How far is it fair to go with Sit Outs?

[GotaFancy?]

Ok - I'm moving all of the "junk" out of this thread - enough!!

[slapdash]

I guess I'm another lowlife.

I've not been playing in this league (and I think I'm glad!).

I agree that a tournament where this kind of tactic plays a significant role
is ridiculous, but it seems to me that the real culprits have got off rather
lightly in this thread: that's the people who set up the competition in such
a way that this happened. But if you're playing in a competition with silly
rules, then it's not your fault if that leads to silly tactics.

Chip-dumping is wrong because poker is an individual game, and you should
be playing so as to benefit yourself, and not to benefit another player. If
you're not doing it to benefit another player, then it's not chip-dumping.
Otherwise the definition that GaF posted from the Pokerroom website:


Quote:

Chip Dumping



Tournament chip dumping is defined as a situation where one player purposely loses chips to another player with the sole intent of increasing their combined chances of winning prize money.

would have ended after "another player", and wouldn't have qualified it with
the bit about the intent.

As for whether it's "unsporting", I really dislike having "unwritten rules" in a
game, because they inevitably lead to situations like this where people have
different opinions about what should be allowed, and bad feeling ensues. If
it shouldn't be allowed, then make the rules so that it isn't allowed.

[BillHicks]

This situation only occured because Reeshah built up a huge chipstack by being the only non sit out on a table and to my mind he conceived a very clever strategy to maximise his teams points and minimize his competitors points. The circumstances are parctically unique to this esport league with lots of non active teams

I think we should be congratulating his ingenuity and trying to think up counterstrategies rather than accusing Reeshah of unethical behaviour.

BTW he knocked me out with his aggressive big stack.

[Burnley Joe]

The original discussion was not about how he accrued the chips, pretty obvious and he did what anyone would do. Its about how he then fed the sit outs chips, which as i have stated i personally feel that its chip dumpling

But hey ho lets move on as this seems to have raised a few arguments, got heads up to look forward to tmrw and hopefully ill play him and he`ll feed me chips if i sit out LOL

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by BillHicks

This situation only occured because Reeshah built up a huge chipstack by being the only non sit out on a table

There was one other active player on the Table, but Reeshah knocked him out

[morlspin]

Mick, ive removed my over reaction and your reply

I am going to contact pokerroom regarding clarification however as i think its in all our interests

[WASP]

A lot of censorship has gone on in this thread, long live the internet

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by WASP

A lot of censorship has gone on in this thread, long live the internet

There has been no censorship of any posts to do with the topic being discussed.

[GotaFancy?]

Ok - lets raise something else that I think may be controversial (but better to talk about it before it happens than after I do it )

Imagine a game starts and there are 5 active players and 15 sit outs.
4 of the active players are on one table
1 of the active players is on another table with all sit outs.
If I am on the table with the active players, then I would sit out to get the game frozen, whilst everyone has the same number of chips

Taking it a step further - imagine 10 sit outs and 10 active players
- 9 active players are on one table
- 1 active player is on the other table. (the active player here also happens to be a member of the league leaders)

If I am on the table with 8 active players, I would try and persuade 4 other players to sit out with me to get the game frozen, to deny the player on the other table the chance to accumulate any chips.

What do you think? I view this as far far more borderline (in the sportsmanship stakes) than what Reeshah did last night, but I think I'd probably do it if it benefits my team....

[The Quiet Man]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

Ok - lets raise something else that I think may be controversial (but better to talk about it before it happens than after I do it )

Imagine a game starts and there are 5 active players and 15 sit outs.
4 of the active players are on one table
1 of the active players is on another table with all sit outs.
If I am on the table with the active players, then I would sit out to get the game frozen, whilst everyone has the same number of chips

Taking it a step further - imagine 10 sit outs and 10 active players
- 9 active players are on one table
- 1 active player is on the other table. (the active player here also happens to be a member of the league leaders)

If I am on the table with 8 active players, I would try and persuade 4 other players to sit out with me to get the game frozen, to deny the player on the other table the chance to accumulate any chips.

What do you think? I view this as far far more borderline (in the sportsmanship stakes) than what Reeshah did last night, but I think I'd probably do it if it benefits my team....

Nice one GaF.....you go for it!

TQM

[slapdash]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

Imagine a game starts and there are 5 active players and 15 sit outs.
4 of the active players are on one table
1 of the active players is on another table with all sit outs.
If I am on the table with the active players, then I would sit out to get the game frozen, whilst everyone has the same number of chips

I take it there's some rule about the game being frozen if no table has more than 3 active players?

I don't think there's anything wrong with this. Although there's definitely
something wrong with the format if this can happen.

Taking it a step further - imagine 10 sit outs and 10 active players
- 9 active players are on one table
- 1 active player is on the other table. (the active player here also happens to be a member of the league leaders)

If I am on the table with 8 active players, I would try and persuade 4 other players to sit out with me to get the game frozen, to deny the player on the other table the chance to accumulate any chips.

