What do you do in this situation as the third player? (2 Viewers)

[Quad Johnson]

Interesting spot. On Monday night, Kahle Burns found himself down to the final 3 of the $5,000 MSPT Venetian against Alex Foxen and Kristen Bicknell, a couple, that offered the man an equal 3 way chop to which he declined and opted to play it out.

After play proceeded for hours, spectators began to suspect soft playing between the couple, in particular a hand with AA vs JJ. The couple weighed in after the fact and said due to them talking so much strategy together, the hand wasn't slow playing but merely knowing each other's play well enough to know what they would do with specific holdings in certain spots (in this case, JJ raised and AA 3-bet from the BB).

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2018...en-bicknell-take-it-easy-on-each-ot-31174.htm

People are complaining but in all honesty, I don't see how you "prevent" this from happening. It was a MTT, they weren't put at a table together until the final table. Friends constantly swap pieces of each other for tournaments. I don't see how this couple playing together is any different. So long as there's not some obvious suspicious behavior going on (checking all three streets, obvious chip dumping, etc.), I don't see what could or should be done.

What are your thoughts? Do you think measures should be in place for this type of situation when it occurs? Would you have taken the chop or opted to play it out?

I commend him for wanting to play it out for the win. He definitely has guts.

 

[Perthmike]

The guy should have chopped for sure. I don’t see how you’d play your spouse in a 3 way game when so much cash is on the line and not soft play.

 

[Quad Johnson]

The guy should have chopped for sure. I don’t see how you’d play your spouse in a 3 way game when so much cash is on the line and not soft play.

I agree, I would have taken the chop in the same spot.

 

[upNdown]

Pretty stupid to not take the chop in that situation.
I hate playing with couples at the same table. And the better players they are, the more likely it is that their relationship will affect their play, intentional or not.

 

[Coyote]

Totally agree that it's ridiculous to have couples play at the same table, in any situation other than micro-stake social-fun-drunk game (where the husband will shout "woman, the mortgage!" when the wife shoves the equivalent of $3, but he will still call).
An option for a little bit more serious games might be to allow couples play for the same stack, on the same seat, one at a time, following the "one stack per household" rule.

 

[Quad Johnson]

Totally agree that it's ridiculous to have couples play at the same table, in any situation other than micro-stake social-fun-drunk game (where the husband will shout "woman, the mortgage!" when the wife shoves the equivalent of $3, but he will still call).
An option for a little bit more serious games might be to allow couples play for the same stack, on the same seat, one at a time, following the "one stack per household" rule.

But again, what can you do though? If it were a one table tourney, I might take issue. However the field, according to their website, was 178 players and they weren't put at a table together until the FT.

I don't see how they wouldn't soft play each other and I agree, I don't like couples at the same table for the same reasons but what do you do?

After doing some reading, this apparently isn't the first time they've final tabled together. If this couple manage to keep final tabling decent events, I wonder if there will be a response in the way of measures put into place for the future.

 

[upNdown]

There's nothing you can do aside from accepting the chop and being grateful one was offered.
Seems to me that soft play is impossible to prove. You could build a case against them with hole card cams, but how often do you come across a tournament with those?

 

[Poker Zombie]

@Mrs Poker Zombie and I have been lightly accused by opponents of colluding/soft play in casino play, but it doesn't happen. Will I play my cards differently vs the Mrs than I would against anybody else? Most likely.

Why?

Because we discuss a lot of strategy. We play heads up at home maybe once or twice a month, and for real (unshared) money (poker isn't poker without real gains/loss opportunities), and discuss how and why we played difficult hands. We often fold face up and reveal ranges. You aren't ever going to get that much information from any other poker player.

I'm not going to "call to see what she has" when I have a pretty solid idea. I'm not going to 3-bet Jacks when I "know" she has something better.

That's not colluding. When it's 3 players, you're playing an opponent that can read 50% of their opponents. While I'm only a mediocre player at a 10 player table, my short game is much better, and my short game vs Mrs Zombie (and her game vs me) is much, much better. The loser may suspect funny buisness, but in all honesty that player is just facing 2 vastly superior opponents when we are short handed.

To date, we have swept 2 casino tournaments, 1-2. Once, we offered a chop at the final 3 because we were about to return from break and the blinds were short-stacking all of us, so it is the same (equitable) chop anyone here would have offered. Once we played it to the finish (and that included for 1st). Anyone could have watched us and seen our play HU was the same as our play 3-player (my range doesn't vary greatly 2-3 player).

So yeah, if a couple offers you a chop, they are doing you a massive favor, because you are probably the weakest player at the table.

By the way... The same person that may accuse me of soft-playing Mrs Zombie is the same person that is going to claim I chip-dumped if she stacks me.

 

[Quad Johnson]

By the way... The same person that may accuse me of soft-playing Mrs Zombie is the same person that is going to claim I chip-dumped if she stacks me.

I didn't even think about that. I guess as the couple, you can't catch a break in this situation either when trying to play legit.

 

[upNdown]

So yeah, if a couple offers you a chop, they are doing you a massive favor, because you are probably the weakest player at the table.

