I didn’t catch that but still I would think it would be easy to fold, looking at a 32 if I wasn’t really paying attention to the hand.
Regardless, I certainly wouldn’t think it warrants accusing them of collusion.
Especially, when the volunteers are well aware of the fact they would probably lose the honor of being a volunteer if they were caught at intentional collusion/chip dumping.
It may or may not have been deliberate, but based on the circumstances and actions, it fits the definition of soft play. If continued observation reveals a pattern, then this would be a piece of evidence. If there’s no pattern, then I wouldn’t conclude that there is soft play going on based on a single hand being played in an illogical manner. People goof up sometimes. And people have the right to play their cards the way they want to, as long as they are trying to win on their own.
2 Likes
liable to see most anything but collusion in a freeroll
Hell, yes. Let’s say it is the final table and there are 6 players left in and only 5 will get prize money. You are the second lowest stack and someone effectively donates chips to the smallest stack (on purpose) by folding at the river when (probably) ahead. Is that cheating? Hell, yes. Regardless of whether you are playing for play chips or real money.
I cannot say that I have ever run into an instance of cheating on RPP that I have recognized as such, but people who would cheat for play chips are truly pathetic and people who would cheat for real money are thieves.
2 Likes
Yes of course at a final table it would’ve been much more harmful, but it wasn’t a final table.
Well yes, cheating is cheating, and it’s pathetic in any setting. But it has to be intentional. If someone goofs up without any bad intention, I don’t think it’s fair to call them cheaters, but explanations and warnings are always a good start.
I think it’s good to learn how different scenarios are treated and how they affect others to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
If a player has to leave, why not just use Fold and Away? I did that once and was shocked to come back hours later to discover I’d won some chips! It’s what live tourneys require you to do. They “blind you out.”
2 Likes
I get that, but I gave the final table example because it makes it more obvious that this kind of cheating is not a zero sum game. In the early stages of a tournament it is less obvious, but it still changes the final result. Supposing the person who was gifted the chips went on to knock out several other players and won the tournament?
1 Like
Yes that’s one possibility. They could also lose and get knocked out at an early stage. They could make it to final table and bubble. The damage would still be minimal compared with a final table or a ring game.
I’m not defending it though. This thread has change my point of view regarding such things, as @grapevine and @Chasetheriver have pointed out how others could be affected negatively. So it’s good to see it from different perspectives and understand where everyone is coming from.
1 Like
I was the one who pointed that out. I don’t see why Rob and Kate should get all the credit for simply parroting my highly insightful points! I consider that to be a form of forum collusion.
5 Likes
Sorry SPG, you have pointed it out too and should get all the credit 
I assure you I wasn’t colluding with Kate and Rob. It was just forum soft play 
3 Likes
Have you learned nothing from all this? Soft play IS collusion!
4 Likes
1 Like
Deal is if such “soft play” proved effective in MTTs then I am quite sure it would be repeated and likely morph into more blatant “soft play”. In a game where a single hand can often change the outcome, eliminates or advances a player, zero tolerance needs to rule the day. Otherwise we need to introduce Tag Team Poker or better yet Team Bingo.
I think this is important.
One type of tournament I used to review on a previous site was a progressive Jackpot for winning a sequence of 6 handed SnG and we often heard appeals from players disqualified for getting a helping hand in the first one or two events only.
They were adamant that colluding in the just the last event(s) of their sequence of wins was the only time anyone should be considered cheating in order to affect the outcome of the whole series.
1 Like
Yeah, I do too.
I see way more of this in the Ursa Major SnGs than I ever have anywhere else. It’s way easier to arrange in this format than in an MTT, and has more of an impact than it would in a ring game.
OK, so when the game starts, I always say, “Hello everyone, good luck.” Because I’m such a nice fella, you know? What I often see is someone say something like, “Hi John, Paul, Ringo, gl.” So they come right out and identify their buddies.
Now Sun can be quite clever at times, so he watches their play. I learned how to spot team players on a real money site, where my very survival depended on me knowing what’s going on. These guys don’t even attempt to hide their nefarious skulduggery!
Anyway, I think of these guys as WECs… Wiley E. Coyotes. They gleefully read their Acme blueprint detailing their “Grand Plan” to take old SunPower out, but usually end up blowing themselves up instead. Beep beep!
I have no mercy when it comes to winning chips. But I’ll chat with anyone, and I try to be friendly with most people. It makes the game more enjoyable. I like to say hi to familiar faces, even if I’m not officially “friends” with them. I like it when people recognize me from a previous and say hi, and it feels nice to get a little respect once in a while from players who’ve seen me play and think I’m good.
1 Like
…apparently it’s even harder to frame…
3 Likes
Sure, but I think you took my comment out of context. WECs are a small handful of specific players who often seem to work together. It’s mostly soft play and funny comments.
Me, “Hello everyone, good luck.”
WEC1, “kiss my a**”
Me, “Hello everyone, good luck.”
WEC2, “up yours”
Me, “Hello everyone, good luck.”
WEC3, “Monkey in the middle” (I was right between 2 of them)
WEC4, “yep, lol”
I love the WECs because they provide me some extra amusement.
2 Likes
Ok here’s a different scenario. Let’s look at it from another perspective. Poker is an individual game and should be played selfishly.
But what if I’m playing at a table, and decide that I want to do my best to eliminate this one particular player, and not the other, and decided to play aggressively when player 1 is in the hand to try and knock them out, and more softly with player 2 (whether a friend or not) to keep them in the game. Maybe because I think player 2 is easier to beat at a later stage, and player 1 is annoying or more difficult to beat later.
Would my “soft play” against player 2 compared with my more aggressive play against player 1 be considered as any sort of violation? I’m sure it’s easy to be accused of being softer with player 2 by anyone else at the table, but that would be my strategy all along. How is this one treated?