Interesting question. I would say no. You do have to tailor your play to the table, and to the opponents in the hand. There have been times when I could sense with reasonable certainty that I was at a table with a good player and a poor player, and I would adjust my play accordingly. I beat up on the weaker player, and played more cautiously when the stronger player was in the hand. I don’t mean to sound like this happened once, it happens all the time. I don’t play to try to help anyone out, but my respect/fear for the strong player means that I kindof do play in a way that favors them to last longer at the table. I’m still trying to beat everyone, and if I happen to get into a hand with that strong player where I know I’m likely or certain to win, I won’t hesitate to get them in and take down a big pot. But I don’t bluff/bully a good player the way you can a weak player, because you can’t do it profitably.
If you soft play to “keep them in the game,” it is intentional.
There’s nothing wrong with playing different players differently, but when you go out of your way to cut one player slack with the intent of keeping them in the game, it’s collusion, at least as far as I’m concerned.
Agreed.
But in the scenario where I am playing different players differently, I’m also intentionally soft playing to keep one in the game and not the other, but it’s still not collusion. Or is it?
Intentionally keeping someone in the game is unfair to the other players.
It’s in your self interest to eliminate the other players, at least in any kind of tournament setting. Not only is it in your self-interest, it’s in everyone’s interest. What if that player you spare goes on to eliminate someone else? How is that fair to anyone?
Yes I agree, but the scenario has changed now.
It’s not against my self-interest. I’m only trying to eliminate one player before the other. Once it’s done, I will definitely be trying to eliminate the other one.
But while in the first stage of my strategy, I’m soft playing against one and playing harder against the other. The one I’m playing aggressively against might accuse me of colluding with the other one, or of helping them stay in the tourney, but that’s absolutely not what I’m doing. It’s a different case now.
How can you say that’s not what you’re doing when you already said it’s exactly what you’re doing?
Anyway, I have given my opinion. Time to step aside and let others weigh in.
There’s no contradiction there SPG. I’m playing softly to keep them in the game longer than the other player, but I’m definitely not colluding with them. I don’t even know them. I just want one to last more than the other for my own benefit, not to help anyone out!
How is that to your benefit? You will have to eliminate them at some point, why not now? Wouldn’t those chips be way more beneficial to you than keeping someone in the game?
Unless you can provide some sound logical basis to support your position, what’s the point?
I thought it was obvious. When playing any game against multiple players with an elimination process, one always has a preference, someone they want to eliminate before the others (this is in tournaments only by the way not ring games). Puggy got it.
It’s the same idea. If faced with 2 opponents, one is a tougher player than the other, and I want to guarantee my win in the end, I’d play in a way to eliminate the one that threatens me more first. Would I be colluding with the other unintentionally?
Anyway, it’s really not an every day situation, but another particular scenario where direct violation isn’t obvious.
It’s a plausible, real-world situation, and something you’d want to have some game plan for.
Obviously, heads-up you’d prefer to be against the weaker player, so would want to favor them winning, or not getting knocked out. On the other hand, it’s unlikely that you can guarantee that, even with soft play. They might just last a bit longer than they otherwise would, and bleed your chips through them into your stronger opponent. Then where are you?
I’d prefer to get as many chips as I can to face whoever I’m up against heads-up, especially if that’s the stronger player. I’d probably play more cautious (not soft, there’s a difference) against the stronger player, intending not to commit my stack to a big pot for fear of getting busted out ahead of the weaker player, taking 3rd place winnings, when I could have more likely taken 2nd if I’d not tried to take on the stronger player.
Either way, I’m playing hands to win, playing good cards when I have them, betting appropriately to win the most chips I can, as best I know how. And yeah, hoping that the weak player somehow survives to get heads-up with me, but in no way counting on it.
Ok yes absolutely.
But the main question here is, if I am accused of cheating or soft play in this scenario, would that be fair? And would it count as a violation if reported?
That’d be entirely up to the discretion of Replay Staff, naturally 
I would say no; you’re not in communication with the weaker player, so while you’re helping them out, you’re not colluding with them. If they know what you’re up to, that’s a different story.
Also, soft play isn’t by itself collusion. Soft play towards a player you’re friends with, because you want to see them do well is closer, but again without their knowledge that you’re trying to keep them in the game, it’s still not collusion.
The rules say that soft play isn’t allowed, regardless of whether it’s collusion or not. But it seems (based on how I’m interpreting them) that they come down far harder on collusion. There are many ways to collude that encompass more than soft playing your friends. You could have an external communication channel, telling people your hand or what to do in the next decision. You could have an agreement to split chips won in games, which you could do by going to a heads-up table and exchanging chips through orchestrated hands, or you could even do that at a ring table in a situation where you’re the only two players in the hand, and one of you donates chips to the other. There’s probably a lot of other ways that I’m not devious enough to come up with off the cuff.
