Walking into the lion's den
Feb. 27th, 2006 09:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksIf proof be needed that the World of Gutshot has lost all contact with my own poker world (or, to be more accurate, vice versa, I took a look at the forum this morning to see what discussion there was on the multi-account criminality amongst high-stakes players and, more worryingly, the "soft-play" scandal that has just emerged.
And what comments are there on Gutshot about this? None. Bugger all. Even on The Hendon Mob, where at least a couple of threads mention the news, the conversation is muted. One has to assume that on Gutshot most of the forum contributors do not know and would not care if they did (anyone willing to pay the Gutshot's rake is clearly not going to be concerned at six accounts being run by one player sitting down in a 1,001-player MTT) while on The Hendon Mob they do know, but they still don't care.
There is another group, of course; those who do know, who do care, but are remaining very quiet indeed for reasons of self-interest. The silence on some blogs might well be deafening.
For me it is the soft-playing that is more worrying than the multiple accounts. Actually, no, it isn't the soft-playing, it is the apparent unawareness amongst some players that what they were doing was wrong.
Take this line from TillerMan, a big winner online from the UK. He is referring to a player called "Twin", who apparently attempted to set up a soft-play deal with every winning player, in high-stakes NL games, whom he could find.
It is far fetched to say I colluded with him, but you are right to say that I softplay him. I went into an agreement with him 2 years ago after we met in Las Vegas where he asked me to softplay. Never really thought it through as it doesn't negatively affect anyone else's expectation nor is it against the pokersite's rules.
However, it does sometimes give the game a bad image and might give the appearance that something untoward is going on and for that reason I won't be entering into any other softplaying arrangements in the future. It is too hard to cancel this sort of arrangement though once it has been made without getting into an awkward situation. So the best rule is just don't bother doing it period.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with softplaying all it means is that once you get heads up with someone you softplay, you both just refuse to bet and check it down. It has zero impact on anyone elses expectation because when it 3 handed or more, the game is played exactly as normal. We have both check raised each other multiple times in multi way pots. Softplaying only occurs once it is heads up. Check, check, check, check.
The emphasis is mine.
I think that it is no surprise that all three of the 'cheaters' of whom I know their history came up through the world of Magic. These are not bad people; they are not angle-shooting cheaters of the Craig variety. The only guy who appears to come out of this as seriously wonky is Twin. The others see poker as an extension of Magic, but one which can make you even more money. For this reason, the concept of ethics and rules get blurred.
Now, you might be bemused to see a relative youngster such as Tillerman, who came up through Magic, taking a line that any serious poker player would know was utter nonsense. But I would hope that, like me, you would be flabbergasted that the "public face" of Pokerstars could take a similar line:
Look at these arguments from Lee Jones. Some are from separate posts, but all are from the same 2+2 thread.
Please note that there is nothing automatically wrong with two people soft-playing each other in a cash game. [1] Indeed, it is true that softplay, in and of itself has no effect on the EV of other players. So simply finding softplay is not enough. We would have to find intent (or de facto effect) to shut out other players by two or more players who softplay each other.
[1] None of this refers to tournaments. We stop and/or punish soft-play in tournaments.
And, in another post:
The problem is this: "inappropriate soft-play" is extremely difficult to describe, and clearly identify. What might be inappropriate in one case might just be a missed check-raise in another. It's not that we don't care, but there's no point in making a rule that would almost unenforceable.
You don't need a Ph.D in poker cheating to be able to spot that, if Pokerstars seems to have no problem in stopping or punishing soft play in tournaments, then it can't be all that difficult to describe or identify.
But it's the line that there is nothing implicitly wrong with checking down after everyone else has been eliminated from the pot, that is just baffling. Jones' line is that Stars would have to find a de facto effect to shut out other players.
Duhh. I think that's what bets are often for, to shut out other players.
The argument is shot full of logical flaws. If it doesn't affect other players' EV, then why keep it a secret? Because, mate, it does affect other players' EV. Steve Fishpool walked away from the Russell Square game when one of two known "pairs" sat down who soft-played each other. If it didn't impact his EV, he certainly wouldn't walk away.
So, we have a situation where Stars admits that it can spot softplay (because it does so in tournaments) and a situation where players are implicitly colluding to the disadvantage of other players (and collusion is, I hope, expressly forbidden in Pokerstars' rules). And yet Lee Jones maintains this line. I have my own suspicions why. Jones is of the old school. He knows what goes on in high-stakes games in B&M games. Perhaps the line is "why take a stand against it when it's what goes on in many a high-stakes game in Vegas? The Bellagio does nothing about it. Why should we?"
Some of these kids seem not to think that what they were doing was collusion, that they were just being "clever". But it was collusion. And it was cheating. They just can't see it. The backstreets are littered with youngsters who thought that they could outwit the system. And I suspect that those streets might soon be even more crowded.
