The strategic use of cooperative play in poker anyone?

[Ssssssnakes]

Poker is everyone against everyone. But there are a couple of situations where cooperative play makes sense between players.

The most important example is on the bubble, where as I would argue, it is the dominant strategy for the players with the biggest stack to seize fire and focus on the smallest stacks to get one of them off the table.

On a practical level this means that when the small stack goes all-in in a last attempt to save his chair, the big stacks should only call and then check to the river irrespectiv the hand or the table cards.

Only then, when they hit the nuts they can set a bet and force the other players out of the hand - although that wouldn't be neccesary, of course, since they have the strongest hand in the first place.

Unfortunately this kind of cooperative behavior is a rare exception, even though in the most cases it would make perfectly makes sense to act cooperatively.

I've seen it so many times that someone put a bet on the river, all other players folded, just to lose against the small stack who would have lost against another hand. In consequence the table got screwed up for everyone.

The reason why cooperative play is dominant is because if a small stack needlessly wins, all the stacks move closer together. This completely changes the arithmetics which means that all players have a higher probability to die on the bubble themselves.

Of course, the small stack would end up with a much bigger stack if e.g. three players called his all-in instead of one. That would change the arithmetics even more, but is also very unlikely in a scenario in which an all-in out of desperatation meets two, three or maybe even four hands.

Reaching the payout is even such a valuable milestone that it makes sense to call for players even if they have a lousy hand or only an average amount of chips. The condition for this kind of call obviously being that all other players cooperate and aim for the small stack to lose. If this condition is met, cooperative play supercedes all other considerations, imo.

Strangely, I seem to be mostly alone with this idea of strategically cooperative play on the poker table. I have witnessed it maybe a handful of times, so far. The opposite behavior with pointless bets on the other hand happen all the time. According to my estimation, in roughy one fifth of the cases, the result is the opposite of what was anticipated with my folded hand being the hypothetical winner in that situation.

Apart from the bubble there are other situations on a table where cooperative play makes a lot of sense. As soon as there is a hierarchy of stacks, you can apply this basically on every tournament table. If there's two smart players who know under which conditions to implicitly cooperate, they can put as much pressure on all other players that it becomes impossible for the others to win a single hand.

So far I have never heard anyone talk about that aspect, but maybe I just wasn't listening to the right people.

Is there stuff on that topic out there? And do you look for signals of cooperation on the poker table?

Or is it just wolf versus wolf for you all the time?

 

[franken222]

I must admit, that until a couple of years ago, my mind wasn't set towards co-operative play.

It was only after seeing a tournament on tv, with three or four players left at the tablek that this was done, to get the small stack out. It was the commentator that pointed out what was happening.

I don't see this happen online, unless I don't realize that it's happening.

poker site rules ban collusion among players, but does that include unspoken collusion (which is what this is)?

 

[NWPatriot]

I haven't seen much specific writing about this either. I think that articles about final table and pay jumps get the closest. Look for the key word "protection" - this is when someone other than the all-in short stack makes a large bet to scare off the other players: he is "protecting" the short stack by allowing him to have more equity against a single player than he would against 2 or 3 other players. I always write notes about players that bet big on the river with a bluff in this situation - these guys don't understand ICM or the real value of eliminating a player.

I do agree with your perception of how it should be done. When knocking out a player is in everyone else's best interest, i expect that people know that the short stack will have a harder time surviving against multiple players. It is annoying to be the small stack and to have a few guys gang up on me, but this is how the game should be played. They are not picking on me as a person, but they are simply making the best mathematical play for their results.

Good luck and God bless

 

[TeUnit]

There is a big difference in simply calling the short stacks all-in on the bubble to get other players to call rather than raising - this play is in your best interest and in the best interest of the non-short stack players - and saying "hey lets all gang up on player X".

Implicit collusion is good, explicit collusion is bad.

Implicit collusion is where your play helps you and other players -the opposite of this is something like sitter limping where your play hurts you and hurts the other players at the table.

 

[Recreationalplayer]

Interesting take on co - operative play. I think if everyone is gaining EV with co - operative play, then that's the way to go about it.

 

[mina271]

I'm trying to understand it correctly, on the one hand I understand that it's better for everyone at the table if you manage to knock someone out of the tournament. But on the other hand, people who have smaller stacks will play their hands very selectively and try to get chips from the other players at the table as best they can. As far as I know, an agreement in the game on how to deal with certain people at the table is simply forbidden.

 

[Ssssssnakes]

I must admit, that until a couple of years ago, my mind wasn't set towards co-operative play.

If the thought never occured to an experienced player like you, then it is likely to be a widely unknown technique. (Pity, I look for it all the time. That rollercoaster carnage at the end is really not my thing.)

It was only after seeing a tournament on tv, with three or four players left at the tablek that this was done, to get the small stack out. It was the commentator that pointed out what was happening.

Good to know that it is a thing and I'm not making up BS. At least that

I don't see this happen online, unless I don't realize that it's happening.

I think I've seen it on rare occasions online. It's when big stacks never attack each other or break off attacks half-way through, or when they specifically bet and call when the small stack is on the big blind, or when as I described they check all-ins to the end.

A major sign would be showing cards after such an all-in, but I haven't seen it yet. (I've also switched off that function because it's annoying. Others probably switched it off, too.)

In the majority of cases an attempt (or behavior that looks as such to me) fails, because the other big stacks don't realize what's happening.

Poker site rules ban collusion among players, but does that include unspoken collusion (which is what this is)?

I doubt it. After all, you can't prove it.

I haven't seen much specific writing about this either. I think that articles about final table and pay jumps get the closest. Look for the key word "protection" - this is when someone other than the all-in short stack makes a large bet to scare off the other players: he is "protecting" the short stack by allowing him to have more equity against a single player than he would against 2 or 3 other players.

Oh wow! This is a new variant to me: Protecting and propping up the small stack so he can act as a useful idiot against other players who are too big to die but to small to live. On second thought, I actually do that too, occasionally, when I play KO games. The bounty is valuable enough that it is better to risk losing for the moment in order to keep the bounty potential overall.

I always write notes about players that bet big on the river with a bluff in this situation - these guys don't understand ICM or the real value of eliminating a player.

Yes, I do that, too, for the same reason.

Good luck and God bless

dito.

I'm trying to understand it correctly, on the one hand I understand that it's better for everyone at the table if you manage to knock someone out of the tournament. But on the other hand, people who have smaller stacks will play their hands very selectively and try to get chips from the other players at the table as best they can.

Part of the strategy is to either use it on players who are small enough that they can't be too picky on what they go all-in with. Another possibility is to corner one small stack together, which probably works best when the small stack player is sitting between two big stacks. I'm sure there's more situations where cooperative play can be an advantage.

As far as I know, an agreement in the game on how to deal with certain people at the table is simply forbidden.

Yes, that is correct. Coperative play as I understand it works implicitly, by simply doing what is cooperative (which may harm you to a certain extent) and not what maximizes your chances of wining.