Another ethical question...

4 handed bubble of a 9 handed SNG. I'm the big stack playing against two medium-low stacks and a very short stack on my left who obviously disconnected after getting bad beated.

So my strategy becomes clear to me: bully the two live players relentlessly and fold my SB to the disconnected BB to keep him in the game as long as possible.

The result of this bullying ended up that the two live players got 4th and 3rd and I handed 2nd place to the disconnected player.

Is this ethically fine in your book?

thats definetly not collusion

That's A-Ok in my book. I doubt anyone could see it as a problem (except the two live players, heh).

you should have totally messaged the disconnected guy later to congratulate him! :-D after all, he was of great help to you, right?

BelgoSuisse said:

So my strategy becomes clear to me: bully the two live players relentlessly and fold my SB to the disconnected BB to keep him in the game as long as possible.

The result of this bullying ended up that the two live players got 4th and 3rd and I handed 2nd place to the disconnected player.

Is this ethically fine in your book?

Click to expand...

It's fine, but I don't see why you want to do this, what if someone raises to the BB (like these players obviously should have)?

I want to know how the two other live players let you do this to them.

well if he has the big stack and they're on the bubble, the other two would be essentially waiting for the sitting out guy to bust, thus creating a huge opportunity for OP to get more chips and hence increase his shot at winning.

edit: it's ethically fine.

flint said:

It's fine, but I don't see why you want to do this, what if someone raises to the BB (like these players obviously should have)?

I want to know how the two other live players let you do this to them.

Click to expand...

Of course they should have done that. But i think they both waited for the other guy to take that risk.

The thing is, it was not without risk for them. I could raise them if they tried to do that unless they shoved.

I like it, sound strategy..

I don't see any ethical issue here.

Makwa said:

I like it, sound strategy..

I don't see any ethical issue here.

Click to expand...

well, it rewards a guy who was sitting out...

It's completely devious, but certainly within the rules, as far as I know. The only hazard is that if the DCed player comes back after you've moved him into second place, you might have a fight on your hands.

I hope that tactic catches on, so I can sit out when I get shortstacked on the bubble.

BelgoSuisse said:

well, it rewards a guy who was sitting out...

Click to expand...

...but this is inconsequential. you are pursuing the strategy that has the best expectancy for you. saying this isn't okay because you're rewarding someone who is sitting out is sort of like saying playing back at a LAG who is running over a table is unethical because it's likely to slow him down and thus make the table mechanics suit the resident table nits more.

(I realise you were probably playing devil's advocate in the quoted post )

sounds more like they should have adopted a strategy to stop you from bullying rather than worry about someone sitting out. I don't see how what you did could be considered unethical.

Sounds like your opponent wasn't smart, if my stack was bigger than the guy sitting out I'd semi sit out myself :S

arkadiy said:

Sounds like your opponent wasn't smart, if my stack was bigger than the guy sitting out I'd semi sit out myself :S

Click to expand...

That wouldn't work, as BelgoSuisse is allowing the disconnected player to keep his big blind each round, while he'd be taking the blinds from you and the other active player. So even if you sat out, you'd be losing 3x as much per round (1.5 BB as opposed to .5 BB) as the guy who's disconnected.

It's a beautiful strategy, one I don't remember seeing before.
He's really making it rough for the players who have a chance at hurting him.

SavagePenguin said:

That wouldn't work, as BelgoSuisse is allowing the disconnected player to keep his big blind each round, while he'd be taking the blinds from you and the other active player. So even if you sat out, you'd be losing 3x as much per round (1.5 BB as opposed to .5 BB) as the guy who's disconnected.

It's a beautiful strategy, one I don't remember seeing before.
He's really making it rough for the players who have a chance at hurting him.

Click to expand...

Not sure how you are doing the math, but I have personally used the method I mentioned before and it worked just fine and I got 2nd lol

I think it's a brilliant strategy as you are maximising 1/ ability to control the game, 2/ finishing at worst 2nd. I recall a live tourney a couple of years back (in vegas) where they couldn't locate the chip leader as he had booked himself into a different hotel and overslept. By the time he showed up he was down around !/2 mil in chips. Were the other players ethically bound to fold when it was his BB, I don't think so.

So... basically, you were propping up the short stack in order to prolong the bubble, because the bubble created a situation whereby you could accumulate a ton of chips?

100% perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. There's no collusion there, it's not like you've made any agreement with the short stack.

I actually suggest "You want to prolong the bubble" as a reason for sometimes ignoring the check-it-down guideline against an all-in short stack, but few people seem to get the idea

OzExorcist said:

So... basically, you were propping up the short stack in order to prolong the bubble, because the bubble created a situation whereby you could accumulate a ton of chips?

Click to expand...

Exactly. My usual strategy when I'm a significant chip leader on the bubble is never to attack the smallest stack as i can profit so much from maintaining the bubble as long as possible. Keeping a sat out player alive is just an extreme version of this strategy.

Not sure i understand it correct, but if big stack folds his SB to the disconnected BB how many orbits would that work. Cause if the 2 medium stacks dont fight back they are in effect heads up for 3rd place.
Would they not be pretty much guaranteed 3rd place just by making a minimum bet and then fold to any strength?

The flip side of that coin ... 4th 'n 3rd, as they responded to your bullying were trying the same thing {grin}. I disagree with the comment which encourages heckling the loser ... that individual learned a valuable lesson ... no need to be rude about it.

Nothing unethical about that, imo.

arkadiy said:

Not sure how you are doing the math, but I have personally used the method I mentioned before and it worked just fine and I got 2nd lol

Click to expand...

But you weren't playing a smart big stack. If you effectively sit out, playing only your best hands, assuming you don't get any big hands in the short time of the bubble, big stack continues to take yours and the other mid-stack's blinds, meanwhile the disconnected player stays the same, as he loses his SB but gets it back when the OP folds to him. How can you finish 2nd if one player is gaining, one is staying the same, and you're losing chips?

As to whether it's ethical, the goal of the game is to maximize expectancy for you. If you are doing anything else, like soft playing, chip dumping, etc. it's unethical and illegal. This play though is smart tournament strategy and completely ethical and within the rules.

OzExorcist said:

I actually suggest "You want to prolong the bubble" as a reason for sometimes ignoring the check-it-down guideline against an all-in short stack, but few people seem to get the idea

Click to expand...

Slightly off-topic, but if you were to build up a pot just to fold to the shortstack to keep him in the game, would that be considered chip-dumping?