Collusion?

[ColU_FC]

MTT. On my table are 8 sitouts. I say to the other player "share the blinds?" He agrees and we do so until the table breaks up. Is this collusion? If so, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is very bad, how bad is it?

[AJ]

Re: Collusion? 2, but only because you said it in chat. You should have been able to come to that agreement without saying it.

[SteveO]

Re: Collusion? Right then. Now consider what Rees did last night by calling the bb who was a sitout and then folding on the flop. How bad is that. Bearing in mind that this wasn't for the sitouts to benefit but a stategy employed by Rees, which he thought would be to his benefit.

[JulioArca]

Re: Collusion? How exactly did you agree to share the blinds? Did you take alternate blinds? Did this mean that you folded AA when it was "his turn" ? If this was the case I would think it was within the poker sites remit to ban you for "soft play" / "collusion" or whatever they want to call it. Same goes for a player folding to a sitout. (But not by accident :o) )

[ColU_FC]

Re: Collusion?

Did you take alternate blinds? Did this mean that you folded AA when it was "his turn" ?

Yes and yes. The reason I've asked this question is that I have done this on many occasions. Indeed, I bet virtually everyone else has too. Personally I do not feel any guilt about making an agreement to share the chips of anyone who has registered for a game but can't be arsed to turn up and play in it. Obviously this tends only to happen in freerolls. The 32Red ones are an excellent example. I'm interested in others opinions on this. Am I misguided? Should I feel shame for what I've done?

[SteveO]

Re: Collusion?

Yes and yes. The reason I've asked this question is that I have done this on many occasions. Indeed, I bet virtually everyone else has too. Personally I do not feel any guilt about making an agreement to share the chips of anyone who has registered for a game but can't be arsed to turn up and play in it. Obviously this tends only to happen in freerolls. The 32Red ones are an excellent example. I'm interested in others opinions on this. Am I misguided? Should I feel shame for what I've done?

Yes you should feel ashamed and you shall surely burn in hell but you shall be in good company;).

[Guppie]

Re: Collusion? Find a player that says he hasn't and ill show you a liar or a player who hasn't been in this situation. Also 1st one to hell puts the jacket spuds on to cook;)

Yes and yes. The reason I've asked this question is that I have done this on many occasions. Indeed, I bet virtually everyone else has too. Personally I do not feel any guilt about making an agreement to share the chips of anyone who has registered for a game but can't be arsed to turn up and play in it. Obviously this tends only to happen in freerolls. The 32Red ones are an excellent example. I'm interested in others opinions on this. Am I misguided? Should I feel shame for what I've done?

[Guppie]

Re: Collusion? I take it when you made the agreement col it was not a typed agreement rather an individual choice not to risk your chips against each other

[slapdash]

Re: Collusion? I think it's wrong, though I wouldn't give it much more than 2/10. I take the point about not feeling guilty about the sit-outs, if they can't be arsed to turn up, but your sharing the blinds doesn't really affect them much anyway, since even if you didn't come to any agreement, one of you would take their blinds on virtually every hand anyway. But by coming to an agreement, you're disadvantaging the active players at other tables. In a tournament with a normal payout structure, it's generally to a player's advantage if his opponents' stacks are as uneven as possible (ideally to the extent that one of them has all the chips so that you're guaranteed second place). By sharing the blinds, you're effectively colluding to keep your two stacks evenly balanced.

[GaF]

Re: Collusion? Depending on the tournament and the format and the prizes, I'll usually take a lone active player on in an attempt to get a table full of sit outs to myself and give meself a significantly increased chance of winning than by sharing blinds with someone else

[spannerjago]

Re: Collusion? I think these sites need to deal with the sit-outs in some way rather than let them just sit there until they are out. They should post as normal for maybe 2 levels but then be either forced to post a blind every hand or just removed. This is especially needed in freerolls. I've sat in tourneys on tables of sitouts for an hour just hitting the raise button. It's dull and I'd rather play poker than be sharing blinds or just stealing them. Of course sharing the blinds is collusion but if the sites aren't worried about sit-outs filling their tourneys then they have to expect it to happen.

[ColU_FC]

Re: Collusion?

I take it when you made the agreement col it was not a typed agreement rather an individual choice not to risk your chips against each other

It was typed.

[ColU_FC]

Re: Collusion? Thank you chaps, I've read your responses with interest.

My real reason for starting this thread was I have some fairly strong views on the recent debate over Reeshah's tactics in Sunday's eSport game and I was going to post them until I pulled myself up short and remembered the biblical quote "let him without sin cast the first stone".

