Did I cheat?

[johnnyawe]

Well, I know this has been talked about before, but it happened to me last night..

SNG, 4 people left, one of them has a huge huge stack compared to the rest. His timer runs out during a hand forcing him to fold. From them on I can see that he has either disconnected or has set on "post blinds and fold"

A few hands after I notice this, a player gets eliminated. So now 3 left, a super tall stack and two short stacks (me being the shortest). Blinds are insane. I tell the other short that it looks like the tall stack is not playing. He says "Really?! lets get him out."

I say: "yeah".

We take turns stealing his blind. The other short was so happy that I noticed that he offers to dump some chips to me after it goes to heads up in order to "get me even" with him. (I had been folding my small blind to him). Well that was a little too much for me so I just said, "lets start playing", and he took 1st.

Am I a cheater? If the guy reports this, do you think PP will ban me?

[fishstick]

i would not consider this cheating because your communication took place at the table (as opposed to something like IM).

but is it colluding by party poker standards? i'm not so sure.

i think what you did is acceptable, although, it probably would have been better for you two to reach the same conclusion without chatting it.

i don't know what party poker would say...

[johnnyawe]

i think what you did is acceptable, although, it probably would have been better for you two to reach the same conclusion without chatting it.

Exactly what I was thinking. Oh welll.

Yeah, I don't have any "moral" problems with what went down, but I am concerned about what PP's stance would be on this. I'm sure they deal with this all the time.

[VeraN]

I don't think PP would really care. If the person filed a complain, PP would probably send a warning mail to you on his behalf so he stays content and continues to play on their site. Just because he got disconnected doesn't mean the play stops right there. It is his responsibility to reconnect although its a sad situation for him if he was on broadband as you can't really reconnect as easily as you could with dial up when your cable is down.

It would be a different story if there were 4 people, instead of just you 3. Then it would be a violation without a doubt as the 4th player would be at a severe disadvantage. But since it was just you and the other person left, and nobody else, I don't think it's much of a violation.

[Eric]

Cheating is a tough subject, it is not always black and white. As was said in this thread, you communicated in the open at the table so things could have been a lot worse.

I'm not saying that because you communicated at the table it wasn't cheating. For example, there are certain things you're not supposed to say whether in the open or not(like what cards you're holding etc). However, it wasn't like you were using instant messaging or anything to do something secret on the side.

[heatman]

It sounds like you were to the right of the big stack. Why wouldn't you just keep that info to yourself, and steal the big stack's blinds whenever you got the chance?

Being between the other guy and the guy who was folding seems like a significant advantage. He can't "auto-steal" because he doesn't know what you have, but you as SB whenever your partner in crime isn't in the pot.

[SteveO]

NOT CHEATING. It is part of the danger of internet poker. You are going to lose you connection or be forced to leave in the middle of the game. Too bad for the "away" player. On some Boards, people complain about the "away" players. It will happen to you some day.

[Toasty]

I've actually seen a few posts like this concerning MTTs (Three tables left in a super sat 18 win seats, 1 table agrees to fold the blinds) and everone admits (and the poker sites back it up with a warning) it is cheating.

You and the other small stack were working as a team against the big stack, that is colluding. If you made this agreement in a diff matter it wouldn't make any diff the big stack was away and didn't know about the agreement.

If he complained I'm not sure what action the poker site would take, at most i'd assume a letter of warning against collusion (its a site rule not to collude, occasionally they have deducted winnings and reallocated them).

The trouble is, it would be pretty foolish to fight the small stack when you know the big stack isn't there...

[AvatarKava]

I've actually seen a few posts like this concerning MTTs (Three tables left in a super sat 18 seats, 1 table agrees to fold the blinds) and everone admits (and the poker sites back it up with a warning) it is cheating.

You and the other small stack were working as a team against the big stack, that is colluding. If you made this agreement in a diff matter it wouldn't make any diff the big stack was away and didn't know about the agreement.

If he complained I'm not sure what action the poker site would take, at most i'd assume a letter of warning against collusion (its a site rule not to collude, occasionally they have deducted winnings and reallocated them).

The trouble is, it would be pretty foolish to fight the small stack when you know the big stack isn't there...

