Tourney Strat: Super short in BB on stone bubble of satellite (2 Viewers)

[Jimulacrum]

If hero is auto all in the next hand, and its hand-for-hand, any smart players at other tables are going to fold pretty much all their holdings to allow the .01 BB person to hang themselves. The other table's BB might even get a walk...

Best to count on the hero to bust than risk putting chips at risk.

Unless each table has a scout checking out the other tables and updating all of the players at their respective tables, I don't see this being much of an issue. But it is possible, and it raises an interesting question.

[DERAIL]

If that is happening at all—in fact, if even one player says to one other player, "We should fold regardless of our cards because the guy on the other table is about to bust," I'd have a hard time calling it anything but collusion, and it would be an ugly spot to have to rule on.

How do you penalize collusion when the outcome of the collusion is that all the involved players decide to fold everything? Obviously a sit-out penalty is meaningless, but you can't force them to bet either. The only effective penalty seems like DQing the active colluder (the guy who said something), which would lock up the seat for Hero.

Anything other than that doesn't actually address Hero's stolen EV, allowing the collusion to succeed at no cost. But if there's more than one colluding player, what do you do, DQ them all and award the overage in seats to the most recently busted players?

Ugh. Glad I've never had to actually make this decision, though I would personally revel a little in DQing everyone who actively participated in the collusion (because fuck cheaters).

I spend an undue amount of time in Live Casino Poker on 2+2, so these questions are always on my mind.

 

[Trihonda]

I don't think it necessarily rises to the level of collusion... But I've been in big sattys, and near the bubble, I think many people are cognizant of people's stack sizes. And I've seen ppl look over at the next table, and report back that two dudes are sitting on 1bb each... There was no mention of taking a certain action, or working together, but the message was received. Just be patient, don't do anything stupid. Is this collusion?

I played one where there were people perilously short stacked, and you had a dufus (on the bubble) with AA and 8BB shove into a table where 7 of the players were sitting on 200-300bbs. Um, 7 callers, aces cracked. for sure the guy with 1bb at the other table was jumping for joy when he survived and snagged a $1200 ME seat.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I don't think it necessarily rises to the level of collusion... But I've been in big sattys, and near the bubble, I think many people are cognizant of people's stack sizes. And I've seen ppl look over at the next table, and report back that two dudes are sitting on 1bb each... There was no mention of taking a certain action, or working together, but the message was received. Just be patient, don't do anything stupid. Is this collusion?

I played one where there were people perilously short stacked, and you had a dufus (on the bubble) with AA and 8BB shove into a table where 7 of the players were sitting on 200-300bbs. Um, 7 callers, aces cracked. for sure the guy with 1bb at the other table was jumping for joy when he survived and snagged a $1200 ME seat.

If all players in the tournament are entitled to know stack sizes, positions, etc. at the other tables, then it's fair for players to share that information. I wouldn't consider that collusion.

It would become collusion as soon as a player says something like "Just gotta wait out this one guy," "No sense in doing anything crazy," or anything else designed to clue other players into the strategy. It's the equivalent of a short stack getting all-in multi-way on the bubble, and the remaining players in the pot openly tell or signal each other to just check it down. Poker is not a team game. (And IMO, the players in the check-down situation should be penalized severely.)

There's one thing you're missing, by the way. A truly skilled player wouldn't share this information with anyone. He'd let as many people as possible remain ignorant of the stack sizes (or lie about it, if he's that sort). He wins a seat if someone busts at his table too. He loses equity by helping out the players at his own table.

 

[BGinGA]

I've seen ppl look over at the next table, and report back that two dudes are sitting on 1bb each... There was no mention of taking a certain action, or working together, but the message was received. Just be patient, don't do anything stupid. Is this collusion?

No. Obtaining public information, no collusion. Sharing public information, no collusion. Acting appropriately with shared public information, no collusion. Actively colluding with other players to all take the same action, collusion.

if even one player says to one other player, "We should fold regardless of our cards because the guy on the other table is about to bust," I'd have a hard time calling it anything but collusion, and it would be an ugly spot to have to rule on.

That most certainly IS collusion, and at the very least, the player should receive a warning for his behavior. If he instead said, "I plan on folding regardless of my cards because the guy on the other table is about to bust," well, that's not collusion. He is not conspiring with other players to alter the outcome.

 

[Jimulacrum]

If he instead said, "I plan on folding regardless of my cards because the guy on the other table is about to bust," well, that's not collusion. He is not conspiring with other players to alter the outcome.

"I didn't tell my associate to whack Tony on Monday morning. I just told him that it would be very convenient if Tony were to get whacked on Monday morning."

Intent matters. There is no justifiable reason why you'd openly verbalize your strategy and the reasoning behind it with other players, in such a time-sensitive spot as this, except to influence them to do the same. That's collusion too. Just because you're being awkwardly sneaky about it doesn't make it acceptable.