Sure, of course you're the weakest player when it's two against one.
You can say it's not colluding and you can say it's not soft play, and I guess I believe that YOU believe it. But regardless of what you call it, it amounts to the same thing.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Sure, of course you're the weakest player when it's two against one.

It's not two against one. It's everyone for themselves. Two of those players have distinct reads that the 3rd player simply does not have. If colluding is two players playing optimal poker, then I guess that does amount to the same thing.

But if they were colluding, why would they ever offer a chop, in a casino typical, heavy-top-end poker tournament?

 

[upNdown]

So they can say “we weren’t colluding; we offered him a chop.”
Because its unintentional colluding but they know they’re doing it.
Because they’re decent people.
I’m not suggesting that that couple, or you and your wife, or any poker couple are cheaters. I’m just saying that when you add up the knowledge of each other’s games, the shared financial interests, and the mutual affection, there’s no way a couple is playing against each other as hard as they are against everybody else.

 

[Poker Zombie]

So they can say “we weren’t colluding; we offered him a chop.”
Because its unintentional colluding but they know they’re doing it.
Because they’re decent people.
I’m not suggesting that that couple, or you and your wife, or any poker couple are cheaters. I’m just saying that when you add up the knowledge of each other’s games, the shared financial interests, and the mutual affection, there’s no way a couple is playing against each other as hard as they are against everybody else.

Shared financial interests? Chip dumping would make more sense, 3-way with big 1st place money on the line. If you were talking about two short stacks approaching the bubble where one doubling the other was still unlikely to move them up the pay table, then you might have a valid argument, but top 3 of a massive tournament - you're tilting at windmills.

Mutual affection? If you're playing in a card room with a buddy, isn't there a mutual affection there too? Do you play less hard vs a buddy than you would a stranger?

If anything, vs Mrs Zombie I play an even harder game vs each other. I am digging deeper into each hand. I tank longer vs her 3-bet than I would anyone else, because there is information that I have vs her, and I'm going to use it.

I can't speak for any other couples. I have seen soft-play before with couples, so yes, it does happen. But couples playing in the same tournament isn't implicit evidence of colluding. Two buddies going to Vegas with 50% of each other are your bigger threat, because you might not know they're together.

But even then, just because they have 50% of each other does not mean they're colluding.

 

[upNdown]

Mutual affection? If you're playing in a card room with a buddy, isn't there a mutual affection there too? Do you play less hard vs a buddy than you would a stranger?

Yes. In a tournament where we share a piece of each other, and we end up at the same table? Yes, absolutely. There’s no actual collusion, but yeah, we avoid each other when there’s no reason not to. No different than couples. Except no smooches.

 

[Lemonzest]

yeah if I final table with people that know each other I chop asap.

 

[BGinGA]

I’m just saying that when you add up the knowledge of each other’s games, the shared financial interests, and the mutual affection, there’s no way a couple is playing against each other as hard as they are against everybody else.

Maybe not playing against each other as hard..... but instead playing against each other optimally.

If it is in my best interest to come after you -- regardless of our personal relationship, if any -- in an optimal way based on my knowledge of you as a player, vs coming after you "hard", I'd be an idiot to play it any other way.

You can say the couple has an advantage (from more knoweldge of their partner's style), but you can't criticize how they play due to that knowledge.

It's the same for members of poker study groups, or even just two guys who have played together in the same home game for years. They have knoweldge that the third wheel player just doesn't have, and can be expected to play differently against each other than if up against a random stranger. Doesn't make it wrong; just makes it smart play.

 

[DrStrange]

Anytime two players have prior experience with each other, they individually have an advantage over a stranger. There isn't any reason to say this is cheating or unethical. It is just the nature of having an information edge leads to a practical advantage at the table.

Players who have a joint financial situation, be that as a couple sharing finances or players who have "sold" parts of their prize money to each other, do present a potential problem. This situation could lead to soft play or chip dumping.

One thing I note in this thread is a limited discussion about the benefits of chip dumping vs soft play. @Poker Zombie notes that most payout structures would benefit from a chip dumping strategy vs a soft play form of collusion. I think a careful study of "in the money" profit optimization would be needed to correctly figure which method(s) of collusion maximize the players' financial benefit. However, just the observation that collectively we don't know how best to cheat is a fairly good indication that playing vs couples isn't the cheating minefield that it might appear to be.

Yes, the couple does have an edge in a three way final table due to better villain reads. That doesn't mean their better results are a result of unethical play. -=- DrStrange

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I saw Doug Polk's take on this last night, which included the AA vs JJ hand. While I don't know enough about the specifics of this situation to judge, I'd agree with previous posters: in general couples (especially those who play a lot a la PZ and Mrs. PZ) have an inherent advantage, and their play against each other may look a little fishy for that reason.

Because its unintentional colluding but they know they’re doing it.

By definition, collusion is intentional.

 

[upNdown]

By definition, collusion is intentional.

True. I should have said soft play. But it’s really a distinction without a difference. By definition, collusion requires an agreement. Even if those two didn’t make an explicit agreement to play each other soft until they got rid of the third guy, if that was their intention (and I think based on that JJ AA hand, it clearly was) then it amounts to the same thing.
I watched Doug’s video last night too, and I agree with him. It wasn’t right, but what can you do about it?

