Poker Discussion Post

 Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the ironing.

I dont fully dis-agree with what you are saying Scha. i understand that people can go all in at any point. Im just saying that if two players AGREE to go all in on every hand for a full hour I would be pissed. i may be able to get it all in with the best of it 10 times in that hour and my hand my hold 30% of the time, but i would never be able to get a read on the two players etc.. look im not saying that players dont go all in alot during re-buy periods just saying IF two players had an agreement to do so for that re-buy period it would be wrong. 

col·lu·sion    Audio Help   /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

FWIW The response was pretty dead on from Annie.  If you can't understand why players making all in deals distors action then its not worth this conversation.  What if all 9 players at the table make a deal that the button can't raise?  is this also ok since no one is really harmed?  No, you cannot just make deals with players on how to act - get with it people.  Annie I still have no respect for you over the way UB has handled themselves in the past and currently, but I appreciate your answer in this thread. It actually scares me that we are in agreement as you routinely make zero sense whenever you speak about UB and the scandal they are CURRENTLY in.

Well, Annie Duke gave a great answer, and I'm definitely not going to argue about it.

But, I think this gets even simpler.  Annette did this before (second offense), and there was a huge uproar here that time.  So, there was no doubt that Annette knew what she was doing was against the TOS, whether it's colluding or not.

When you willingly do something twice, I don't have any sympathy at all, not that Annette needs it or wants it.  It's a just punishment.  Maybe she just wanted an excuse to take a month off.

One thing I've noticed about Annette is that she has no delusions at all.  She doesn't need to.  She plays the game as she sees it, and is very successful.  She rarely if ever tilts...she's emotionally rock solid.  She don't have any reason to make up shit.

I have no reason to think that Annette is lying to herself about this situation.  She truly believes that there is no wrongdoing going on. 

If that's the case, is it possible that she's actually correct?  And, that Stars misunderstands the true application of the rule?  I mean, it's possible that Stars could be wrong about something, right?

I realize that she had been warned, and that she broke the warning....but, sometimes when you know you're right, you can't just follow the herd.  Sometimes you have to challenge the rules. 

I guess it comes down to interpretation. 

Could you make it any more obvious that you want her to have your babies, your post is retarded at best.

EddieO:

Could you make it any more obvious that you want her to have your babies, your post is retarded at best.

AFink93:

PokerStars Game #19076151695: Tournament #96577501, $3.00+$0.30 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2008/07/24 - 20:00:00 (ET)
Table '96577501 364' 9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 2: drugo73 (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: slapudown (3000 in chips)
Seat 4: tbn49 (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: swisstard (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: hodge71 (1500 in chips)
Seat 7: AFink93 (3000 in chips)
Seat 8: themadroofer (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: corbucci69 (1500 in chips)
slapudown: posts small blind 10
tbn49: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to AFink93 [Kc 4d]
swisstard: folds
hodge71: folds
hodge71 is sitting out
AFink93: raises 2980 to 3000 and is all-in
themadroofer: folds
corbucci69: folds
drugo73: folds
corbucci69 re-buys and receives 1500 chips for $3.00
slapudown: folds
tbn49: folds
Uncalled bet (2980) returned to AFink93
AFink93 collected 50 from pot
AFink93: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 50 | Rake 0
Seat 2: drugo73 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: slapudown (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: tbn49 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: swisstard folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: hodge71 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: AFink93 collected (50)
Seat 8: themadroofer folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: corbucci69 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Ugottook420:

col·lu·sion   // ", "6"); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high"); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t"); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FC06%2FC0651700.mp3"); interfaceflash.write(); // ]]>  Audio Help   /kəˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1.	a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.

2.	Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

How is letting everyone know what your intentions are colluding? I have spent 150 in a 3r. I was not accussed of cheatings by anyone. How are you cheating if you are pushing a blind hand all in and risking you chip stack and dollars? Like most intelligent people have said, it gives everyone else at the table a huuuuuge advantage.

To call it colluding is a fing joke!!!! Makes me sick. No one person is benefitting as a result of the blind all in. It does not change the game at all, basically what is the difference of annoucing allin blind or just doing it every hand. Which I clearly remember that at this years 1k rebuy Ivey and some other big names were said to be all in every single hand preflop. While they may not have talked about it outloud, it is oooooooobv a predetermined allin. So annie I ask you what is the difference when you get right down to the action???????

annie is right. i think some of you are focused on which rules are more important. i wonder if we could even agree to the point that charder AND annette broke a rule? if you have a problem with annies point you also likely think a rule is more important in a 10k event than it is in a 1k event.
  many would jump all over some schmoe but when a hero makes the same blunder they reverse field. i hold these 2 more accountable because they are experts of the game.

The most shocking part of this whole thread is Annie Duke being surprised that online players have such shaky morals.  What's the age of the average online player?  24?  What percent of those players are spoiled brats?

You can't talk logic, life, consequences, right and wrong with the type of players that would consider colluding this way - because they are probably part of the youth phenomena of online poker who make loads of cash by just playing on their computer.  "Moral responsibility, rules - what are those?" They might ask.

I know there are plenty of P5er online pros who make their living through online poker and do not fit the profile I am describing, so please know that I recognize you lot are the exception to the rule.

resilient:

The dealer payoff and card marking are poor analogies because they significantly impact the result of the tournament, and because they are criminal activities that are not easily achieved.  Do you really want to compare announcing all-ins in a rebuy to those cheating behaviors? lol....

Rebuys have a unique dynamic that allows players to spend extra money to build their chipstacks and increase their chances to win the tourney.  Everyone knows this going in, and most players welcome the chance to do exactly that.  How is it so criminal or unethical to announce an all-in, rather than allowing only a few do so because of the luck of landing at the same table?  Seriously... it doesn't take an MIT physicist to disguise the act... so you and Howard go all in every prime numbered hand... or every time he raises his right eyebrow... it is impossible to catch that.  What I am talking about is providing an equitable method where every player has the opportunity to do the same thing... and if you elect not to, you are going to be the beneficiary of a larger prizepool relative to your investment....which is exactly what you planned to do when you bought into the tourney initially.

"if two or more players make a an agreement to move all in every hand then my outcome is affected by them. They have mae the decision for me about how much I am likely to spend in this tournament.  Not only that but if I am at another table I am being cheated as well because the people who have made the verbal agreement have made an agreement to reduce the likelihood of people at other tables getting a win.  They are agreeing to manipulate the outcome of the tournament."

Everything in that paragraph is true if one person decides by himself to go all in blind every hand without informing everyone else.  In fact, if he at least makes this information public, then the rest of the table and the field can use this information to make better decisions about how to play their hands during the rebuy period.  It would seem that the field gains equity, not loses it if someone's intentions are known prior to the cards being dealt every hand.

By the logic you used in the paragraph above, we should also penalize anyone who ever goes all in blind during a rebuy hour because of the disadvantage to the rest of the field that you allege is caused by this predetermined action.

I guess I cant post pictures in PD, w/e

But still, this thread is such a epic fail at having humour.

(im sure thats what Afink was trying to do)