How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

[slapdash]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

Imagine a game starts and there are 5 active players and 15 sit outs. 4 of the active players are on one table 1 of the active players is on another table with all sit outs. If I am on the table with the active players, then I would sit out to get the game frozen, whilst everyone has the same number of chips

I take it there's some rule about the game being frozen if no table has more than 3 active players? I don't think there's anything wrong with this. Although there's definitely something wrong with the format if this can happen.

Taking it a step further - imagine 10 sit outs and 10 active players - 9 active players are on one table - 1 active player is on the other table. (the active player here also happens to be a member of the league leaders) If I am on the table with 8 active players, I would try and persuade 4 other players to sit out with me to get the game frozen, to deny the player on the other table the chance to accumulate any chips.

I think this would be wrong. You'd be coming to an agreement with other players to disadvantage the active player at the other table, which would be collusion. There's definitely something wrong with the format if it gives him the massive random advantage of being at a table with no other active players, but I don't think that means that it's OK to collude to redress the balance. Oh ... did I mention? There's definitely something wrong with the format.

[GaF]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? I think Pokerroom have an inbuilt safety switch that freezes MTTs if at least 80% of the field are sit outs. (presumably assuming there are server/connection issues). In general, that sounds a good idea to me :ok however obviously it's not good if it's a freeroll with a lot of sit outs ;)

[Burnley Joe]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? Be glad when this is all over

[Dodger]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? One of the earlier rounds there were only two of us ''playing'' and we were directly opposite with four sit-outs on either side. Not a single word was spoken. We very quickly settled into a rhythm where I took the four blinds round to him and he took the four blinds round to me. If anybody looked at the full history I was folding AA, KK, QQ over and over again and I am sure that he was too...it would have screemed collusion, but there was none...we had zero contact. I wanted the chips and clearly he did too. So this tournament is throwing up so many problems and they are all directly related to the sitouts. If it was my tournament I would email those who don't play and tell them they'll be thrown out of any game if they are not at the table within ten minutes of the start...that would help.

[ColU_FC]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? I think getting the games frozen is an excellent idea. Indeed I think it is so good that we should do it for every round from now on. I strongly suspect that if we do so then every team will score 0 points for each round. This will result in what is obviously the best team finishing first.:ok QED.

[slick mick]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? I've taken some time to think this through, partly because it's a complex situation and raising some strong emotional responses and partly because it's a player on my team who is the main cause of controversy so here's my thoughts. Is it collusion? No, absolutely not, collusion requires 2 people to be actively involved. Is it unsporting? Again no because poker is a game not a sport. Game theory dictates that you should maximise your chance to win while decreasing the chances of your opponents. Reeshah has devised a tactic which does exactly that and should be congratulated for his cleverness. However it is a tactic which I personally disapprove of and would not use. Is it against the rules? Yes and no. Unfortunately the pokerroom software is set up to allow this, though going by strict rules of poker (TDA or Roberts) any one not at their seat when the first card is dealt should be folded before any action takes place. Some other poker sites will fold a sit out when the action comes to them (including unraised big blinds). Some sites will remove a sit out and their chips if they haven't acted during the first level. Neither of these solutions adheres to the strict rules of poker but are better methids than that used by pokerroom. So who's to blame here? Pokerroom have inadequate software which doesn't fully adhere to the rules of poker so they must shoulder the majority of the blame. E-sport could perhaps have set up the tournaments differently so they required a player to register for the tournament as they have with the heads up league so a portion of the blame lies with them though I would imagine few if any people would have forseen such a problem. The main worry I have with this thread is the extent to which members have attacked each other. This is not the PL way. If you get beat, however it happens, you should suck it up and move on. If you really must post about it do it in the bad beat thread so we can ignore you easily. It's a common saying so I don't know who to attribute it to: 'If you can't beat the sitouts you shouldn't be playing poker'

[pistonbroke]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? Spiffing idea

I think getting the games frozen is an excellent idea. Indeed I think it is so good that we should do it for every round from now on. I strongly suspect that if we do so then every team will score 0 points for each round. This will result in what is obviously the best team finishing first.:ok QED.

[BillHicks]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

Ok - lets raise something else that I think may be controversial (but better to talk about it before it happens than after I do it :tongue2) Imagine a game starts and there are 5 active players and 15 sit outs. 4 of the active players are on one table 1 of the active players is on another table with all sit outs. If I am on the table with the active players, then I would sit out to get the game frozen, whilst everyone has the same number of chips Taking it a step further - imagine 10 sit outs and 10 active players - 9 active players are on one table - 1 active player is on the other table. (the active player here also happens to be a member of the league leaders) If I am on the table with 8 active players, I would try and persuade 4 other players to sit out with me to get the game frozen, to deny the player on the other table the chance to accumulate any chips. What do you think? I view this as far far more borderline (in the sportsmanship stakes) than what Reeshah did last night, but I think I'd probably do it if it benefits my team.... :unsure

I think your example here is cheating as it involves active cooperation of two or more players for their mutual benefit. It is completely different to Reeshah's actions which only depended on him and did not require any other's cooperaion.

