With my example I was thinking more about players not playing premium hands against another reg even though their knowledge about the other regs range and everything about the situation suggests they should.
Granted a 'bit' of a tangent but I don't see a huge leap from the behaviour in the opening post to the other.
Regarding the opening post. Two players have made a collaborative decision which effects the status of the game without the third players knowledge = Collusion.
The supposedly weak player may consider heads up to be te weakest point in their game and as stated before simply be waiting for the table to fill up.
With my example I was thinking more about players not playing premium hands against another reg even though their knowledge about the other regs range and everything about the situation suggests they should. Granted a 'bit' of a tangent but I don't see a huge leap from the behaviour in the opening post to the other. Regarding the opening post. Two players have made a collaborative decision which effects the status of the game without the third players knowledge = Collusion. The supposedly weak player may consider heads up to be te weakest point in their game and as stated before simply be waiting for the table to fill up. Posted by RedHouse
In Response to Re: is this ok? : Ok If a player know someone doesnt have access to the chatbox he/she can sit down at the fish in questions table, He then says, hey guys could you all please leave the table? this guy is rubbish at HU. I will do the same for you next time. In your world thats ok. In mine its collusion Ok the guy could leave the table But Will he ever get a game if they keep isolating him? An extreme example I know but whats wrong is wrong period Posted by NODEAL
As I said, no-one is forced to play HU. Your point of someone not having access to the chatbox is irrelevant. If he sat at a full ring game and everyone else left to leave him HU he would be able to spot the consequences immediately.
Similarly, if everyone who sat down left after playing one or two hands (or none at all) it would be readily apparent.
I repeat, if someone is uneasy about playing HU they should sit out. I know of many regulars who do this and have myself left games many times when I have ended up HU against a strong opponent.
redhouse no decent reg is going to start folding premium hands unless they think they're behind, but its definitely more optimum for them to play a lot more hands against the weaker players than against other regs.
In Response to Re: is this ok? : As I said, no-one is forced to play HU. Your point of someone not having access to the chatbox is irrelevant. If he sat at a full ring game and everyone else left to leave him HU he would be able to spot the consequences immediately. Similarly, if everyone who sat down left after playing one or two hands (or none at all) it would be readily apparent. I repeat, if someone is uneasy about playing HU they should sit out. I know of many regulars who do this and have myself left games many times when I have ended up HU against a strong opponent. Posted by MereNovice
As redhouse put it, two players making a collaborative decision without the other players knowlage is collusion.
the player without access to chat could stop playing but this means that they could constantly do this to him.
In Response to Re: is this ok? : As redhouse put it, two players making a collaborative decision without the other players knowlage is collusion. the player without access to chat could stop playing but this means that they could constantly do this to him. Posted by NODEAL
If a player doesn't want to play HU he should do two things:
1. Not sit down at a table with a single opponent
2. Leave when everyone else but one player at the table leaves.
It really is that simple. It's irrelevant how many times it happens.
Last Point: If you accept that the majority of players are playing for fun, then you have to accept that any 'control' over the status of the game exerted by two players without another's knowledge is unacceptable.
Evan if the decisions made do not disadvantage the so called 'fish', at the very least they could be spoiling their fun by unnecessarily having created a game that the 'fish' did not want to play.
P.S it is not always as simple as leaving the table if all are full (the newly spawned table may only have one opponent sitting at it) and the choice is either sticking with it or not playing.
P.P.S Believing in the maths of bad beats I think I have just found my 'excuse' for losing. I'm being unfairly targeted
Think we have found a fence here guys lol. Last Point: If you accept that the majority of players are playing for fun, then you have to accept that any 'control' over the status of the game exerted by two players without another's knowledge is unacceptable. Evan if the decisions made do not disadvantage the so called 'fish', at the very least they could be spoiling their fun by unnecessarily having created a game that the 'fish' did not want to play. Posted by RedHouse
Last point: That is a complete "non sequitur" and I don't have to accept it in any shape or form. :-)))
Two of you appear to find this practice worrying; no-one else seems to be concerned. I don't think that I can add anything further to this thread.
In Response to Re: is this ok? : Last point: That is a complete "non sequitur" and I don't have to accept it in any shape or form. :-))) Two of you appear to find this practice worrying; no-one else seems to be concerned. I don't think that I can add anything further to this thread. Good luck to you and enjoy your poker. Posted by MereNovice
Think that's because i'm the only fish posting but yeah nothing more to say.
