Ethical question

I was playing in a MTT sit-n-go at Full Tilt (no easy task to get in there).

About 1 hour in I am moved to a new table. I noticed something odd when the BB folded with no bet and looked in the chat window to see a couple players trying to get my attention "GO ALONG WITH US JOE" and such. It seemed that everyone at this particular table had gone away, except for two players, Mr E, and Mr. B.

They quickly informed me that we should all go along with snatching the blinds from the missing players and not play poker until the players were replaced after which we would play again.

Not wanting to screw up a good thing I went along with them, I snatched a few blinds and then the real situation became apparent. Mr. E decided he couldn't stand to fold his Aces, and swiped MY blinds! Within 5 minutes he decided that he NEEDED Mr. B and My blinds again, what a jerk. After all the dust settled I had earned a whopping 100 chips (blinds were 50/100).

Dag Nabbed razza frazza frumpin frits! Should I have played straight from the start rather than go along with this seemingly "free lunch"?

Do you think it is unethical to go along with a situation like this?

Thanks for any opinions!

this is collusion and is not a good thing. if full tilt found out about it you could have your acct closed.

collusion is, in my opinion, the most unethical act in poker.

Ethics aside, i wouldn't agree to any deal like this since you can't trust anybody to follow through. It seems pretty close to collusion to me, which is a bannable offence. However, it is different to collusion in the sense that all active players on the table have agreed, and, in that sense, you aren't screwing over an active 3rd party. If somebody came back and didn't agree then it would be incredibly unethical to continue in your agreement imo.

It sure never occurred to me that is could be considered collusion.

But you are right, we should have played straight and let the missing players drain off "naturally".

I guess my SUCKER sticker (on my forehead) will stay a few more weeks.

Once they mentioned it, it became collusion, and that is bad.

However, it is not so uncommon, to 'split the blinds' amongst the live players at the table. Usually it is done silently, and it is born of observation. Observation is the key, as it is also not so uncommon to find yourself at an early stage MTT table where you are the only live player there. In which case you want to steal those blinds fast, before someone shows up. If they are stupid enough to miss the tourney, I don't have to be stupid enough to wait for them.

The extreme cases of the 'only live guy at the table' were pre UIGEA days at Party Poker with hugemongous fields of folks who registered many hours beforehand in case they found themselves available to play. Many times I found myself alone, and stayed alone thru the first break!

Ya, that's collusion, alright.. and you can't trust a thief, so they got you twice. D'oh!!

chiefer77 speaks for me.


---

completely unethical and as Makwa says you cant trust a thief

Just so I understand: If I had noticed what was going on, which would have become clear eventually, we were within ethical bounds to "share the wealth" if we had not discussed it? i.e. playing dumb

[quote=dj11;799234]Once they mentioned it, it became collusion, and that is bad.

.... Usually it is done silently, and it is born of observation.

LOL - yes and no.

Is it more ethical to take turns stealing the blinds just because you organised it silently? No.

But can anyone prove that you're doing anything wrong? Also no.

It's still not ethical, but poker is full of examples like this (checking down against an all-in player, anyone?) and if nobody can prove anything, are you really going to let the ethics of it stop you?

report that ish to support next time even tho it was on fulltilt where the support take 17,000 years to respond

Probably, most of the posters on the thread say so. I'd be happy to do it though, it's +EV for you, it's +EV for your 2 opponents, and it can hardly be -EV for the sitouts.

As Oz Exorsist says, difference between this and checking down against all in?

Splitting the blinds between active players is perfectly ethical, until you discuss it explicitly.

Whether it's clever to do so is an entirely different question. If you are good at short handed play, i think you should prefer to play. Also, it depends on the dynamics of the other tables of the MTT. if all tables play somewhat tight, then stealing the blinds only can mean you chips grow faster than average and you'll be in a good position when the table splits. But if the other tables see a lot of action, they may see stacks grow much faster than at your table, and then you would be relatively short stack when the table splits, which could be a problem

Maybe, but we're probably talking about freerolls where only 2 or 3 of the 9 players are sat in - if for example it is 2 players and 7 sitouts, both players will be on 6-7K before the table starts splitting up, and that's a good position.

