Collusion and Chip Dumping

Sorry my friend, but whatever stage of a tournament you go soft on a friend, they could go all in with your donation on the next hand and take someone else out! How would you feel if after a couple more hands, that person was you? :innocent:

1 Like

Is too!

(Monty Python skit)

M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can’t!

M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn’t!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn’t just contradiction.

O: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn’t just saying ‘no it isn’t’.

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn’t!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn’t!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it ISN’T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

O: It is NOT!

M: It is!

2 Likes

I agree I could have stated that better.

For ‘Bad’, read This is going to be treated as against the rules and moderation will ensue
For ‘Not so bad’, read This situation will be dealt with according to what we think was the intent of the players and the damage they actually caused.

1 Like

This can be known as implicit collusion which means it is in everyones best interest to give the all-in the best chance of getting eliminated.

It is widely accepted as legitimate play if all participants are independent, but if somebody makes a verbal request or give coaching to the other players, it would/should get punished.

4 Likes

I agree with Grapevine here, collusion is collusion and chip dumping or soft playing tournament chips is still technically breaking rules. Just because it is the first hand of a 200 player MTT does not matter if you choose to give a Friend a second tournament life but would try to end the tournament life of a Foe

3 Likes

When I hear “implicit collusion,” I think of it in terms of Morton’s theorem, but I get your point. I agree that it’s just basic strategy.

Thanks for clarifying the other point too.

Is this a MTT or a SnG?
I am guessing it was SnG
I think Y has a good point in either case.

If it were a 6 max SnG it would be easy to wonder if you and X entered it deliberately to play together and other SnG you played might be reviewed to see how often this happens and if it ever happens the other way around, where M folds because X is the low stack.
Because Y called you out on it, I hope X got the message and it never happens again.
I see this quite often on Replay (to be clear, not from Maya !!) and the majority of the time it is naïve and players quickly realise it is not good etiquette.

1 Like

Thanks for clarifying Rob. It was actually a MTT (I very rarely play SnG’s) and yes I believe X got the message :slight_smile:
He never tried it again after that lol.

1 Like

Hi Randy,

I don’t think there is anything wrong with you doing this but there are good reasons for not doing it

  • If you do it regularly, you are signalling you have a decent hand when you don’t do it
  • You give the players who act after you an advantage over those who checked before because they have more information about everyone in the pot
  • You are costing yourself chips because you might win some hands when your trash is better than everyone elses trash
3 Likes

I see your point, thanks :wink:

Site Terms of Service, Tournament rules:

1 Like

Thank you @puggywug for posting these.

The key words regarding soft play are “deemed unethical by Replay in its sole discretion”. That’s a grey area and does not classify soft play strictly as a violation, and the point of this whole topic is to shed the light on common situations that are confusing. Soft play is therefore investigated and punished if deemed unethical. It doesn’t classify it as collusion.

@Chasetheriver explained it clearly:

If I understand it correctly, that’s what “its sole discretion” means. Such scenarios need to be investigated and reviewed before deciding whether they should be classified as punishable or forgivable.

1 Like

A good answer was already given but I’ll add to it.
As long as an individual is acting in his own self-interest, it is legit. The fact that the other potential bettors have the same self-interest is immaterial.
The moment an individual acts against his self-interest to help another, that is a no-no.

4 Likes

Well said.

1 Like

You also need a pattern to establish it, unless someone is being blatant. Doing something one time isn’t significant. People do play against their interest, to some degree. No one plays GTO poker perfectly.

1 Like

Well, per MSNBC collusion is hard to prove…

6 Likes

This question is from a tournament situation.
Blinds are 500/1000 with a 100 ante. Sb and Bb are moderator/player rep
BB only has 580 chips so is all-in
Sb has blind &ante 600 chips already in the pot so a call is a no brainer but Sb folds giving his bud a boost to 1760.
1 player at the table called them out over it and the mod replied I’m not betting 2 3
If he didn’t know he was already invested or was cheating we don’t need that moderator

3 Likes

Since you didn’t provide the hand it’s hard to tell but from your description it sounds like she/he didn’t want to bet the other 500 to make the call (1000+100) on their 2 3 and simply folded…am I missing something?

1 Like

Yes Grandy, He already had 600 chips against the BB’s 580 and it’s only the 2 of them. so even if Sb called adding another 500 chips, they will be returned to him as a side pot if he loses the hand, because he’s up against 580 chips only. So there’s nothing to lose for him if he calls.

2 Likes

Hi,

wasn’t that hand looked at last year?

A 150K Daily Freeroll with 27 players left
First place 32,250 chips, everyone is guaranteed 1,500

sb has 5,580 chips, bb has 580 chips
Blinds are 500/1000 with ante 100, so bb is all-in before the deal.

Everyone folded round to the sb who folded, even though they had already covered the Big blinds bet.

The software is largely to blame because we offer the option to fold in this situation, but the players involved were not colluding.

2 Likes