 

[BGinGA]

Well, not everybody who plays tournament poker is a rocket scientist, as noted by your post below. Sometimes even the smart ones have an ego that needs stroking, by reminding others how smart they think they are (even when it is disadvantageous to do so). It's not necessarily intent to coerce others to act the same way (although that could also be the case).

A truly skilled player wouldn't share this information with anyone. He'd let as many people as possible remain ignorant of the stack sizes (or lie about it, if he's that sort). He wins a seat if someone busts at his table too. He loses equity by helping out the players at his own table.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Well, not everybody who plays tournament poker is a rocket scientist, as noted by your post below. Sometimes even the smart ones have an ego that needs stroking, by reminding others how smart they think they are (even when it is disadvantageous to do so). It's not necessarily intent to coerce others to act the same way (although that could also be the case).

Fair point, but still, no one should have to play in a poker game where he has an entire table of players listening to an explanation about how to unfairly win at his expense—whether the speaker has nefarious intent or is just being a loudmouth.

Hero can never recoup his fair chance of winning if the colluders (innocent or not) aren't dealt with effectively. In situations like our hypothetical, he's just screwed with no recourse, and the people who screwed him go on to claim their full prizes as if they did nothing wrong. It's a license to break every rule in the book during endgame situations.

 

[DrStrange]

Implied collusion has lots of ways of becoming outright collusion. It is rare that I see home game hosts take action against it beyond a mild verbal caution. Truth is, a lot of players & hosts do not even understand the line between actual collusion and implied collusion. And it is hard to strike a balance that the players will understand and accept.

This hand is taking place in a professionally run casino. So the floor understands collusion and likely so does the dealer. It would be a difficult thing to walk over and DQ a player for making an inappropriate comment with no prior warning and doing so would surely create problems. The floor could easily see the matter escalate to the poker room manager {or even higher if the prize was of significant value}. I would be surprised if disqualification with no warning is the recommended penalty spelled out in the house rules. The floor is going to have to depend on "the best interest of the game" rule.

But absent disqualifying a colluder, how else can the house give the victim of collusion redress? I think it is a difficult spot for the floor. The players often aren't thinking they are committing a mortal sin, just making a comment that might even seem legitimate to them. The victim himself might not feel there is much of any difference between implied collusion and actual collusion - the end result could end up looking the same.

Guess that is why the floor gets paid the big bucks or maybe why there isn't a long line of people wanting to be the poker room floor -=- DrStrange

 

[Jimulacrum]

Implied collusion has lots of ways of becoming outright collusion. It is rare that I see home game hosts take action against it beyond a mild verbal caution. Truth is, a lot of players & hosts do not even understand the line between actual collusion and implied collusion. And it is hard to strike a balance that the players will understand and accept.

This hand is taking place in a professionally run casino. So the floor understands collusion and likely so does the dealer. It would be a difficult thing to walk over and DQ a player for making an inappropriate comment with no prior warning and doing so would surely create problems. The floor could easily see the matter escalate to the poker room manager {or even higher if the prize was of significant value}. I would be surprised if disqualification with no warning is the recommended penalty spelled out in the house rules. The floor is going to have to depend on "the best interest of the game" rule.

But absent disqualifying a colluder, how else can the house give the victim of collusion redress? I think it is a difficult spot for the floor. The players often aren't thinking they are committing a mortal sin, just making a comment that might even seem legitimate to them. The victim himself might not feel there is much of any difference between implied collusion and actual collusion - the end result could end up looking the same.

Guess that is why the floor gets paid the big bucks or maybe why there isn't a long line of people wanting to be the poker room floor -=- DrStrange

I had a thought very much like this but didn't want to keep going on and on. The main problem isn't that it's not right to 86 colluders; it's that collusion and its appropriate consequences are not made clear enough to players before it becomes a problem.

So when you do have to do something as extreme as DQing someone—like in this case, because there is literally no other action you can take that adequately undoes the unfairness—it seems like you're "coming out of nowhere" with the ruling, and people will be outraged. But like I said, handling it otherwise is a license to throw out the rules book during endgame spots like this (or more commonly, "check-down" spots like I described above).

 

[AlPresidente]

If there's an all-in and call, do the hands flip and that table plays out immediately? Or are hands flipped at all tables simultaneously?

 

[AlPresidente]

Check it down if possible, call a bet, fold if a bet gets raised I guess. More chance of winning this hand than the one after & winning this one all but gets us through; we're still vulnerable if we fold and win the next hand.

 

[rowlin]

So did Shorty McShortstack survive the bubble or what?

 

[onerand]

Check fold if bet into. An extra hand is critical. Awareness of situations at other table is important, but understandable why we don't have it on this case.

As for hand for hand, I think chip stack controls. That is, someone busts on this hand and then a shorter stack who tanks on another table busts on the same hand, the short stack will bubble.

 

[jbutler]

No idea of results for those asking. Sorry.

 

[Jimulacrum]

No idea of results for those asking. Sorry.

You're a real son of a bitch, Butler, you know that?

 

[jbutler]

You're a real son of a bitch, Butler, you know that?

Confirmed.