxing out at 200), and those few games are either very small, or big enough that the player pool is relatively small

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Honestly with cheating as a giant unknown, I sometimes wonder how it's possible to make money playing cards.


[/ QUOTE ]You need to get out to Bay101. I don't know if there is cheating or not, but if there is it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot since there are so many bad players giving away money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's the thing. I don't play live all that much, but I do sometimes and do much better than online even accounting for player quality. But if it weren't for the actual results I wouldn't think playing live is a good idea.

Put another way, I only moved up in stakes once, when I was on vacation (it was 15/30 and 30/60, I don't play that high). I played maybe 16 hours and finished up $900. I also found a marked ace at a table filled with "regulars". Should I find this trip encouraging or discouraging?

If it weren't for the actual results...


[ QUOTE ]

I think it has to do w/ the fact that there are very few no limit games in the Bay Area (most are spread limit maxing out at 200), and those few games are either very small, or big enough that the player pool is relatively small

[/ QUOTE ]

good point

[Garland]

Thoughts:Look, I didn't mean to create a lot of paranoia for live players around the Bay Area. This was the first and only suspicion of "collusion with intent" I've encountered during live play in 4 years.

What do I mean about "collusion with intent"? By my definition, it means betting and raising with the intent of squeezing out an opponent. There are a lot of instances at say Artichoke Joes $15/$30 with Chinese regulars where once two close friends get heads up after playing their cards hard (and with reasonable hands), they stop betting against each other and check it down to showdown. Is it collusion? It certainly has the appearance of collusion especially to any newcomer or novice who was involved in the hand, but it's not "collusion with intent". Is it bad for the game? That's a whole other discussion.

And let’s say there were some sort of subtle collusion/cheating I haven’t detected. The games are so good to me, that I consider it as part of the price of playing, like the rake.

To help alleviate some concerns here’s what happened:

Result:

It occurred at Garden City and not Bay 101.

At the 4th time this bet/3-bet play occurred, I actually said “I’m starting to suspect something.” out loud. If nothing else happened, I would have left on my next big blind.

She said “I’ll show.” They played their hand out and even when there was no showdown, button flipped over a suited JT and SB showed Axo. At least it showed she played her marginal strong hands hard against a steal attempt, and it seemed consistent with the other hands they played in that hour. I think if you see a type of play that isn’t the norm (bet/3-bet is normal once, but not 4 times within an hour) bells start to go off.

To Nate: What’s the significance of TT or RR moving this thread from B&M to here is.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Garland

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
To Nate: What’s the significance of TT or RR moving this thread from B&M to here is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Garland--

No significance; just something to bet on. Figured it might give me something to sweat, and I'd have been a huge favorite besides.

--Nate

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the woman in SB was by no means a pushover. My edge over her heads up in the blinds was miniscule at best.


[/ QUOTE ]

No way. Even if she plays better than you, you have the button every single time. As long as she's not a much much better player than you, you should have a decent edge over her in the blinds.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the woman in SB was by no means a pushover. My edge over her heads up in the blinds was miniscule at best.


[/ QUOTE ]

No way. Even if she plays better than you, you have the button every single time. As long as she's not a much much better player than you, you should have a decent edge over her in the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering and factoring in the rake, the edge is greatly over-estimated, even with position. Anyhow, the point is moot. I always opt chop with anyone as long as the no-flop rake is different than the flop rake. There are other reasons I like to chop in the blinds, but that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

Garland

[golferbrent]

Garland:

Definitely a tough spot to be in. Just be cognizant of their play and if it gets too out of line say something to the table. If it continues--say something to the floor and quit.

Out of curiosity, what did the man and women look like? I have played with a couple who travel who play exactly like this? Was she hispanic looking--fairly attractive? Just curious? If it is who I think it is--I can probably shed some light on their play, as I have many hours with them.

BM

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
Garland:

Definitely a tough spot to be in. Just be cognizant of their play and if it gets too out of line say something to the table. If it continues--say something to the floor and quit.

Out of curiosity, what did the man and women look like? I have played with a couple who travel who play exactly like this? Was she hispanic looking--fairly attractive? Just curious? If it is who I think it is--I can probably shed some light on their play, as I have many hours with them.

BM

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm holding back their physical descriptions on a public forum because I don't want to unfairly slander two innocent players, nor do I want to cause more of an uproar than there already is. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with them, I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid them (given the table has enough bad players to compensate) and the issue is over and done with.

Garland