I think it’s reasonable for people to suspect when they see something that looks like soft play, but probably they can’t say for certain that it is. They can (and should) report suspected soft play, and let RPP staff look into it. I’m sure they can re-run the hand, looking at all the hole cards, and look at a series of hands to establish more of a pattern that would make it more certain.
I have no idea how they handle it, but I’d imagine that they would tend to err on the side of caution and start out with warnings, then move up to suspensions and bans. They’d probably act more decisively if there’s something more blatant going on. But that’s all just speculation on my part.
23o vs a random 2 card hand all in pre flop will win 29.24%. Even vs AA where I gave AA dominating suits, i.e. 2❤️3♠️ vs A❤️A♠️ we win 11.75%. It’s not clear to me if this player just had to check to see the flop or call 80 to win sb500 + bb580 + (100*x(number of antes.) Either way this fold is TRAGIC at best and blatant soft play(collusion) at worst.
If there is a blue ribbon given out for 1st or if bragging rights is the extent of the prize pool… collusion = collusion = cheating. Period Dot Bingo.
X saying he/she plays nice with friends essentially admitted to soft play, which is collusion and is cheating. There is NO OTHER answer.
Collusion requires cooperation. If one chooses to play soft against anyone - friend, or other - without cooperation, then it is NOT collusion.
I see a huge point SPG,
degree of adjective “soft” , meta-strategies , what stage it is , situational awareness, or even the story you’re trying to tell ( just yourself and your play )…
As Maya and Puggy have indicated, when you know there’s 2 ppl that aren’t a threat to you ( prolly those 2 ppl you know or have seen thier play, cause you think you know how to beat them ), so they are treated differently. You prolly will let a few pots slide, or godforbid you need to let one slide to keep your table rep up… and it falls to someone you know to benefit, should you worry about your play ??
This occurs constantly in table play, by that I mean the situations in the normal ebb-flow of the tables. It not only is a philisophical question, but when strategy itself comes under attack… then it goes more to “acceptable forms of strategy”…Just as Maya has asked, I have read the “rules” and see many tactics expert players use, listed as unacceptable.
Both Collusion and Chip Dumping, have grey areas that amount to “thought police” and both have definite black/white areas. Areas like soft-play or other forms of play, have bigger grey areas…
I ask Rob and Maya… take the classic “squeeze play”…
#1- 2 players independantly “squeeze” or “tag team” a 3rd player, whether situationally or because they both noticed the same “tell”…
#2- 2 huge bankroll players do the same to a low bankroll player, knowing they can’t just donk off large sums like the other 2 can…
#3- 2 “regulars” to a particular table pull the same crap to the new player to “thier” table, thus extracting profit more to “the table”…
Which or all of these 3 senarios would be violations ??? I see all 3 occuring constantly @ the tables. Personally, just like Maya, I wonder how some actions are perceived… given that perception usually is assumed to be reality.
Sassy
There is no benefit to letting someone “slide” now because you can beat them later. None, zero, nada, ziltch. I was asking for some logical basis for the claim that there is some benefit, and got none. This is because there is no logical benefit.
Yes, there are grey areas. Yes, any rule based on intent is a goofy rule because you can’t know the person’s intent. There can be evidence that might suggest intent, but that’s not the same thing as knowing their intent.
There can be situations where you don’t try to eliminate someone. For example, with less than the nuts, your hand might not be good and you want to minimize your risk. I get that, but that isn’t the same thing. I’ve seen people check down the stone cold nuts because they were playing soft against their buddy. Let’s call that what it is… cheating.
I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but players, particularly in a sng should form an alliance to eliminate short stacks. This does not need any form of communication, just an understanding that the more big stack callers to a short stack raise or all in is probably a good strategy to spread the chances of picking up a winnable hand. Of course, those "allies’ will become your tormentors later on if you are short stacked! It’s like hunting in a pack mentality at certain stages of the game but does in no way amount to collusion or cheating.
Well SPG,
I was just a part of the ultimate in soft-play… it happens each and every bubbletime.
If you don’t think ppl go all “soft” ,because for no other reason, they are 3 of 9 and only top 7 payout. Its the epitomy of sofy play, AND collusion by proxy… so to speak.
There sure the heck is, when the top 7 sit and wait for the last 2 to drop, usually due to blinds… 1 or 2 of the bigstacks will play since they are in no danger of not cashing, and anyone will attack the 2 shortstacks when its thier blind. So if even 1 example can be found where its logical, then your statement becomes false.
