Would it be collusion...

if I had someone on a IM of some sort and told them my cards and they suggest what I should have done once the hand is over? I've been playing for a while and can usually break even now, but I can't seem to move up. I feel like a little guidance would help me a lot. I know there's an advice area in here, but I wouldn't want to put EVERY hand I play. Which is why it would be good if someone could offer support by IM, and watching me play. I'm guessing it would definitely be collusion if they gave suggestions during play(?). I would not want them playing at the same time, just to watch a few hands and give suggestions.

No, and it wouldn't even be collusion if they gave you advice during play unless they had a vested interest in the game (say if it was a MTT and you both were playing or something). "One person to a hand" online is unenforcible, and hence not prohibited by most (if not all) sites.

Its definitely ok if they give you advice and suggestions when the hand is over. But during the hand, i think that would be wrong. Still, no one would ever know.

its not wrong, didn't phil helmuth or dan negreanu do something similar last year with a contest winner? I know Micon does it in his call in lessons, so its obviously not illegal, I dont even see it as collusion if you aren't involved in the same game.

what games are you playing and on what site?

I think it is okay - if as Chris said, they are not playing in the same tournament. My husband tries to tell me what to do all the time - that would be the same thing really. (But we don't talk if we are playing in the same tournament - we try to see who can do the best, since we both think we are better than the other lol)

I've got a friend who watches me play all the time (and vice versa). We tell each other our hole cards almost every hand, and sometimes ask/offer advice. When we play at the same table we never do any of that, because THAT would be collusion. Of course we kind of have an understanding that up against each other heads up, we'll pretty much always check it down. Is THAT collusion? I guess it's cheating the poker site out of rake, but if we both agree, other than that we're only hurting each other. Haven't played together in a while since he decided to give up online poker, but he still watches periodically and I tell him my hole cards. Sometimes he'll give advice during play. Sometimes I'll take it and sometimes I don't. I don't think that's collusion, so it's definitely not collusion to get advice after a hand.

Mainly looking for help with Hold Em' on Bodog.

Zachvac-
"Of course we kind of have an understanding that up against each other heads up, we'll pretty much always check it down."
Yes, you are colluding with your friend.

My understanding of collusion is if you play a hand differently because there is a 'friend' in the hand with you, that is collusion. 'Checking down' because he's in the hand with you, and you would bet out if it were someone else, is wrong.

K Kahne Fan, what you are suggesting really isn't collusion--like others have already stated. There is typically '1 hand per person' and you may be in violation of that, but that's not collusion. And asking advice about the hand AFTER it's over is certainly allowed.

My 2 cents.

But only heads up. I understand how this could be wrong in a tourney, but we did this strictly in cash games. Really doesn't matter anymore because I don't know anyone personally who even plays online anymore, but I don't see how in a cash game that could be considered collusion.

It may be just me being anal, but if you play a hand differently at any time then you normally would against a player you do not know, THAT is called collusion. I understand what you are saying, just HU, and no one else is harmed, yada. However, if I saw that go on at my table between 2 people, I would not know when those two players would, or would not, play differently.

How am I to know 'when someone else is in the hand we'll play straight up'? I wouldn't. That's why collusion at any time is detrimental (sp?) to the game and is not allowed.

Again, may just be me being tight-ass, but as I try to learn to be a more observent player, seeing that would send up red flags like crazy for me.

If it's heads up at a tourney, you may normally knock that person out, but you allow them to stay which would not be fair to the other players. If it's RING games, I would not see too much harm in it. The only way I could see it being a problem is if you would normally take that persons money, then the next hand you go all-in with someone and they lose the money you would have won... but that's unlikely.

I dunno; I think this is a standard method for coaching someone who plays online, especially when the coach lives in another city.

As long as the coach is not also playing but is just observing the table, you tell him what your hole cards are, he gives you advice, it's no different than if he's standing behind you while you play.

my opinion it's a fact of life , human nature . it psis me off when you get down to three people and two are friends , it is definitely played different . but then when put in the same position , I also would treat my friend different than the outsider. I want to pound my friend too , I just want to do it last.