It will be interesting to see what other high-profile players (online and in the big game at the Bellagio) have to say about this. I suspect that, in many cases, the silence will be deafening.
And what comments are there on Gutshot about this? None. Bugger all. Even on The Hendon Mob, where at least a couple of threads mention the news, the conversation is muted. One has to assume that on Gutshot most of the forum contributors do not know and would not care if they did (anyone willing to pay the Gutshot's rake is clearly not going to be concerned at six accounts being run by one player sitting down in a 1,001-player MTT) while on The Hendon Mob they do know, but they still don't care.
There is another group, of course; those who do know, who do care, but are remaining very quiet indeed for reasons of self-interest. The silence on some blogs might well be deafening.
For me it is the soft-playing that is more worrying than the multiple accounts. Actually, no, it isn't the soft-playing, it is the apparent unawareness amongst some players that what they were doing was wrong.
Take this line from TillerMan, a big winner online from the UK. He is referring to a player called "Twin", who apparently attempted to set up a soft-play deal with every winning player, in high-stakes NL games, whom he could find.
It is far fetched to say I colluded with him, but you are right to say that I softplay him. I went into an agreement with him 2 years ago after we met in Las Vegas where he asked me to softplay. Never really thought it through as it doesn't negatively affect anyone else's expectation nor is it against the pokersite's rules.
However, it does sometimes give the game a bad image and might give the appearance that something untoward is going on and for that reason I won't be entering into any other softplaying arrangements in the future. It is too hard to cancel this sort of arrangement though once it has been made without getting into an awkward situation. So the best rule is just don't bother doing it period.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with softplaying all it means is that once you get heads up with someone you softplay, you both just refuse to bet and check it down. It has zero impact on anyone elses expectation because when it 3 handed or more, the game is played exactly as normal. We have both check raised each other multiple times in multi way pots. Softplaying only occurs once it is heads up. Check, check, check, check.
The emphasis is mine.
I think that it is no surprise that all three of the 'cheaters' of whom I know their history came up through the world of Magic. These are not bad people; they are not angle-shooting cheaters of the Craig variety. The only guy who appears to come out of this as seriously wonky is Twin. The others see poker as an extension of Magic, but one which can make you even more money. For this reason, the concept of ethics and rules get blurred.
Now, you might be bemused to see a relative youngster such as Tillerman, who came up through Magic, taking a line that any serious poker player would know was utter nonsense. But I would hope that, like me, you would be flabbergasted that the "public face" of Pokerstars could take a similar line:
Look at these arguments from Lee Jones. Some are from separate posts, but all are from the same 2+2 thread.
Please note that there is nothing automatically wrong with two people soft-playing each other in a cash game. [1] Indeed, it is true that softplay, in and of itself has no effect on the EV of other players. So simply finding softplay is not enough. We would have to find intent (or de facto effect) to shut out other players by two or more players who softplay each other.
[1] None of this refers to tournaments. We stop and/or punish soft-play in tournaments.
And, in another post:
The problem is this: "inappropriate soft-play" is extremely difficult to describe, and clearly identify. What might be inappropriate in one case might just be a missed check-raise in another. It's not that we don't care, but there's no point in making a rule that would almost unenforceable.
You don't need a Ph.D in poker cheating to be able to spot that, if Pokerstars seems to have no problem in stopping or punishing soft play in tournaments, then it can't be all that difficult to describe or identify.
But it's the line that there is nothing implicitly wrong with checking down after everyone else has been eliminated from the pot, that is just baffling. Jones' line is that Stars would have to find a de facto effect to shut out other players.
Duhh. I think that's what bets are often for, to shut out other players.
The argument is shot full of logical flaws. If it doesn't affect other players' EV, then why keep it a secret? Because, mate, it does affect other players' EV. Steve Fishpool walked away from the Russell Square game when one of two known "pairs" sat down who soft-played each other. If it didn't impact his EV, he certainly wouldn't walk away.
So, we have a situation where Stars admits that it can spot softplay (because it does so in tournaments) and a situation where players are implicitly colluding to the disadvantage of other players (and collusion is, I hope, expressly forbidden in Pokerstars' rules). And yet Lee Jones maintains this line. I have my own suspicions why. Jones is of the old school. He knows what goes on in high-stakes games in B&M games. Perhaps the line is "why take a stand against it when it's what goes on in many a high-stakes game in Vegas? The Bellagio does nothing about it. Why should we?"
Some of these kids seem not to think that what they were doing was collusion, that they were just being "clever". But it was collusion. And it was cheating. They just can't see it. The backstreets are littered with youngsters who thought that they could outwit the system. And I suspect that those streets might soon be even more crowded.