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Toasty.

In the situation you gave, it definitely is cheating - the practice of folding all the way around causes parties not involved in the hands (namely, those on the other tables) to be unfairly damaged by "softplay" since there aren't very many chips exchanging hands.

In the single-table example, consider a live game. If a player were in the tournament but left the table, tournament rules dictate that the player must post the blinds regardless of whether they are present at the table. At most casinos, the hand is automatically folded (they just put the blind into the pot and that's that).

It's fairly obvious to notice that the player has left the table - if they're not there and can't call bets while away, why shouldn't you raise?

One caveat: If you worked out with the other player that UTG would fold to the SB, who would raise (causing the BB, who is away, to fold) - THAT would be considered cheating because you're not making any attempt to play against your other opponent, who is still present at the table.

[Toasty]

One caveat: If you worked out with the other player that UTG would fold to the SB, who would raise (causing the BB, who is away, to fold) - THAT would be considered cheating because you're not making any attempt to play against your other opponent, who is still present at the table.

They made an "agreement" to take turns in raiseing the big stack for his blinds. This is collusion and collusion is against the rules of the site so its cheating 100%.

Whether its morally acceptable is another thing

[SteveO]

Let me add this... one time it was down to 3 players and one was "away." He had a small stack. Well when we put him all in he kept hitting the flops to such an extent that we could not get rid of him for like 15 minutes. Every time he got blinded down to AI, he won and doubled up. It must have happend like 8 times. Just another reason I think luck is a huge factor in SNGs. Eventually his luck ran out but is was funny.

[johnnyawe]

It sounds like you were to the right of the big stack. Why wouldn't you just keep that info to yourself, and steal the big stack's blinds whenever you got the chance?

I was to the big stack's left, and the other "colluder" was to my left. I thought about keeping it a secret and taking the big stack's small blind whenever I could, but the blinds were so insane that I was liable to be knocked within the next 1 or 2 hands if I would not have said anything.

How about this hypothetical situation, which fishstick brought up: supposing I just would have pointed out that the big stack had left.. "Hey, the tall stack guy seems to be away".. And then we took turns stealing his blind, but never talked about or made an agreement to do that. Would that be colluding?

Similiarly, is it collusion if all players in a pot agree to check to the river once somebody in the pot is all-in? What if the "agreement" is unspoken?

[Aceofone]

I ran into a similar situation on PS recently, I was in a 20+2 SnG, we were in the bubble after a long battle, and I was about midstack, then boom... my computer freezes, I think, no problem. Reboot the computer, and now the DSL isn't working, now im pissed. About 4 minutes later I get the modem and the router powercycled and everything is back up and running, log back into my game and the 2 other guys had both sat out for the time and we had just posted and folded in circles.

I thought that was pretty cool, I went on to win it, but in your case I would have done the same thing.

[Toasty]

I tell the other short that it looks like the tall stack is not playing. He says "Really?! lets get him out."

I say: "yeah".

We take turns stealing his blind.

The question was "did I cheat?" I say yes, 2+2 would say yes, RPG would say yes and PP would say yes.

If you are asking whether it was morally wrong that's a diff story.

[Manomanman]

If you guys hadn't made a formal agreement, you would have been playing against each other. In a live casino, you're not allowed to talk about hand strategies AT ALL with other players. You'll get booted like a greased pig in the kitchen???

So yes, real casinos consider it cheating.

On time I told a guy who kept folding his Omaha8 hand at the showdown to just show it down and the dealer would read his hand. The table did NOT like that one bit. And I could have been kicked out just for that if someone had filed a formal complaint.

[Krapp]

I always though any collusion is unethical and doesnt help you with a winning betting strategy. However, if this guy is LD I would definately raise him out if Im SB and hes BB and 3rd opp folded first (well thats obvious).

I wouldnt even tell the opp his LD. Sometimes they dont even know and you can pick-up free blinds. I have seen opps check to the river with LD players and lose to them! With the blinds that big, you'd have a good chance of getting the stack yourself, before they even catch on. (I believe, on Paradise you have to hover over the name a second to know the opp was LD)

Now it might be ok to say, "Hey, hes LD, Wow!" and assume some non-verbal collusion.