I think this would be wrong. You'd be coming to an agreement with other
players to disadvantage the active player at the other table, which would be
collusion. There's definitely something wrong with the format if it gives
him the massive random advantage of being at a table with no other active
players, but I don't think that means that it's OK to collude to redress the
balance.

Oh ... did I mention? There's definitely something wrong with the format.

[GotaFancy?]

I think Pokerroom have an inbuilt safety switch that freezes MTTs if at least 80% of the field are sit outs. (presumably assuming there are server/connection issues). In general, that sounds a good idea to me however obviously it's not good if it's a freeroll with a lot of sit outs

[Burnley Joe]

Be glad when this is all over

[Dodger]

One of the earlier rounds there were only two of us ''playing'' and we were directly opposite with four sit-outs on either side.
Not a single word was spoken.
We very quickly settled into a rhythm where I took the four blinds round to him and he took the four blinds round to me.
If anybody looked at the full history I was folding AA, KK, QQ over and over again and I am sure that he was too...it would have screemed collusion, but there was none...we had zero contact.
I wanted the chips and clearly he did too.

So this tournament is throwing up so many problems and they are all directly related to the sitouts.

If it was my tournament I would email those who don't play and tell them they'll be thrown out of any game if they are not at the table within ten minutes of the start...that would help.

[ColU_FC]

I think getting the games frozen is an excellent idea. Indeed I think it is so good that we should do it for every round from now on. I strongly suspect that if we do so then every team will score 0 points for each round. This will result in what is obviously the best team finishing first.

QED.

[slick mick]

I've taken some time to think this through, partly because it's a complex situation and raising some strong emotional responses and partly because it's a player on my team who is the main cause of controversy so here's my thoughts.

Is it collusion? No, absolutely not, collusion requires 2 people to be actively involved.

Is it unsporting? Again no because poker is a game not a sport. Game theory dictates that you should maximise your chance to win while decreasing the chances of your opponents. Reeshah has devised a tactic which does exactly that and should be congratulated for his cleverness. However it is a tactic which I personally disapprove of and would not use.

Is it against the rules? Yes and no. Unfortunately the pokerroom software is set up to allow this, though going by strict rules of poker (TDA or Roberts) any one not at their seat when the first card is dealt should be folded before any action takes place. Some other poker sites will fold a sit out when the action comes to them (including unraised big blinds). Some sites will remove a sit out and their chips if they haven't acted during the first level. Neither of these solutions adheres to the strict rules of poker but are better methids than that used by pokerroom.

So who's to blame here? Pokerroom have inadequate software which doesn't fully adhere to the rules of poker so they must shoulder the majority of the blame. E-sport could perhaps have set up the tournaments differently so they required a player to register for the tournament as they have with the heads up league so a portion of the blame lies with them though I would imagine few if any people would have forseen such a problem.

The main worry I have with this thread is the extent to which members have attacked each other. This is not the PL way. If you get beat, however it happens, you should suck it up and move on. If you really must post about it do it in the bad beat thread so we can ignore you easily.

It's a common saying so I don't know who to attribute it to:
'If you can't beat the sitouts you shouldn't be playing poker'

[pistonbroke]

Spiffing idea

Originally Posted by ColU_FC

I think getting the games frozen is an excellent idea. Indeed I think it is so good that we should do it for every round from now on. I strongly suspect that if we do so then every team will score 0 points for each round. This will result in what is obviously the best team finishing first.

QED.

[BillHicks]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

Ok - lets raise something else that I think may be controversial (but better to talk about it before it happens than after I do it )

Imagine a game starts and there are 5 active players and 15 sit outs.
4 of the active players are on one table
1 of the active players is on another table with all sit outs.
If I am on the table with the active players, then I would sit out to get the game frozen, whilst everyone has the same number of chips

Taking it a step further - imagine 10 sit outs and 10 active players
- 9 active players are on one table
- 1 active player is on the other table. (the active player here also happens to be a member of the league leaders)

If I am on the table with 8 active players, I would try and persuade 4 other players to sit out with me to get the game frozen, to deny the player on the other table the chance to accumulate any chips.

What do you think? I view this as far far more borderline (in the sportsmanship stakes) than what Reeshah did last night, but I think I'd probably do it if it benefits my team....

I think your example here is cheating as it involves active cooperation of two or more players for their mutual benefit.

It is completely different to Reeshah's actions which only depended on him and did not require any other's cooperaion.

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by slick mick

Is it unsporting? Again no because poker is a game not a sport. Game theory dictates that you should maximise your chance to win while decreasing the chances of your opponents. Reeshah has devised a tactic which does exactly that and should be congratulated for his cleverness. However it is a tactic which I personally disapprove of and would not use.

If it's not unsporting (in your view) and it's not against the rules, and it is a beneficial tactic, why would you disapprove of it and not use it?

[slick mick]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

If it's not unsporting (in your view) and it's not against the rules, and it is a beneficial tactic, why would you disapprove of it and not use it?

Because poker is a difficult enough game to start with and sitouts alter the game too much. I hate playing with sitouts and wish all poker sites would learn the rules and apply them properly. I would always play to eliminate the sitouts before the genuine players as a matter of respect for them and the game.