I like the more than one player to a hand thing , I can picture some guy about to avoid my trap , when the guy in the background says " shove , he's weak".

Soft playing friends is certainly collusion, and just bad poker. You want to pound em' stab em'make em' hurt

Then and

goldog

That's %100 true, Chris?

I'm pretty surprised tbh.

re: NL's comment, I always thought coaching would be like watching a session (or reading through a HH), and analyzing the play.

Email response from PokerStars about this question:


Allow me to explain that if the 'coach' is not the tournament itself, they
have access to exactly the same information (or possibly less) as
yourself, thus if you wish to trust their judgement, that is your choice.

However, it is poor poker etiquette, and to be fair to all players at the
table, I do recommend that rather than having a coach assisting with you
during an event, that you perhaps review the hand histories after the
event with your coach.

If you have any more questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to
contact us.


Regards,

Jeffrey
PokerStars Support Team


I think, like Dorkus says, it's pretty much unenforcable anyways so the most they do is discourage it.

Interesting, thanks for that.

Like I said, still a little surprised it's allowed. I mean it's nearly the same as playing for you if they're muttering instructions in your ear.

i dont see anything wrong with it, as long as the two people arent in the same tournament or table.

yeah it would be about the same as paying and letting someone else play the tournament but whether they play or you play its your money and if you trust the judgement of the "coach" thats up to you, but i dont see how that puts anyone else at an unfair advantage.

remember im chock full of meds so if that made absolutely no sense i appologize

how you feeling brutus?
Hope all's well

Yeah, at least you've got an excuse, Brutus


Always good to see you posting.

yeah at least i have an excuse for now, im not sure what the excuse would be for any other rambling posts ive made though

thanks Chuck, im getting better. im finally able to spend more than 4 hours a day awake anyways.

I read it more as "We acknowledge there's not much we can do about it, but we really wish you wouldn't"

I agree, which puzzles me. What's the difference between a coach telling you what to do and the coach simply playing the game? As mentioned, the coach has access to the same things the player does, so I fail to see how it's collusion. Whatever, I don't plan on getting a poker coach anytime soon.

I beleive in a game or tourney ur on ur own get advice, tips, ect before u play....im sure you cn bring notes to urself to the table

Isn't this how Jamie Gold, with the help of Mr. Chan, basically won the main event? I don't think it's illegal, but it wouldn't surprise me if somehow a poker site had evidence, they wouldn't give you your money. Ah. Online poker sites = neo-mafia re-rising . ..lol . Not to go off track with my sadistic views, or anything.

Having someone look at your cards in a tourney you're playing and telling you what to do when is unethical and a violation of the simple, basic poker rule of one player to a hand. Just because something is largely unenforceable by the poker sites, doesn't make it allowable or ethical, that's just non-sense. Sure there will always be the scumbag that cheats or tries to, and playing two or more people to a single hand is unethical and cheating. It's that simple.

If the coach is truly just sitting there and not assisting in any way at all, then it's no longer a one player to a hand rule issue. Being told after a hand what happened there and how it could have been done differently is not unethical and it is no different that recording the whole session and handing the video to someone else to review after the fact. There is no grey area in this.

There's a bit of a difference. While Jamie Gold may have been coached before the event or during breaks, he didn't have anyone looking at his cards over his shoulder and telling him what to do while he was at the table.

The live equivalent of what's been proposed here would be someone getting up from the table, saying to their coach on the rail "I have X-X, what should I do?". Live, that'd be a clear violation of the rules and they player would be penalised.

Note that Lee Childs (at least... I'm pretty sure it was Lee Childs) went very close to violating this rule a couple of times during the Main Event final table this year, by getting up from the table and talking through the hand with is dad. He didn't actually tell him what cards he held, and his dad didn't give him any specific advice, but it still probably would have been grounds for one of the other players to object.