It will be interesting to see what other high-profile players (online and in the big game at the Bellagio) have to say about this. I suspect that, in many cases, the silence will be deafening.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:29 am (UTC)Then there is also the fact that in a three way pot against two people who soft play heads up, the innocent third party might fold on one betting round because he infers that the other two must have strong hands given that they are betting strongly and must therefore be prepared to go down the the felt with their holdings on the later streets, unaware that no such betting will actually take place once it's heads up.
Other reasons?
DY
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 11:03 am (UTC)These agreements reduce variance and therefore reduce required bankroll.
The only other major point that you don't mention is that having these kinds of agreements in place online makes it much easier to play more tables. In effect you don't have to do any thinking against other "tough" players when you are heads up, giving you more time to extract the maximum from the weaker players with whom you have no such agreement.
The implicit collusion works in this kind of unspoken way. When it's three-way, Soft-player 1 says to himself "hmm, soft-player 2 has a hand, obviously, but I think that mine is better than his. I'm going to put in a raise". Innocent alone player in the middle then folds, because he has a marginal hand and is worried about a reraise. Soft player 2 calls and the hand is checked down.
Scenario 2: Innocent alone player calls the raise. Soft player 2 now says "Hmm, Soft player 1 has a hand, but I think that I am better, I'm going to raise back". Soft player 1 says to himself "hmm, Soft player 2 has a better chance of beating innocent alone player than I do. I'm out of here."
Scenario 3: Innocent Alone player calls the raise. Soft player 2 says to himself "Hmm, soft-player 1 is probably better than me. I'm out of here".
You rarely get scenario 4, where softplayer 2 calls the bet from softplayer 1 and from innocent alone. He either raises or he folds. Innocent Alone is horrifically disadvantaged.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 11:29 am (UTC)but for all of the above, the reason most online players lose has nothing to do with cheating. It's that they just can't play. I've been playing a lot of $20\40 on Pokerineurope (=VC) this last fortnight and it's remarkable how many people, even at this level, defend their blinds with any two cards or call for inside straights heads-up out of position etc.
In the no-limit cash games I've played, I am increasingly aware that the reason I've not made as much as I should have done is that I've hitherto given my opponents credit for a level of thought that they just didn't possess. Proceeding on the basis that they are total morons has proved to be much more profitable.
DY
It's not variance or cheating...
Date: 2006-02-27 11:58 am (UTC)On defending the blinds. This is such a difficult area and it's one I'm really trying to concentrate on. There are some players (presumably not you!) against whom you should almost always defend your blind -- check-raising them if you hit anything on the flop. Against many more players, you almost always defend if they raise first-in in either cut-off or on the button. However, against some players, with less adaptive raising standards, a raise first-in on the button is nearly as strong as a raise first-in under-the-gun.
But blind defence is definitely an area where I am weak (particularly in the small blind -- which would seem to indicate that I am not defending it enough!).
Just looked at my stats for Party over the past three months at 2-4, where I am only just above break-even.
Of 1,500 SB hands, my VPIP is 33.86%, of which I won 33.6%, for a net minus of $1,196 (minus -0.19 BB per hundred compared with a target of -0.11).
I went to showdown 24.9% of the time and won 50% of showdowns. I have a pre-flop raise of 7.1%, and this is higher than it used to be. One of my attempted cures was to raise more often and to try to take down pots uncontested, rather than limp with something like AJo.
It's a puzzling area and not really linked to this thread. I shall return to it at a later date.
PJ
Re: It's not variance or cheating...
Date: 2006-02-27 12:02 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: It's not variance or cheating...
Date: 2006-02-27 12:23 pm (UTC)Separately, I recall reading a great post on 2+2 once. I think it was by Tommy Angelo. The key message was 'fold the blinds'. He said it was the thing that made the difference between winning and losing for him. On its own, it's the thing that can make you a winning player at shorthanded action. If your opponents continually defend with 74o and you don't, that's an edge right then and there.
DY
Re: It's not variance or cheating...
Date: 2006-02-27 01:21 pm (UTC)Suppose, for example, that your opponent always raised on the button if he was first in, no matter what he held. In this extreme scenario, a defence with 74o is correct and a reraise is right with about 25% of hands (I'm kind of guessing that percentage, btw. Like I say, my blinds play needs work).
Now, suppose he only raised first in on the button with grade 1 or grade 2 hands? In this case, defending with 74o is suicide.
Clearly, 99% of cases are far more blurred than this. You have incomplete information here there and everywhere.
Angelo's post is a good post for habitual blind defenders, but it is only part of the story. Blind defence is a game of continual adaptation to prevailing mores.
Like, as if I know anything about it.
PJ
Re: It's not variance or cheating...
Date: 2006-02-27 01:26 pm (UTC)But, if you want really primitive software where note-taking is impossible and hand-histories are laugyhable, I must recommend Virgin and Boss Media...