[GaF]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

Is it unsporting? Again no because poker is a game not a sport. Game theory dictates that you should maximise your chance to win while decreasing the chances of your opponents. Reeshah has devised a tactic which does exactly that and should be congratulated for his cleverness. However it is a tactic which I personally disapprove of and would not use.

If it's not unsporting (in your view) and it's not against the rules, and it is a beneficial tactic, why would you disapprove of it and not use it? :unsure

[slick mick]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

If it's not unsporting (in your view) and it's not against the rules' date=' and it is a beneficial tactic, why would you disapprove of it and not use it? :unsure[/quote'] Because poker is a difficult enough game to start with and sitouts alter the game too much. I hate playing with sitouts and wish all poker sites would learn the rules and apply them properly. I would always play to eliminate the sitouts before the genuine players as a matter of respect for them and the game.

[SilentJay]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

I would always play to eliminate the sitouts before the genuine players as a matter of respect for them and the game.

:ok :cheers

[Dave488]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

One of the earlier rounds there were only two of us ''playing'' and we were directly opposite with four sit-outs on either side. Not a single word was spoken. We very quickly settled into a rhythm where I took the four blinds round to him and he took the four blinds round to me. If anybody looked at the full history I was folding AA, KK, QQ over and over again and I am sure that he was too...it would have screemed collusion, but there was none...we had zero contact. I wanted the chips and clearly he did too. So this tournament is throwing up so many problems and they are all directly related to the sitouts. If it was my tournament I would email those who don't play and tell them they'll be thrown out of any game if they are not at the table within ten minutes of the start...that would help.

It was me dodger, as you say we never said anything in the chat, so there was no agreement as such, but it was obvious that we decided to share the blinds between us as why should we knock each other out and then therefore allow the sitouts to get more points than ourselves. In my opinion it cannot be collusion if there was no verbal agreement. Surely a similar situation is when you are on the final table of a tourney, where the small stack pushes all in and is called by two other players and 9 times out of 10 they will check it down to give them the best chance to eliminate the player and therefore move up the prize ladder, this is not considered collusion is it? Unless of course somewhere suggests checking it down, then it is a totally different matter in my opinion? Anyway the best solution is to get rid of the sit outs all together as it is spoiling this league. Surely the easiest way to do this is to make everyone manual register before hand as in the heads up league. As clearly e sport can't alter the way the software handles them, my thoughts anyway.:ok

[Dave488]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? ooops.

[teaulc]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

I would always play to eliminate the sitouts before the genuine players as a matter of respect for them and the game.

my sentiments exactly as witnessed by yourself on sunday

[slick mick]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

my sentiments exactly as witnessed by yourself on sunday

Except for that time when it was folded round to you and you folded to 2 sitouts:lol

[GaF]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

Except for that time when it was folded round to you and you folded to 2 sitouts:lol

You mean Al was colluding with the sit outs? :loon :tongue2

[teaulc]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

Except for that time when it was folded round to you and you folded to 2 sitouts:lol

:lol if i did it was because i had 3 other tables going,:dude:dude

[Dodger]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

:lol if i did it was because i had 3 other tables going' date=':dude:dude[/quote'] You DID! I was surprised at the time, but we all do it sometimes don't we? :spank

[runadrum]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? I'm with Mick completely on this one. I have shouted at too many players when they are the last to act and have folded to sitouts to start playing a similar game myself, whatever the circumstances. Having the software automatically fold the cards of a sitout in the big blind - as long as they have been called - is the simplest solution.

[GaF]

Re: How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs? Ok - before the start I'm going to clarify my intent for this..... I have heard nothing that persuades me that the strategy is either against the rules, or unsporting (indeed with the open discussion and "declaration of intent" here - I believe from a sporting context we've gone the other way and are being over sporting in a way we wouldn't be with non PL'rs). There has been no reply posted by morl from his query to pokerroom. Esport have I'm sure seen this thread, but have not expressed anything to suggest they believe this is against either the rules or the spirit of the rules. It is my intention to use all legal tactics tonight against the sit outs to maximise my (and my teams) chances - I believe the play against the sit outs to be the fundamental strategic challenge of these tournaments and cannot help myself but to rise to this challenge. In the interests of a level and equal playing field for all, I suggest we all play by the same rules and ethics..... I will not be deliberately sitting out to try and get games frozen - as I said, I think this is a bit more morally dubious (and as slapdash pointed out - in some circumstances against the rules too) - I also think that if frozen games become too frequent then it will seriously risk "bringing down the league" - there have been problems, there have been issues, but working well, I believe it will be a good, fun, competitive, enjoyable format and I would like to see it suceed. In contrast however, I will not avoid knocking active players out to stop the game from being frozen. I think we have to trust that in that circumstance, when eSport eventually get around to sorting it out, they will act properly in awarding points to players still in (on some basis of their chip counts) and no points to those eliminated..... At the end of the day, I think any set of rules and ethics are fair and reasonable, so long as it is the same for everyone - by declaring my intent here in advance, hopefully it will be a level playing field :ok