Nothing.What would happen if you sat in someone else’s customary place before they arrived?
Nothing.What would happen if you sat in someone else’s customary place before they arrived?
To be clear, the setup might not be "innocent" of any poker strategic considerations for each of them, but it's far from collusion.
Nothing.
It’s not sus. Look at the poll and the replies. Lol. He wants to sit by his friend. And even if it’s bc the correct spot by aggression who cares. As evidence in replies and my poll it’s more common that not reserved seats are a norm. Based on loyalty.That’s the thing. Here, the host overtly prevented another player from sitting to his right. Kinda sus.
Exactly.Going to assume @Taghkanic, that you, too, are a winning player in this game, and wish to keep playing there (and thus, keep it alive).
If you want to keep this game light and loose (and profitable) think the last thing you want to do is suggest drawing for seats.
First of all, it adds a bunch of complications. Do you only draw for first X players? Or for everyone who's indicated they'll show?
Just like what happens in classrooms without assigned seats, or open offices without assigned seats, is that folks pretty quickly pick spots and stick with them. Nothing to do with collusion, everything to do with human nature.
Add in the fact that these guys are good friends for decades and of course they might like to sit next to each other.
Healthy, lucrative cash games are delicate organisms, like orchids lol. You need to put in a bit of effort to keep them healthy, and it's not hard to inadvertently kill them off! Suggesting picking seats is not the way to go. If they are colluding somehow, they'll still find a way to do it, and if they aren't, you've suggested making the game more complicated/annoying, and possibly insinuated you don't trust how things have been run up until now.
undecided because they want more information and there is none lol2/3rds are undecided, so I think some suspicions are warranted.
It is pretty odd to say someone can’t sit in an open seat in a game with no rules about who sits where.
As a host I would never do that in my own game unless someone had (say) a disability which required them to use a special chair or be closest to the bathroom or something like that.
I mostly agree with the rest of your post, but I don't see how this falls on the collusion spectrum.In between the two I’d put things like using familiarity with each other’s play to notice subtle signals or tells (e.g. with bet sizing). Stuff like that is hard to prove and isn’t necessarily even cheating. Fine line between being clever and observant and playing dirty…
Going to assume @Taghkanic, that you, too, are a winning player in this game, and wish to keep playing there (and thus, keep it alive).
If you want to keep this game light and loose (and profitable) think the last thing you want to do is suggest drawing for seats.
First of all, it adds a bunch of complications. Do you only draw for first X players? Or for everyone who's indicated they'll show?
Just like what happens in classrooms without assigned seats, or open offices without assigned seats, is that folks pretty quickly pick spots and stick with them. Nothing to do with collusion, everything to do with human nature.
Add in the fact that these guys are good friends for decades and of course they might like to sit next to each other.
Healthy, lucrative cash games are delicate organisms, like orchids lol. You need to put in a bit of effort to keep them healthy, and it's not hard to inadvertently kill them off! Suggesting picking seats is not the way to go. If they are colluding somehow, they'll still find a way to do it, and if they aren't, you've suggested making the game more complicated/annoying, and possibly insinuated you don't trust how things have been run up until now.
In that case, I’m against it. Seems the entire point is to gain an (overt) edge on the rest of the table….every night. I want to sit next to the LAP, and to the right of the weak/passive player once in while….both of them are at an advantage.Yeah, I hear you. I guess I'm thinking of it like this. It sounds like them sitting like this every time is a symbiotic relationship -- Don gets position on the most aggressive player in the game, Brad gets the advantage of a straightforward (too tight/passive?) player to his left and while I never need to sit next to my best friend at the poker table, I have a better time when I do.
To be clear, the setup might not be "innocent" of any poker strategic considerations for each of them, but it's far from collusion.
Also, jealous that you have a regular 2/5 game to go to!
Gonna run a cashless game with cards mold casino tributes and self-seating to REALLY build interest...The other side of this disagreement is going to wreak havoc on all cash games across PCF that allow seat selections lol!
Drawing seats is not really complicated.
8 people rsvp'd?
5 people showed up on time and the last 3 plan on arriving throughout the night?
