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}
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