Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

To apestyles regarding the "scumbag" comment

Reply to Thread
  1. confused30s confused30s is offline

    Daytona Beach, FL
    United States

    Posts: 95
    Joined: Jul 05

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:15am)

    Ape, first of all let say that I do not envy your position in this situation at all. Secondly, allow me to quote my post and your reply (the thread did not let me respond, so I started I new post).

    " I think this is an excellent point you make Geek. I would like for everyone ease back to page 1 of this topic and at least glance at a lengthy post (a response to Waco) that examines how this practice of buying accounts might affect the players that are not doing it. I know I would play differently against players which I knew I could buy their seat from vs. players I couldn't if in fact I was good enough or corrupt enough to do it. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#eeeedd><TD bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top> </TD><TD>Re(5): Attempted Cheat Unsuccessful (Aaron Been)
    by apestyles on 8/19/2007 14:23 </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><NOBR> </NOBR></TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD colSpan=2><TABLE cellPadding=2 border=0 celspacing="0"><TBODY><TR><TD>If you know you would play differently that makes you a scumbag, and kinda dumb - make the best play all the time. According to this logic backers would softplay backees - they dont from what I've seen. Are you also argueing that backing is unethical from this standpoint
    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    No I do not think backing is unethical at all. I did not condone this behavior (chip dumping and buying the account that was dumped to) at all. I was saying that if I did in fact practice buying other accounts in tourneys in which I may bust out, and I was playing against someone whose account I knew I could purchase during the end game (assuming I was a good player) then it would in fact change the way I played against this person. This is all based on the assumption that I am corrupt enough to attempt to gain an extra entry in a tourney that I bust out. This is a bunch of "if's" and assumptions.

    Pretend for a moment that I am a top 10 tourney player (haha). I am up against a player which I know I could buy his account if I bust. This player and I have approximately an equal number of chips. If I go broke to this player, it is no big deal. All I have to do is pick up the phone and arrange a deal to buy his seat, thus gaining an extra entry with twice as many chips.

    I am not a scumbag. I was only stating that this is an entirely feasible plot for those that are "scumbags". Please read the end of my post that clearly states, "IF I was corrupt enough to do it." I am not, but apparently some are.

    My thoughts go out to you ape. Tough spot you are in bro. Sometimes it is difficult to get my point across clearly enough so that I don't appear to jump in the "scumbag" boat. I just wanted to clarify it a bit. Take care and good luck.
  2. apestyles apestyles is offline Moderator

    Vancouver
    Canada

    Posts: 5,087
    Joined: Sep 05

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:24am) in reply to confused30s

    Geez I'm weary of this topic. Sundays are hectic I wrote the post in haste. What I'm saying is, playing differently towards a certain person or account is "softplaying" something that is fairly scummy and unfair to do. The aaronbeen post had nothing to do with the idea of having different people already in place that you know u can buy their account from later. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A PRACTICE AND NOBODY HAS MENTIONED IT ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

    Usually, when this has been brought up, a low limit player or satellite player gets deep and opts to sell their seat for cash. They have in the past been approached, it is not set up in any conspiracy-like way.

    I believe you are getting confused with the idea of backers basically playing for their backees deep in tournaments. This does happen, but no accounts are purchased off of anyone - money is split up as per backing arrangement. A backer would never play differently vs a backee or softplay a backee ebecause they want to get 100 percent of the profit not 50 percent. A backee will not play soft vs a backer because they want their moneys too. It is a non-issue.

    My scumbag comment was unnecessary and didnt even make much sense. Its hard to type decent responses and 12 table at the same time as well as frustrating.

    In the future, please just post in the thread - there is more than enough clutter on this topic than need be.
     282 12 

    apestyles is an instructor at PocketFives Training . To get more of his advice and to watch his training videos, click here.

  3. Randers Randers is offline

    Posts: 12,889
    Joined: Nov 05

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:26am) in reply to apestyles

    so well spoken

    i be impresst
     
  4. Games Geek Games Geek is offline

    Foster City, CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,799
    Joined: Jul 05

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:33am) in reply to apestyles

    A backer would never play differently vs a backee or softplay a backee ebecause they want to get 100 percent of the profit not 50 percent. A backee will not play soft vs a backer because they want their moneys too. It is a non-issue.

    I don't understand how you can say that. If you can take over an account at any given time and still collect 50-80%+ (depending on the backing agreement, etc.) then chips won by that account still represent a certain amount of tournament equity to <span>you</span>. If you're facing a huge decision against an account that you know you can buy or take over and still win money with, that has a <span>direct</span> effect on the equity involved in the decision. A call and a loss is not nearly as devestating as it would be against an account that you have no access or stake in whatsoever.

    I understand there's a difference between collusion and "direct" multi-accounting and having several people backed in one tournament all of whom you are taking a stake in and any of whom you can take over for at any given time... but it's not as vast as you seem to suggest.
  5. apestyles apestyles is offline Moderator

    Vancouver
    Canada

    Posts: 5,087
    Joined: Sep 05

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:37am) in reply to Games Geek

    Then what you are argueing against is backing. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the original aaronbeen post. Either way, ethical backers play no different vs. their backees although some might - I've never heard of such a thing. Another reason this never occurs is stars watches out for softplay/collusion and reviews hand histories with hole cards included nonstop. Also from what I've heard, its not like jjprodigy "takes over" his backees account - he just calls them up and ghosts them (tells them what he would do but they have the final decision).
     282 12 
  6. confused30s confused30s is offline

    Daytona Beach, FL
    United States

    Posts: 95
    Joined: Jul 05

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:38am) in reply to apestyles

    Yeah, man I had 6 tables going and a wife bitching about dishes and laundry. I slapped her, told her to do the dishes, and hastily typed a reply. I was more concerned that my poor writing skills made me come across in a bad light. The thread wouldn't permit a reply within the thread itself, otherwise it would have been there. I'm pretty well done with the topic as well. Thanks for the clarification. Take care ape, and good luck.

    PS: No I did not slap my wife. I kindly requested a BJ and a nice meal (standard protocol in my house). Oh well, at l got to eat some steak!
    Thread Starter
  7. Randers Randers is offline

    Posts: 12,889
    Joined: Nov 05

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:38am) in reply to apestyles

    backers always play back hard core fwiw
     
  8. Games Geek Games Geek is offline

    Foster City, CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,799
    Joined: Jul 05

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:43am) in reply to apestyles

    Then what you are argueing against is backing.

    Backing? No.

    Backing more than 1 account in a tournament that you yourself also play and with the added option of "ghosting" or taking control of any of the 2-10+ other accounts in question? Yes. I guess I am against that.

    As to "ethical" backers vs. "unethical" ones the important question is how do sites tell the difference? How does anyone? Take their word for it?

    As to aaronbeen, yes. I realize the situation there is not quite what I'm describing but I think the conversation turned to other topics by the time this post went up.
  9. WillieDM3 WillieDM3 is offline

    Florence, AL
    United States

    Posts: 976
    Joined: Jun 06

    Aug 20th, 2007 (8/20/2007 2:44am) in reply to apestyles

    Obv a backer has the incentive to play differently against his backee. The backer might not fold where he is certain or nearly certain that he has the best hand, but he would/should be more cautious about getting into a race type situation with his backee, or even making a a "play" at his backee. To say that "ethical" backers don't do this, so there is nothing unethical about backing seems pretty naive, IMO. The incentive to play your backee differently is there, therefore it will happen. Does that make backing someone for a tourney that you are also going to play unethical? Probably so, but I doubt it's going anywhere.
     
Reply to Thread