Lay out 8 seating chips. 5 people who show up on time grab a chip. They sit in their seats and the 3 remaining seats are open. Save the 3 remaining seating chips for when the other folks arrive.
Position is one of the most important aspects in poker. If you're always in the same seat relative to the same players every single game, that seems unfair and potential cause for a game to die. Ie. If the 2 best players were always in the 2 seats to your left, you're out of position to them pretty much every single hand except your button.
Random seating is an equalizer. And it just breaks up the monotony that pre-set seating can create.
undecided because they want more information and there is none lol
OP specifically said this game is very healthy despite the lack of random seats, it's been going on for many years.
It's DEFINITELY cheating. If I were you I'd make a big announcement at the next game and publicly call them out before taking a dump on the poker table, film it, then put it on MySpace.
No I don't think they're cheating, based only on the details provided.
There is zero actual hand data. I’ve been reading the thread, no need for the dick comment.There’s quite a bit of info. Requires actual reading.
I can agree with this - except this isn't about picking a seat. The player picked his seat, and was told no. If the rule is pick your seat, and you are not allowed to pick your seat, you are already violating the rules - by definition, cheating. Perhaps not at cards, but still violating the rules. Sure exceptions can be made - mobility limited gets easy in/out access, visibility impaired gets a center seat, host needs access to chips, etc. - but "He's my friend" is not grounds for an exception.Good cash games and regulars you get to pick your seat.
...unless I was still a winning player. We can't say if they are or aren't cheating at cards, and if I'm winning, it's less likely that they are.it’s his game…he can run it however. I would probably not go back if this was going on. Collusion or not.
But being told "you cant sit here, it suddenly a something burger. A huge order of suspicion, with a side of deck-setting, and a thick layer of Signal's Ketchup. Are they? Aren't they? Who knows. The order of suspicion has been made, and now it is difficult - or at least stupid - to ignore.But assuming collusion on two friends in a game w players picks seats is a nothing burger and a game that lets people pick seats is also common and a nothing burger
But you can’t sit there bc his friend always sits there? That’s all it is lol. His friend has the priority. It’s his seat he always sits in?I can agree with this - except this isn't about picking a seat. The player picked his seat, and was told no. If the rule is pick your seat, and you are not allowed to pick your seat, you are already violating the rules - by definition, cheating. Perhaps not at cards, but still violating the rules. Sure exceptions can be made - mobility limited gets easy in/out access, visibility impaired gets a center seat, host needs access to chips, etc. - but "He's my friend" is not grounds for an exception.
...unless I was still a winning player. We can't say if they are or aren't cheating at cards, and if I'm winning, it's less likely that they are.
But being told "you cant sit here, it suddenly a something burger. A huge order of suspicion, with a side of deck-setting, and a thick layer of Signal's Ketchup. Are they? Aren't they? Who knows. The order of suspicion has been made, and now it is difficult - or at least stupid - to ignore.
At the firehall, we don't have assigned seats, but we all sit in the same seats every single time. When someone is out and a replacement fills in at our station, they often ask "which seat is open", and we tell them. Sometimes the 'traveler' will just see an open seat and sit, mussing up the regular arrangement. With the exception of one guy, the person whos seat was taken will sit in another seat (the one we know to be open). Only one guy cares - because he likes to bite his best friend (don't ask - weird things occur during our down time).
In @Taghkanic 's case, I would sit in the "reserved seat". When Dan says, “Oh, Brad is sitting there,” be light-hearted about it and reply "I know... I'm sitting on his face now", or sing "not tooooooniiiiight". You could even say "Yep - tonight I'm putting Brad on tilt for that bad beat he delivered to me last week". See what the host's reaction is. There is no reason for him to get upset (unless he likes to bite Brad), and the seat should be yours. It should be a laughing moment. Unless the host is extremely OCD, that is where it should end.
After taking Brad's seat, it would be interesting to see how Brad responds too. If the seat on Don's other side is open (seat 6), Brad can sit there, and the two lovebirds are together. If Brad takes seat 3, being out of position on Dan could be an important part of the seating strategy. Not illegal, but a strategy that the host is preventing by reserving Brad's seat. (So maybe that is illegal?)
