Nothing.
Poll: Are Brad & Don colluding? (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter Taghkanic
- Start date
OP
OP
In my experience as a host, I’d differentiate between classic collusion and various shades of soft collisions.
I once disinvited a pair of relatively new players as credible accusations quickly arose of them signaling each other. That is more classic, obvious collusion.
I’d also put in that category stuff like two partners squeezing a third player.
In the definition of soft collusion I’d include stuff like going easy on a partner, keeping pots small when head to head, folding borderline hands that you might normally defend because a pal opened/3bet, etc.
Whether any of that is illegal as opposed to smart play seems like a judgment call. I think we all sometimes tend to play somewhat differently against players we respect or like, consciously or unconsciously.
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…
Last edited:
OP
OP
That’s the thing. Here, the host overtly prevented another player from sitting to his right. Kinda sus.
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.
OP
OP
2/3rds 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.
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.
Exactly.
undecided because they want more information and there is none lol
I mostly agree with the rest of your post, but I don't see how this falls on the collusion spectrum.
Using history to outplay someone is 100% legit poker strategy. I don't see how this could ever be considered collusion - unless you're using the info to go easy on your opponent, which would be soft play.
TheDuke
Full House
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.
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.
Back to my original (inarticulate) point…it’s his game…he can run it however. I would probably not go back if this was going on. Collusion or not.
No one is arguing how to draw seats and at this point we know it’s common.
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. I think we keep repeating ourselves.
Great discussion and I think we gave @Taghkanic spirited clarity. Hahaha idk why I got so pot committed on this.
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. I think we keep repeating ourselves.
Great discussion and I think we gave @Taghkanic spirited clarity. Hahaha idk why I got so pot committed on this.
Last edited:
The other side of this disagreement is going to wreak havoc on all cash games across PCF that allow seat selections lol!
NotRealNameNoSir
4 of a Kind
Gonna run a cashless game with cards mold casino tributes and self-seating to REALLY build interest...
ninedeuce
Two Pair
I hear you. Drawing seats is not that complicated, and position is important. Personally, as a host, I wouldn't allow reserved seats in my game, unless there's a good reason, like I'm also the bartender and need to be in the seat closest to the bar/kitchen.
Re the seating situation potentially contributing to the demise of a game, OP specifically said this game is very healthy despite the lack of random seats, it's been going on for many years. And what's more, despite the seating, the game is still soft enough for OP (and his friend who pointed out the issue), to be doing pretty well in it.
Your point brings up an interesting distinction, though. If Don always sat down first at a random spot, and then kept whatever seat was to his right reserved for Brad, that would be a lot weirder than both of them always sitting in the four and five seats at the table for years and years (which is what OP described).
OP
OP
There’s quite a bit of info. Requires actual reading.
OP
OP
To be clear: This game is only 6-8 months old. But I’ve played with most of the regs for a very long time in other games.
(In those other games, it wasn’t possible for the pair to control their seating locations.)
The game is healthy mainly because there are a number of big donators. But one of them has not shown for several games after a string of big losses, so attrition is always a risk when 3-4 players are regularly skinning the fish… For now the host seems to be still filling the table weekly.
Last edited:
Wils
Flush
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.
No I don't think they're cheating, based only on the details provided.
OP
OP
Per my post above, cheating (say nudging each other or showing cards in hand) vs colluding (squeezing third player) vs soft collusion vs angling see each a different thing.
I will be on the lookout for any evidence of soft collusion in their play in future sessions. I think my friend had a valid question, given their adamance about sitting that way.
DarkHelmet55
Pair
I dont see it as 4th grade and wanting to sit next to his bestie. The one advantage a host can use is that he sits where he wants for ease of everything. No one is arguing that point. Who doesn't want the most aggressive person to his right in most situations. The host tries to hold it for Brad and also knows that he will be there later and he can basically lay the chips in front of him and have one less detail to worry about. Every little bit of organization helps the host when you never know when people will get there and want to worry about drawing for seats.
One more thing no one mentioned, Brad doesn't need to pay attention to the TV. Maybe the host also likes that Brad is always paying attention to the game and he doesn't have to nudge him and say it's your turn to act. Nothing worse than having to constantly remind the guy on your right the action is on him. So the host could prefer that faster action in front of him.
One more thing no one mentioned, Brad doesn't need to pay attention to the TV. Maybe the host also likes that Brad is always paying attention to the game and he doesn't have to nudge him and say it's your turn to act. Nothing worse than having to constantly remind the guy on your right the action is on him. So the host could prefer that faster action in front of him.
everyone draws for seats at our game. Number one draw picks seat and everyone else follows clocxkwise.
if host needs to sit in particular seat he still draws its just his seat, is his seat number and everyone sits around
that seat according to their seat number. we draw seats every game or when we combine tables. keeps game fresh
if you arrive late you pick what is left for seating.
if host needs to sit in particular seat he still draws its just his seat, is his seat number and everyone sits around
that seat according to their seat number. we draw seats every game or when we combine tables. keeps game fresh
if you arrive late you pick what is left for seating.
There is zero actual hand data. I’ve been reading the thread, no need for the dick comment.
Since I can’t read can you provide the actual insight into cheating? As if this was in front of a judge or juror and you needed some reasonable evidence to assume cheating more than he insists on the same seat he reserves as the hosts best friend even when others want it.
Last edited:
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
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.
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.
We have two polls. In the first poll, only 2 people think cheating. Wildly most people are undecided. But want more info and there is zero hand data or zero examples of collusion play. And several people in the poll say it’s no big deal.
The comments with most likes also say it’s no big deal and let it go.
Another poll shows half the cash games on PCF allow players to pick their seats.
Does that mean there is rampant cheating going on in home games across the USA every time people like to have the same seat? If someone likes a particular seat of course you’re going to have an issue when all of a sudden you ask for it.
Again great discussion. And I’ve read everything people have said. OP asked for feedback and we gave it him. Not sure his opinion will be swayed however. Hope to hear how this pans out at his cash game. I imagine @Taghkanic you are going to say something at your game next time?
The comments with most likes also say it’s no big deal and let it go.
Another poll shows half the cash games on PCF allow players to pick their seats.
Does that mean there is rampant cheating going on in home games across the USA every time people like to have the same seat? If someone likes a particular seat of course you’re going to have an issue when all of a sudden you ask for it.
Again great discussion. And I’ve read everything people have said. OP asked for feedback and we gave it him. Not sure his opinion will be swayed however. Hope to hear how this pans out at his cash game. I imagine @Taghkanic you are going to say something at your game next time?
Last edited:
buffalojim
Royal Flush
Always
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
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?
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.
Clever idea to make the tourney you host a better experience for everyone.
The rules haven’t changed.
What are you suppose to say to the player when someone else has reserved the seat?
You can’t pick a seat someone else already has reserved?
The best friend has loyalty and that’s always been his seat?
buffalojim
Royal Flush
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.
At my house I always sit in the same seat, closest to the table with the chips and PC. Everybody else moves around me.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