 

[Mojo1312]

One thing that caught my attention is this little caveat: While chopping was allowed – provided they left 10% of the remaining prize pool on the table per Venetian rules – Burns did decline to talk numbers both times Bicknell suggested the idea.

Does this mean players can chop 90% of the remaining prize pool, but have to play for the rest?

This may have influenced Burns decision.

 

[trigs]

Does this mean players can chop 90% of the remaining prize pool, but have to play for the rest?

Yes.

 

[Gobbs]

After reviewing how the hand was played, it really didn't seem unreasonable to me given the circumstances. I don't know what kind of play led up to the circumstances, but Foxen and Bicknell both, if I read it right, had a rather large chip lead on Burns at the time. That alone makes it more likely the two are going to play it a little light. I thought the flop and turn bet-sizing was a bit small, but not unreasonably low given that both players, especially Bicknell, probably wanted to keep the pot a bit low to maintain a decent-sized chip lead on Burns.

All told, if they were playing soft, I have, unfortunately, seen a lot worse examples of it.

I've also seen many examples when a spouse took particular joy in knocking out their significant other. (I hate it when Mrs. Gobbs does that to me!!!!!)

 

[Mesnik44]

I hate playing with couples at the same table. And the better players they are, the more likely it is that their relationship will affect their play, intentional or not.

We have 3 couples that play in my league; a couple of friends, my wife and I, and @Gear and @Wifey .

Some of the bloodiest battles have been between @Gear and @Wifey . If anyone ever questions collusion at my game, I ask them to watch @Gear and @Wifey , there is never any soft play, and there is always lots of carnage.

It actually pisses me off when others think any different of the 3 couples in my league, not that it happens a lot.

 

[trigs]

My gf has only played one tournament with me ever (I more or less forced her to come play and I had to pay her buy-in). It was only a 3 table tournament and we got randomly seated at the same table right off the bat. A couple people made some joking comments about how the two of us better not be teaming up but there was nothing to worry about as I busted crazy early straight vs flush - not that there would have been issues anyway. I don't soft play for anyone - screw them, they can let me win instead if they feel so inclined.

For the record, she ended up final tabling and finishing in the money in 4th - I didn't get a penny of that cash.

 

[upNdown]

We have 3 couples that play in my league; a couple of friends, my wife and I, and @Gear and @Wifey .

Some of the bloodiest battles have been between @Gear and @Wifey . If anyone ever questions collusion at my game, I ask them to watch @Gear and @Wifey , there is never any slow play, and there is always lots of carnage.

It actually pisses me off when others think any different of the 3 couples in my league, not that it happens a lot.

Home games are very different in my mind. I wouldn’t worry about it there unless I had reason to. I was talking about casino tournaments.

And though I’ve never played home games with couples, I’ve heard some horror stories.
You coupled players get defensive about it and I’m sure it’s no fun being scrutinized or accused, but my response to your frustration with the scrutiny is the same as my response to my frustration with actual couples collusion - there’s not much you can do about it.

 

[Mojo1312]

Yes.

Well then, there was more on the line than a simple three way split. Basically, Burns would have guaranteed himself second place money with a chance at winning an additional $55,900.

He may have detected weakness in one of his opponents abilities and opted to wait for the next player to bust out before striking a deal, thus guaranteeing himself an additional 30K and a heads up match for another $44K.

IMO, this is much ado about nothing. Kahle Burns is a pro with a ton of experience. He knew the score and decided to play it through. Slow playing three handed has its advantages because you are guaranteed to cash out in two of the three remaining spots. On the other hand, they are slow playing against a skilled opponent and the clock. Either partner in this situation can potentially find themselves at risk if they slow play for too long.

It is actually in the couple's interest to strike a deal, considering Kahle has the most to gain percentage wise by playing it out.

 

[Poker Zombie]

It is actually in the couple's interest to strike a deal, considering Kahle has the most to gain percentage wise by playing it out.

I disagree, based on ICM. If they offered an equal chop, even though they both dominated Kahle 3:1, they were gifting him a huge +EV situation. Couple or not, if I'm at that big of a disadvantage and you offer me an equal share of the prize pool, I will gladly accept and bid you good day.

 

[Quad Johnson]

I disagree, based on ICM. If they offered an equal chop, even though they both dominated Kahle 3:1, they were gifting him a huge +EV situation. Couple or not, if I'm at that big of a disadvantage and you offer me an equal share of the prize pool, I will gladly accept and bid you good day.

QFE

I'm not even considering playing it out here.

 

[Coyote]

A fascinating case study would be to have 4 couples play at the same table, with hole card cameras.
I wouldn't want to be the 9th -single- player at that table, though

 

[Poker Zombie]

A fascinating case study would be to have 4 couples play at the same table, with hole card cameras.
I wouldn't want to be the 9th -single- player at that table, though

Better yet, against a man with 8 wives.

Maybe that's why they don't have card rooms in Utah. :coffee: