 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bfg9000
Can somebody answer my question about what makes you feel safe playing w/ real money online? What makes you think other players arent colluding? |
What type of collusion are you thinking about? Even if four players are co-operating, you still only lose the same money each time you lose a hand. I guess the fear would be that the colluders could know not to waste money betting and only have the best of their 3-4 hands take you on. Over time that could wear you down as you would be unlikely to be able to suck money out of more than one player on any given hand. Plus if the colluders had a variety of good hands pre-flop, they might assume that one of them MUST be a winner and therefore stay in regardless.
I'm thinking here that one of them has AA. The others could stay in with tiny hands just to see if something hits for them on the flop
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
What type of collusion are you thinking about? Even if four players are co-operating, you still only lose the same money each time you lose a hand. I guess the fear would be that the colluders could know not to waste money betting and only have the best of their 3-4 hands take you on. Over time that could wear you down as you would be unlikely to be able to suck money out of more than one player on any given hand. Plus if the colluders had a variety of good hands pre-flop, they might assume that one of them MUST be a winner and therefore stay in regardless.
I'm thinking here that one of them has AA. The others could stay in with tiny hands just to see if something hits for them on the flop |
That's not how you collude.
Playing cooperatively can take a number of forms, including using a raise-reraise strategy to bluff people out of pots which they'd otherwise play or to suck money out of people when one of the colluders has a monster.
In other words, say I'm person A, colluding with person B and in the hand with sucker C. I've made a straight, and I feel that C has top pair with a good kicker. B has missed completely. There's 100$ in the pot, and everybody has 125$ left. I'm first to act, then B, then C. I check. B bets 75$ with absolutely nothing. C calls. Now I raise all-in, B folds, C calls the extra 50$
Assuming C respects my play he would never have called the 125$ cold (if I'd gone all-in right away instead of checking), but now he's been drawn in slowly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's not how you collude.
Playing cooperatively can take a number of forms, including using a raise-reraise strategy to bluff people out of pots which they'd otherwise play or to suck money out of people when one of the colluders has a monster.
In other words, say I'm person A, colluding with person B and in the hand with sucker C. I've made a straight, and I feel that C has top pair with a good kicker. B has missed completely. There's 100$ in the pot, and everybody has 125$ left. I'm first to act, then B, then C. I check. B bets 75$ with absolutely nothing. C calls. Now I raise all-in, B folds, C calls the extra 50$
Assuming C respects my play he would never have called the 125$ cold (if I'd gone all-in right away instead of checking), but now he's been drawn in slowly. |
I think people could collude the way I mention as well. It would be very tough to get a fix on anyone's betting patterns when 3-4 players could stay in anytime they just KNEW that one of them had the best hand
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
But where's their upside there? |
1. On a hand they will win anyway, nothing other than confusing you or maybe sucking you in a bit if one of the betters has been acting as a bluffer is the first to bet
2. More generally-- playing multiple hands gives them insurance against bad beats since more flops are to their benefit
3. Also they can manipulate chips on hands you fold-- Perhaps they don't want to eliminate each other. Its pretty easy to move some chips to the short-stacked guy-- or maybe they want to increase a chip leaders chip count .
4. Seeing more cards change the mathematics on a lot of hands. Seeing a K on the flop is less scary against your QQ if you know that your partners already folded a K2 and K3.
5. Bottom line is that a lot of the logical assumptions you startto make on players will turn out to be false if they are collaborating. They can be unpredictable and set up behaviors in hands you are not in since it only moves chips among them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bfg9000
what is your edge? |
I think he means that he is winningso whatever effect it has has been insufficient to overcome his abilities. I tend to think the effect would be muted on many hands but that there could be particular hands where collusion could have a huge impact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
|
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
1. On a hand they will win anyway, nothing other than confusing you or maybe sucking you in a bit if one of the betters has been acting as a bluffer is the first to bet |
Yes, a valid strategy
quote:
2. More generally-- playing multiple hands gives them insurance against bad beats since more flops are to their benefit |
No, no, no. Completely wrong. Though "they" as a collective will win more pots percentagewise, they as a collective are also risking more money for the same gain (i.e. my money). Say I have AQ and one of them has KK. I'd much rather play in a pot with the KK plus my hand plus 3 other hands than just my hand against KK (where I'm a 3-1 dog) since the other callers increase my pot odds. That's why it's very often easier to call a bet when many other people have called it than when nobody's called it (assuming I know I'm behind, I'd like everybody to keep playing so that my draws are inexpensive relative to the size of the pot). If I was colluding with my buddy and we weren't going to pull some tricky check-raise bullshit then I'd tell him to fold preflop whenever I got a big hand so I could isolate players. In other words, your strategy would actually cost them chips in the long run.
quote:
3. Also they can manipulate chips on hands you fold-- Perhaps they don't want to eliminate each other. Its pretty easy to move some chips to the short-stacked guy-- or maybe they want to increase a chip leaders chip count |
Quite true, though this is less of an advantage than you think.
quote:
4. Seeing more cards change the mathematics on a lot of hands. Seeing a K on the flop is less scary against your QQ if you know that your partners already folded a K2 and K3. |
Quite true, and that's the basic level of collusion; improving your information. Altering your play to take advantage of collusion can be much much more powerful, however, as the likelihood of you gaining very valuable information from your partners' very limited additional information (say 4 cards every hand) is not that high
quote:
5. Bottom line is that a lot of the logical assumptions you startto make on players will turn out to be false if they are collaborating. They can be unpredictable and set up behaviors in hands you are not in since it only moves chips among them. |
Yes, and I'd rather not play against people who are colluding against me. But people who are bad players remain bad players when they collude. When theree are players who seem to consistently win chips from me I tend to avoid getting involved in hands with them anyway, focusing my attention on the fishes...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
quote:
4. Seeing more cards change the mathematics on a lot of hands. Seeing a K on the flop is less scary against your QQ if you know that your partners already folded a K2 and K3. |
Quite true, and that's the basic level of collusion; improving your information. Altering your play to take advantage of collusion can be much much more powerful, however, as the likelihood of you gaining very valuable information from your partners' very limited additional information (say 4 cards every hand) is not that high
|
I agree that 2 hand collusion don't have much more information than you but if it was organized and a guy had say 4 or 5 accounts running ( and if someone planned to cheat, couldn't they do this and have dozens of accounts to avoid patterns), heck you could be sitting down against someone that is seeing 10 cards to your 2. Some hands, even that would not matter if the cards were irrelevent but there will be some hands where it can make a HUGR difference
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
When theree are players who seem to consistently win chips from me I tend to avoid getting involved in hands with them anyway, focusing my attention on the fishes... |
Great advice but on the internet do you really know that Sammy556 is not the John443 from two days ago. Wouldn't any pro out there want to minimize others knowledge of their play?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-08-2005 13:51
|