I have now decided I am not "without sin" and thus will not criticise others.

[GB80]

Re: Collusion? I've never ever shared when there have only been 2 players there. While it's probably more sensible to do it, I always try and knock the other player out. Then I can take the lot.

[Guppie]

Re: Collusion? So gaz are you saying that there isnt a situation you would do that even if the other player has a large chipstack and you are on a par with the other sitouts and he "silently" offers to share blinds to take you through also?

[GB80]

Re: Collusion?

So gaz are you saying that there isnt a situation you would do that even if the other player has a large chipstack and you are on a par with the other sitouts and he "silently" offers to share blinds to take you through also?

I doubt it, no. In an e-sport game recently me and Gaf were the only players at the table, and I was down to about 500 I think at 1 point. While it was never offered, I wouldn't have taken it anyway. I came back, and took most of the chips myself as Gaf was hanging on in the end. If you have this situation, the blinds would be small enough so there should be a decent amount of play anyway, plus if you're in a tournament full of sit outs, the chances are that there would be a reason for that. I didn't do it in the esport league, and I can't imagine there would be a more serious tournament with 8 sit outs on a table.

[Guppie]

Re: Collusion? Interesting Gaz,although i have come across this in sat tournaments. Have to say I consider the esport league different in that it is a team event and agree with Gaf in that your team comes first and foremost and you should do whatever maximises your team scoring-however saying that i did try to make contact with 2 of the sitouts on my table but one didnt answer and the other was at work. Be an interesting debate anyway as i have played it both ways although unsuccessfully in last nights 32 red game:sad

[wurzel133]

Re: Collusion?

I think these sites need to deal with the sit-outs in some way rather than let them just sit there until they are out. They should post as normal for maybe 2 levels but then be either forced to post a blind every hand or just removed. This is especially needed in freerolls. I've sat in tourneys on tables of sitouts for an hour just hitting the raise button. It's dull and I'd rather play poker than be sharing blinds or just stealing them. Of course sharing the blinds is collusion but if the sites aren't worried about sit-outs filling their tourneys then they have to expect it to happen.

betfair used to do this when it 1st sarted you would be in a freeroll then after so long it would just pause and take the sitouts out (and in the scale of collusion i personally think its about 1/2 out of 10 )

[happyhornet]

Re: Collusion? It's a 2/10 tops. I've done it myself, though I try not to actually type it in the chatbox, more to suggest it by acts and omissions.

[JulioArca]

Re: Collusion?

Depending on the tournament and the format and the prizes' date=' I'll usually take a lone active player on in an attempt to get a table full of sit outs to myself and give meself a significantly increased chance of winning than by sharing blinds with someone else[/quote'] I can testify to this - and he was most brutal too!:cry

[GaF]

Re: Collusion? :dude I dont think in eSport league I've ever shared blinds with active players (and I dont think I would, UNLESS I felt it was to my advantage - eg my opponent had position on me - but in that scenario, they would be foolish to share blinds with me)....

[slapdash]

Re: Collusion?

:dude I dont think in eSport league I've ever shared blinds with active players (and I dont think I would, UNLESS I felt it was to my advantage - eg my opponent had position on me - but in that scenario, they would be foolish to share blinds with me)....

I'd actually argue that, even if you don't make an explicit agreement, sharing blinds when you know it's not to your advantage is unethical (very slightly ... I'd only give it 0.1/10 :D). The point is that it does slightly disadvantage the players at other tables if you don't play to knock each other out, so if sharing blinds is not to your advantage, then you're effectively soft-playing your opponent if you do it.

[GaF]

Re: Collusion?

The point is that it does slightly disadvantage the players at other tables if you don't play to knock each other out,

I cannot agree there - if I'm on the other table, then I would prefer 2 players coming across with 4,000 chips each, than one player coming across with 10,000 chips (the game will go significantly faster with only one active player)

[slapdash]

Re: Collusion?

I cannot agree there - if I'm on the other table' date=' then I would prefer 2 players coming across with 4,000 chips each, than one player coming across with 10,000 chips (the game will go significantly faster with only one active player)[/quote'] It depends on how the tables are broken up, but why would 2 players come across with only 4,000 chips each? Normally their table won't be broken up until at least one of the players or sit-outs is eliminated. And if one of the live players is eliminated while the sit-outs still have a significant number of chips, then another live player will often be moved to the table, which is likely to be to his advantage (since he's getting the opportunity to win lots of dead money from the sit-outs). Or are you specifically talking about the eSport league? I was thinking about a typical tournament.