Most ppl just call that playing strategic… but as set forth in this thread, —IF— any and all soft play is illegal, then that simple strategic play is both soft play and collusion by proxy… no noone actively colludes, but the intent is surely there and alive. Does someone benefit, of course they do… all 7 that cash have a vested interest in the 2 shortstacks going out 1st.
In life, just as here @ Replay, a 0 tollerance approach to certain worded rules… causes unintended consequences. Usually in the end it hurts everyone, not just the few who are really breaking the rules.
as for me… the rules are…
#1- you have x seconds to act
#2- no intentional colluding or dumping to specific ppl.
#3- your stack is yours to use, you paid the entry fee.
#4- 1pr-2pr-3kind-str8-flush-fullhouse-4kind-str8flush-royalflush
All poker sites have the same choice… cater to what makes the site more money, or cater to ppl that want as realistic as possible, serious poker. If the two can be combined cool, usually sites pick 1 or the other. Many ppl say you can’t play “free poker” seriously, I dissagree.
To me the attraction of poker is that what separates us all … strategy, brainpower,decision making,psychology, and pressure. There is a term in Computer Programming… Boolian… what it means if any part of an answer is wrong, the entire answer is wrong… This is the basis for almost ALL 0 tolerance policies. The above example is a logical, reasonable, and ethical example of what would have to be violations in a 0 tollerance environment. Rules that by themselves, as they are worded, create massive grey areas, then players themselves are screwed. Without firm and tangible rules, players are left wondering … is the person “reviewing” thier hand having a bad day or dislikes them somehow, so that the determination goes against the player.
Exactly, either we have the “thought police” situation, or unless there is actual proof, ie- you can prove intent, its virtually impossible to prove “intent”. This was eloquently described long ago @ Full-Tilt in the following way…
We allow private IM’s between players on our site for the sole reason there are off-site IM programs that are just as usefull in terms of cheating… therefore by offering IMs we then control that flow of information and can be reviewed later on to prove collusion between players. We can never stop off-site IM programs being used, so its up to our playerbase to understand we cannot stop all cheating, so buyer beware. (caviet emptor)
We all can see when Replay lets a player buy, yes buy millions of play chips and fritter them away cause they are a idiot I doubt accusations of chip dumping would occur, yet take a player that has 100 million and just wants to test out quirky dumb strategies and donks off 20 million, I bet there would be accusations of chip dumping… yet dumping to everyone@ the table is quite different than dumping to a specific player, and by dumping to the whole table, if 1 person is the intended benifactor… then the appearance is that no one specific person is getting benefit, so prolly they let the dumping claim die… yet we can see that thats just a clever way to dump, it just costs 9x more than if it all went to 1 person. At the same time, both because of no hand-4-hand @ bubbletime exsists, and because of the strategy of bubble-economics …way too often the table is colluding at these times, even tho its not direct collusion…
Whether its … Late Registration or even the Timer … someone always wants it differently. @least those 2 are not poker related like the difference between FL and NL. Those who don’t like NL shouldn’t play it, rather than expecting all games to revert to FL. Changing or making a rule to exclude strategy, can be as destructive as say ohhh… saying that here @ (insert site name here) a str8 beats a flush… @ that point its not the same poker everyone else is playing, therefore the tradeoff is will there be enough ppl that want that change, or will most of your customers go to another site.
Site rules are a legal definition, I bet someone somewhere sues a company for not following thier own rules and prolly wins. In the end just like children, players want concrete rules and limits, then assume they are free to opperate within the defined rules and regulations… when they are then told… well the rules are just a guide, it boils down to what 2-3 ppl on the site determine them to be… they become dissillusioned at the whole system.
The dirty little secret is that its almost just as hard to prove collusion between players, as it is to prove subtrafuge by staff against players. The other one that I think is more telling is most of the rules on “gameplay” mostly apply to ring games, not SnG or MTT, yet they are not classified as such, therefore illegal in all… thats just silly ( to me ).
I’m glad Maya brought this to the forum, so many ppl don’t use, care about, or follow the Blogs. I mostly agree with the “spirit of the rules” yet I find that way too many grey areas exsist in the semantical wording of the rules. Having been on the recieving end of grief, due to “unique” strategies, by thinking outside the box… I can say its not fun to be told, your gameplay/strategy, while not against the stated rules, is not what we like to see on our site, so cut it out. Thats like saying … you had AA, how dare you sloplay them and trap your opponents and win a huge pot… from now on you need to bet AA like a good little soldier. Or even saying, the timer is 15 seconds, how dare you use 14 seconds.
( Yes Rob, I feel its my responsibility to go now and read your blog article on this subject, if for no other reason than to have a impression of how staff is being directed to look @ stuff ). I certainly want to follow ALL site rules, I just want the ability to use any rule to my advantage. When rules are too subjective, that line you don’t want us to cross seems too close to invisible.
Sassy