Poker Ethics Pertaining to Donkeys

  • Thread starter Toxic Think Tank
  • Start date
T

Toxic Think Tank

Guest
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Total posts
2
Ok, by my own admission I can be a bit of a donkey myself sometimes, so before I ask the question, I'll say why.

When, I see a table, that's pretty much guaranteed money or all donks, or a tourney or sit and go for that matter, I like jumping in when I can. Mostly, you're going to find more of these tables at the real money hold 'em tables rather than sit and gos and tourneys. At any rate, I do well usually to the point that when I am up, I don't get many callers and sometimes will raise with nothing knowing people will fold to me. I don't make a common practice out of this, and I don't continue betting if I miss on the flop.

My question is this. When you have someone that raises and calls with nothing and gets lucky way too many times, it gets very annoying. Especially when you lose three of the hands you called preflop on monsters only just to have your cards hit and still lose to some outright garbage.

This happened to me 3 times in a row against the same player. I was raising on AK's, high pairs, and just calling my suited connectors high or not. All 3 times my cards hit. Twice I had him dominated to the river. The third hand was kind of my fault since there were clearly 2 clubs in the flop, and there was a small chance of a third club hitting and the guy I was playing against after everyone folded happened to have 2 clubs in his hand. I tried to pull a maneuver on 2 pairs Aces and 10s and got destroyed by the A (one of my pairs) of clubs on the turn. I was in position, he had a low flush, I moved all in and he called my 2 pairs without even thinking there was a possibility of a higher flush. He did however have me dominated and without a 4th suit out there, it's kind of hard to call someone else on suited pockets if you have them yourself.

My question is this. The dude called Q3 off suit, 92, etc etc the whole freaking time even though I only got involved in 3 hands that I felt I should get involved in, I was paying close attention to this terrible crap.

Would it be unethical or against rules or laws to form a poker alliance of people to seek out donks like this on the poker tables, join up together with $100 each (or maybe just twice the donk's money just to keep him from running away) and take these people out? I mean hell there's already plenty people out there that play against people using chat and other methods on smaller 18 player tables that use their knowledge of each others hands to defeat other people who are trying to play fairly, and I'm not even asking if this is ok, because well this just really sucks. I'm not talking about cheating here or using any unfair advantaqes. I'm just saying that 3 seasoned tight poker players join the table with $100 each, take out his $50, and get up and walk away with a very specific formula when this guy goes broke.

+$ = playerA + playerB + playerC
-$ = donkeyA

eachPlayer = +$/3

Basically what I'm saying is this. Most of the time all 3 players won't get sucked out by the rest of the table if they play smart. If one of them happens to lose a little, but the end result is crippling this donkey's bank account, then wouldn't it be worth it to redistribute the initial player investment evenly and keep the money one per player with each player? Wouldn't it also be worth it for each player to lose $20 to 1 donkey knowing they finally knocked him out, there's more donkeys to go, and they've only lost $20 and will surely be making that back soon anyways off the next guy?

I mean this really isn't cheating at all, and knowing you'll get your money back either way and possibly win some as well seems enticing, especially if there's enough players within said club to make sure everyone is way more than covered.

I don't know. Is this really all that unethical? There's no cheating involved, and it would be the same as going to the casino with 3 of your friends.
 
tenbob

tenbob

Legend
Joined
May 16, 2005
Total posts
11,221
Awards
1
Its called collusion and cheating.

Why dont you want players to play A2 against you AQ again ?
 
nevadanick

nevadanick

Back to work ... zzzzz
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Total posts
8,477
HMmmm... the player nic you chose seems to be appropriate.

Any time you work with anyone else (or others) to the deteriment of one player, tenbob's right on - it's collusion.

Why not take that same BR and just go to a table full of fish and play your best game. Then the cashout is yours and you earned it the right way.
 
petey5o

petey5o

Rock Star
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Total posts
225
i just dont understand your reasoning here. if the guys such a donk why do you need som1 else to help you. i mean like you said at the beggining you like sittin at a table with donks because you know its profitable. but listen man everybody is gonna have days where it seems everything goes wrong. like quick sand one thing leads to another. just gotta keep on keeping on and in the long run you'll break these donks.
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
Well you would actually want the "donkey" to win (not at the detriment of your own BR, but against anyone else at the table), because then when he starts to lose he'll assume he's a good player because he used to win. It's selective memory and what keeps all the bad players coming back. I like it.

Also, it you typed this OP up, I'd wager that you are not the "seasoned player" you think you are.
 
Top