In Response to Re: is this ok? : If a player doesn't want to play HU he should do two things: 1. Not sit down at a table with a single opponent 2. Leave when everyone else but one player at the table leaves. It really is that simple. It's irrelevant how many times it happens. Posted by MereNovice
no1, not sit down at a table with a single opponent.. duh I am talking about a ring game player
no2, Leave when everyone else but one player at the table leaves. Soo that leaves the door open for players to continually collaborate to isolate the player without his knowlage.
your answers only reflect what you think the player without access to chat should do And you dont address the collaborative decision of the others.
Do you think think two players collaborating to isolate a player is ok? its simple as that Yes or No?
In Response to Re: is this ok? : Last point: That is a complete "non sequitur" and I don't have to accept it in any shape or form. :-))) Two of you appear to find this practice worrying; no-one else seems to be concerned. I don't think that I can add anything further to this thread. Good luck to you and enjoy your poker. Posted by MereNovice
yeah you cant add anything to this thread unless you address the point in question, you would be better of not adding anymore because you are simply wrong
There used to be sites that didn't have HU tables (PartyPoker was one I think) and this used to happen quite frequently.... two players wanting to play HU, and sitting out / asking a player to leave, if someone else joined the table. I think that is ok.
On a site that has HU tables, there should be no need to do this.
If its a six max table, and someone asks me to leave, I would definitely stay, as it would be obvious there was some value to be had from the other player.
There used to be sites that didn't have HU tables (PartyPoker was one I think) and this used to happen quite frequently.... two players wanting to play HU, and sitting out / asking a player to leave, if someone else joined the table. I think that is ok. On a site that has HU tables, there should be no need to do this. If its a six max table, and someone asks me to leave, I would definitely stay, as it would be obvious there was some value to be had from the other player. Posted by jakally
Hey jack yeah I can see your point sir. but skypoker has a particular aspect to thier site in that people can play from thier sky set top box and cant access the chat, this means that two or more players can make a collaborative decision without the other players knowlage, the key for me is... actualy asking the other player to leave is the point at whitch .... in my book...... would be an unfair advantage.
How are they at an unfair advantage? How do you know they might not want to stay just playing the one player? Especially as most cases its when they are winning. And there is no collusion. Think your using the wrong word. Collusion would be the 2 players working together to take someones money. eg telling eachother their cards.
Also whats the difference between miniview and playing on the box. I cant see chat in mini view.
And is anyone allowed a view that is not the same as yours? If not pointless even putting it on the forum. You dont seem to what to listen to anyone elses views. You have your opionion on it. And it seems no1 can change it.
How are they at an unfair advantage? How do you know they might not want to stay just playing the one player? Especially as most cases its when they are winning. And there is no collusion. Think your using the wrong word. Collusion would be the 2 players working together to take someones money. eg telling eachother their cards. Also whats the difference between miniview and playing on the box. I cant see chat in mini view. And is anyone allowed a view that is not the same as yours? If not pointless even putting it on the forum. You dont seem to what to listen to anyone elses views. You have your opionion on it. And it seems no1 can change it. Posted by 5toneFace
Yes I do have my own opinion, I change my mind sometimes on issues, On this occassion no one has managed to answer the question rebutting my claim, they always only address the issue of the player who is unwittingly and unknowingly isolated though two or more"s collaborative agreement.
stating that the player who ends up at the table can simply sit out or stand up does not address the question.
Answering the question would be.... yes I think it is ok for two people to agree in the chat that one or the other will agree to leave on request beause in my opinion this is widely done and is generaly acceptable.
Just because the majority of posts has opposed my opinion doesnt mean I am automatically wrong, to presume that would be just plain silly.
I think skypoker should answer this question and we would all know the answer.
I can see what your saying. Theres something not right about it. But I think your making out its a big deal. When I dont think it is. Its like a footballer taking a throw in 2 yards closer than what it should be.
I think its fine for them to ask the question. And its fine for the person to say no. I dont see how the person gains any advantage on the "fish" by doing this, to make it "collusion". If you can tell me how they gain an advantage, I would happily say this is not right. But you havent so far, so I see no problem with it.
And fwiw, I wouldnt leave for anyone unless it was a close friend. If I see a "fish" with a big stack, I will be sitting with them.