If i was in this situation, I would usually say "it makes sense for us to keep this table together for as long as possible". Is this vague enough to not be explicit collusion in your opinion?

I'd say there's probably some implied invitation to soft-play in that statement - it's certainly a much greyer area than "ZOMGZ free blinds we should totally take turns stealing them!!" though

What about "I think im going to fold every other hand?"

Pretty cut and dry colussion to talk about it, not hardly worth losing your account over is it?

One site I used to play at had games every sat./sun. that had sign up starting days before. It was not uncomon to be the only living person at a table. My longest run alone at a ten seat table was 1 hour and 20 minutes, boring as all get out sitting there pushing the "raise" button every few seconds. Then 1 guy showed and we played a serious game of HU until blinds removed all sit outs and other live players came to the table.

I had been in a similar situation once before, but kept quiet and took alot of ops to steal and gained more BB then the others who thought they could just rake up the dead blinds.

I will not collude when I could gain more chips by playing proper poker.

One quiston for you guys: If the other guy asks "Whana take turns to blind them out?" is there any think u can write back to say yes with out it beeing colluding?

I'd say no thats collusion but they're not here so who else can get them . just play normal and one of us has to get them. then I would fold every other hand till he caught on .

don't play many freerolls but it's happened to me just about every time. the last time we just both picked up on it and was sharing for awhile and he finally said " this is nice huh " I just put a smile on , but made no comment.
I don't think it's right but how could it be wrong when someone has to get them . I think they are screwing the game up and deserve it . I prefer that the site remove all sit outs not there by start of second level.

No, thats collusion

Very clear and helpful response Belgo! Not only do I know it is wrong now, but I know how to look at it in the future. I'd like to think I am good at shorthand play, I'll take future incidents like this to practice short handed / heads up game.

Collusion is when u offer Homey a donut to fold.

mmmmmmmmmmm, doooonuts

with sprinkles

i think i might have just played it out, however, i can see where you were coming from with that situation

Holy crap Zig, I think I'm in love.

K I'm off to Krispys, cyall later...

Donut talk is unethical, makes me hungey...

If its a freeroll and only 2 at the table,i dont see any probs,just when 3 show up,its back to poker,I cant see half the table doing it,lol..geesh,I would not have went along if i was the 3rd person.it only works for 2..

regardless of it being ethical there is no advantage to it. Just play HU or 3 handed whatever it is and there will be no difference unless you find yourself at a disadvantage in those situations. Just play it straight and be glad you have free chips in the pot.

Related is the situation where there may be 3 or 4 players and 5 or 6 no shows and you 4 players are bunched at the table. When you get the most fortunate opportunity to be the last live player to act, it effectively gives you the button in 4 or 5 out of 9 or 10 hands.

What are the ethics there?

And I agree, it was totally unethical to introduce donuts into this serious philosophical discussion!

I have been in similar circumstances many times, as i am sure others have as well. In a tourney where only 2 or 3 of the 10 players are present. Usually it is at the start, not an hour into the event, tho. Yes, i agree that it is collusion, but i will agree to take the blinds, and not fight the other players, IF all agree. Mind you, i am a fanatic about ethical play, but this is a circumstance where no one is being cheated or taken advantage of, except for the absent players, who would lose their chips any way.

"What do you say, take turns eating that donut? errrr.... I think I'm gonna take a bite of that donut every other hand. This donut is nice, huh?"

It's collusion. I've had tables like that, but what I do is try to steal most of the blinds, and then if I get any action back I consider whether the hand is any good. That way you strengthen yourself more than the opposition, and the way it generally pans out is that sometimes you'll be going in with the worse hand, but you can generally make up for that with the blinds you take in between. Of course, that's when you've got either a single other person in or a couple of tight players who haven't adjusted for the sit-outs.

Also, bear in mind that the sit-outs make things play rather more like a short-handed game in terms, although the blinds don't come round as often - it's the best of both worlds.