Poker Cheating

Search

Give BB 2.5k he makes it 20k within 3 months 99out
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
4,577
Tokens
primetime21 said:
It is a tactical move to keep the short stack around. Odds are he wasn't cheating.




Could you please explain this. It's an interesting theory that I've never heard before and would like to know more. The prize structure only paid 1st, 2nd, and 3rd out of 10 entrants.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,442
Tokens
Hitman26 said:
Could you please explain this. It's an interesting theory that I've never heard before and would like to know more. The prize structure only paid 1st, 2nd, and 3rd out of 10 entrants.

Im thinking that as long as the short stack stays weak. 20% or less chips than you. It is a good idea to keep the short stack in the game so you dont have to pay the blinds every hand when its down to 3 people.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
365
Tokens
I was basically being sarcastic. There is NO reason to not eliminate the short stack.

There are too many examples of players coming back from having even only ONE chip left and winning the tournament to not eliminate the short stack.
If the short stack wins 2 all-ins, there may now be 2 medium stack opponents.

primetime21's statement is ridiculous.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,447
Tokens
By keeping the shortstack around the big chip leader has more control over the table. The player with the 2nd largest chipstack will be less likely to challenge the big stack because he is waiting for the shortstack to get knocked out and move up in the money.

Scooter i suggest buying a book or two on poker before attempting to intelligently comment on the subject of poker. This theory is well known and applied everyday by top notch poker players.
 

Give BB 2.5k he makes it 20k within 3 months 99out
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
4,577
Tokens
So in your theory, the Bigstack would never want to take out the small stack because he will have continuous control and a more dominate postion.


I don't agree with this, to me that would be like a team having first and goal on the one and kicking a field goal to go up by 10 instead of trying to punch it in and go up by 14.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,447
Tokens
Hitman26 said:
So in your theory, the Bigstack would never want to take out the small stack because he will have continuous control and a more dominate postion.


I don't agree with this, to me that would be like a team having first and goal on the one and kicking a field goal to go up by 10 instead of trying to punch it in and go up by 14.

First, its not my theory. I have only done it a couple of times. But it is a theory that some people do use.

Second, its situation specific. Depends on the opponents and the style. Like any lesson in poker you have to know how to apply the theory before testing it out in a real game.

Third, obviously it can't last forever. You need to knock people off eventually, but if you can chip away at the second stack for a few hands before finally knocking out the shortstack you can really have an advantage heads up.

Fourth, this is used alot in SNGs and especially when its 4 handed and the players are just trying to survive and get into the money. the big stack can really make a killing during that time.

This is just a possible excuse for what went on in this hand. For all i know these guys were colluding, but i would bet they weren't.
 

Give BB 2.5k he makes it 20k within 3 months 99out
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
4,577
Tokens
I see your point and thank you for sharing it. I just disagree.


Peace
 

Programmer
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,441
Tokens
I don't believe collusion detection is limited to looking at IP address, MAC address or other machine-related information; nor account related information.

I believe they also have algorithms to detect possible collusion by play characteristics, table sitting patterns, etc.

Collusion is the only thing I'd be worried about (especially in limit ring games). As for computer assisted play and opponent profiling; it may make a bad player better, but it won't make a player great.

I disagree collusion is harder to detect in a real-life casino. It's easier to get to know who you are playing against. At least in my experience and the relatively small world of poker here.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
365
Tokens
primetime21 -

Perhaps I was too harsh and should've stuck with "interesting" and not "ridiculous".

primetime 21 - "Scooter i suggest buying a book or two on poker before attempting to intelligently comment on the subject of poker. This theory is well known and applied everyday by top notch poker players."


If this is true, then I concede to my being behind the curve, and you're being ahead of the curve.

Can you tell me which poker books you've read which advocate this theory?
And which top notch poker players apply this everyday?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,117,950
Messages
13,549,671
Members
100,549
Latest member
apptaixiuonl
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com