I can see what your saying. Theres something not right about it. But I think your making out its a big deal. When I dont think it is. Its like a footballer taking a throw in 2 yards closer than what it should be. I think its fine for them to ask the question. And its fine for the person to say no. I dont see how the person gains any advantage on the "fish" by doing this, to make it "collusion". If you can tell me how they gain an advantage, I would happily say this is not right. But you havent so far, so I see no problem with it. And fwiw, I wouldnt leave for anyone unless it was a close friend. If I see a "fish" with a big stack, I will be sitting with them. Posted by 5toneFace
Yeah exactly where I stand, don't see any huge advantage from it, just more of a poor etiquette thing.
When I used the word collusion in an earlier post it was more the definition of the word rather than how it is more commonly used in a poker context, i.e referring to more blatant / serious examples of cheating.
Comments
Granted a 'bit' of a tangent but I don't see a huge leap from the behaviour in the opening post to the other.
Regarding the opening post. Two players have made a collaborative decision which effects the status of the game without the third players knowledge = Collusion.
The supposedly weak player may consider heads up to be te weakest point in their game and as stated before simply be waiting for the table to fill up.
Collaborative decision very well put
Similarly, if everyone who sat down left after playing one or two hands (or none at all) it would be readily apparent.
I repeat, if someone is uneasy about playing HU they should sit out. I know of many regulars who do this and have myself left games many times when I have ended up HU against a strong opponent.
the player without access to chat could stop playing but this means that they could constantly do this to him.
1. Not sit down at a table with a single opponent
2. Leave when everyone else but one player at the table leaves.
It really is that simple. It's irrelevant how many times it happens.
Think we have found a fence here guys lol.
by unnecessarily having created a game that the 'fish' did not want to play.
Last Point: If you accept that the majority of players are playing for fun, then you have to accept that any 'control' over the status of the game exerted by two players without another's knowledge is unacceptable.
Evan if the decisions made do not disadvantage the so called 'fish', at the very least they could be spoiling their fun
P.S it is not always as simple as leaving the table if all are full (the newly spawned table may only have one opponent sitting at it) and the choice is either sticking with it or not playing.
P.P.S Believing in the maths of bad beats I think I have just found my 'excuse' for losing. I'm being unfairly targeted
i think its alot worse etiquette to ask the weaker player to play HU whilst you are playing on a table with other people.
or seat dancing.
Two of you appear to find this practice worrying; no-one else seems to be concerned. I don't think that I can add anything further to this thread.
Good luck to you and enjoy your poker.
Agree to disagree sir.
Hmm I enjoyed that
no2, Leave when everyone else but one player at the table leaves. Soo that leaves the door open for players to continually collaborate to isolate the player without his knowlage.
your answers only reflect what you think the player without access to chat should do And you dont address the collaborative decision of the others.
Do you think think two players collaborating to isolate a player is ok? its simple as that Yes or No?
Can you please leave the site? hmmmmm even better leave the country lol
I cant flatter you any more ul be getting big headed...p
thx
peter
And there is no collusion. Think your using the wrong word. Collusion would be the 2 players working together to take someones money. eg telling eachother their cards.
Also whats the difference between miniview and playing on the box. I cant see chat in mini view.
And is anyone allowed a view that is not the same as yours? If not pointless even putting it on the forum. You dont seem to what to listen to anyone elses views. You have your opionion on it. And it seems no1 can change it.
stating that the player who ends up at the table can simply sit out or stand up does not address the question.
Answering the question would be.... yes I think it is ok for two people to agree in the chat that one or the other will agree to leave on request beause in my opinion this is widely done and is generaly acceptable.
Just because the majority of posts has opposed my opinion doesnt mean I am automatically wrong, to presume that would be just plain silly.
I think skypoker should answer this question and we would all know the answer.
thanks for your opinion
I think its fine for them to ask the question. And its fine for the person to say no. I dont see how the person gains any advantage on the "fish" by doing this, to make it "collusion". If you can tell me how they gain an advantage, I would happily say this is not right. But you havent so far, so I see no problem with it.
And fwiw, I wouldnt leave for anyone unless it was a close friend. If I see a "fish" with a big stack, I will be sitting with them.
When I used the word collusion in an earlier post it was more the definition of the word rather than how it is more commonly used in a poker context, i.e referring to more blatant / serious examples of cheating.