Pete
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 03:04 pm (UTC)Oh my goodness, yes. I think I may (repeat "may") just be coming out of a four- or five-month flat spell, profit-wise that may have been caused by improving just enough that I started crediting the opposition with a similar or greater degree of expertise. I'm slowly coming to the realisation that this was quite probably just plain wrong. I'm now working on recognising that I'm probably not the worst player at the table and focusing on working out who are. After all, it's all pretty low stakes stuff: there should be bad players there. Having said that, I'll probably get slaughtered now.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-28 01:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 01:08 pm (UTC)Oh, I've just realized. There aren't. "
Oh right, now I get it :-)
Andy.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 01:23 pm (UTC)Anyone want to bet that the number of entrants for this Sunday tournament falls off significantly next week?
PJ
Soft play in cash
Date: 2006-02-27 02:49 pm (UTC)In cash games, there is an implied threat to consider when entering a multi way pot with 2 known soft-players that you may become whip-sawed, meat-in-the-sandwich, whatever you want to call it.
For example, suppose you play in your local casino game and you are first to speak with 2 other players, lets call them "husband" and "wife" for the sake of argument. You bet out, "husband mini-raises" and then wife "mini-raises" - now what? You can accept 2-1 against the softplay and shovel it in (and you may not get 2-1 if "wife" takes the hint from "husband's" all in and thunderous glare and folds)or you can get out of the way with a less than premium hand. "Husband" and "wife" then check it down in the dark and split your blindes/antes/lead at the pot. Every one else nods sagely at the table, apparently completely understanding that it would be unreasonable to expect one of them to attack the other because it is the same bankroll after all. Nuts. You have a real fear that you could get back-raised and shut out by a player that is immune to losing to the third player, so can get fancy with plenty of hands that would otherwise be out of line if they choose to.
And that, IMHO, is an unfair advantage to give away as a direct result of soft play at a cash table.
Re: Soft play in cash
Date: 2006-02-27 05:29 pm (UTC)If A and C are soft players then A may will be more inclined to bet out on a draw with B and C to act after him - because B is in a tough spot and will often fold medium hands. Usually A will be put off doing this because he realises that even if B folds C might have a hand and raise him out or make it more costly to pay for his draw over the streets than a simple check-call.
chaos
Re: Soft play in cash
Date: 2006-02-27 07:50 pm (UTC)taking it slightly off-topic, I have often thought the same misgivings might apply in the bigger US games where the other 2 potential participants are know to run it twice once you are out of the way. A couple of raises go in, you take evasive action and a shitty flush draw and bottom two pair win one run each and split your contribution. You probably had a better made hand or a better draw, but without being sure which way the others are going and without being sure you are best in the direction you actually are going, a fold is likely. If the other 2 know this, the raises go in with a wider variety of hands than perhaps would otherwise be merited?
Simon.
Re: Running it through twice
Date: 2006-02-27 08:11 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: Running it through twice
Date: 2006-02-27 09:23 pm (UTC)However, the reduced volatility certainly makes the soft-play set-up appealing, as Simon is suggesting. One of the downsides, I would guess, is that you might feel you're the guy whose always getting the worst of it - from a pure luck perspective. By double-running it's naturally going to even out more.
On the tournament side, obviously, an implicit soft-playing agreement is absolutely correct in many instances. Because, quite simly, two players can put their chips in HU and both be -EV.
Re: Running it through twice
Date: 2006-02-27 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 06:10 pm (UTC)Boggie
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 06:50 pm (UTC)PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 02:49 pm (UTC)I'm not sure what is worse:
1. The high-level players that aren't saying anything because they are involved -OR-
2. The high level players that have said that they know who is involved, but aren't saying anything because they aren't snitches.
Search and ye shall find
Date: 2006-02-27 03:18 pm (UTC)http://www.gutshot.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4273&highlight=multiple
Re: Search and ye shall find
Date: 2006-02-27 03:51 pm (UTC)PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 06:20 pm (UTC)But this thing is quite likely to be picked up by the US media and be used as a beating stick by the anti-online brigade. Then it will be a matter of explaining things to the regular media and to the regular players.
Not something to look foreward to, I fear.
Pete
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 06:49 pm (UTC)Since having divorced myself from the recreational poker blogging community, my blog has almost no traffic (neither LJ nor blogger). So my expose on the scandal would be of limited readership.
Fortunately, every well-read blog out there has had something to say about it, so the word has definitely be spread. Where I might get 200 readers on a good day, some of these guys are getting more than 2000 every day.
An outsider's view
Date: 2006-02-28 05:41 am (UTC)-- Jonathan
Re: An outsider's view
Date: 2006-02-28 01:30 pm (UTC)Re: An outsider's view
Date: 2006-02-28 02:42 pm (UTC)I removed a snippet from this post because it was a) tasteless and b) a total over-reaction. I don't know what I was thinking.
Andy.