I would also be interested in seeing if that affected their results. One session could be variance - so it would take many sessions of nabbing Brads seat to really discover if there is anything nefarious going on.
Alwaysdraw for seats
Every time Mrs Zombie and I have finished #1/#2 in Vegas tournaments (4 times now) people have assumed we were cheating. We don't, but is is safe to assume it. Twice we've had floor people say, "I'm going to put you two at different tables." That's fine, suspicion isn't an indictment. I'm not offended, because I have nothing to hide.But you can’t sit there bc his friend always sits there? That’s all it is lol. His friend has the priority. It’s his seat he always sits in?
This is wild to assume cheating is going over someone requesting a seat. People are creatures of habit and superstitions more than cheaters.
I’m just giving the players way more credit and assuming innocence over guilt.
Clever idea to make the tourney you host a better experience for everyone.Every time Mrs Zombie and I have finished #1/#2 in Vegas tournaments (4 times now) people have assumed we were cheating. We don't, but is is safe to assume it. Twice we've had floor people say, "I'm going to put you two at different tables." That's fine, suspicion isn't an indictment. I'm not offended, because I have nothing to hide.
In my tournaments (not cash games) I have an algorithm that tracks who a player was seating with when they won (finished in the money). That calculation was initiated because I didn't want couples fighting all the way home because one kept felting the other. But it serves a secondary purpose of reducing collusion between spouses or friends. Do I think they are cheating? No. But does it hurt to sit somewhere else?
The rules haven’t changed.I can agree with this - except this isn't about picking a seat. The player picked his seat, and was told no. If the rule is pick your seat, and you are not allowed to pick your seat, you are already violating the rules - by definition, cheating. Perhaps not at cards, but still violating the rules. Sure exceptions can be made - mobility limited gets easy in/out access, visibility impaired gets a center seat, host needs access to chips, etc. - but "He's my friend" is not grounds for an exception.
...unless I was still a winning player. We can't say if they are or aren't cheating at cards, and if I'm winning, it's less likely that they are.
But being told "you cant sit here, it suddenly a something burger. A huge order of suspicion, with a side of deck-setting, and a thick layer of Signal's Ketchup. Are they? Aren't they? Who knows. The order of suspicion has been made, and now it is difficult - or at least stupid - to ignore.
At the firehall, we don't have assigned seats, but we all sit in the same seats every single time. When someone is out and a replacement fills in at our station, they often ask "which seat is open", and we tell them. Sometimes the 'traveler' will just see an open seat and sit, mussing up the regular arrangement. With the exception of one guy, the person whos seat was taken will sit in another seat (the one we know to be open). Only one guy cares - because he likes to bite his best friend (don't ask - weird things occur during our down time).
In @Taghkanic 's case, I would sit in the "reserved seat". When Dan says, “Oh, Brad is sitting there,” be light-hearted about it and reply "I know... I'm sitting on his face now", or sing "not tooooooniiiiight". You could even say "Yep - tonight I'm putting Brad on tilt for that bad beat he delivered to me last week". See what the host's reaction is. There is no reason for him to get upset (unless he likes to bite Brad), and the seat should be yours. It should be a laughing moment. Unless the host is extremely OCD, that is where it should end.
After taking Brad's seat, it would be interesting to see how Brad responds too. If the seat on Don's other side is open (seat 6), Brad can sit there, and the two lovebirds are together. If Brad takes seat 3, being out of position on Dan could be an important part of the seating strategy. Not illegal, but a strategy that the host is preventing by reserving Brad's seat. (So maybe that is illegal?)
I would also be interested in seeing if that affected their results. One session could be variance - so it would take many sessions of nabbing Brads seat to really discover if there is anything nefarious going on.
And the guy who always gets his own seat just happens to be the winningest player of the group. I agree and would not be a regular at this game.I’m not saying that not drawing for seats equals cheating nor would I make drama and refuse to sit at a game where there was no draw. But I would hesitate to become a regular at a game where certain people always has to sit in certain seats for no good reason (host closest to the kitchen or whatever is a valid excepetion). Superstition or needing to sit close to a friend just sound like bullshit reasons to me.