Author Topic: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB  (Read 9405 times)

trackman

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 10
BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« on: January 03, 2011, 08:10:14 AM »
Had this one last night, brought to my attention after the comp but was wondering what you guys would do.

It was on the bubble for seats into another future event. One player was very short stacked. Blinds are at 2000/4000 and running ante I think 500. A player goes all in for 4100 and it's folded round to the BB (also the comp chip leader) and the BB says "I pass" (only 100 extra to call for him!!!) and then even turns over pocket 8s!

Other players say the BB and all in had been chatting all night and so presumably friends. The very short stack (not in this hand) was furious and claimed to have been potentially cheated out of his seat.

My question is what would you do? It's obviously collusion, but does it warrant the BB being disqualified as he tried to protect his friend from being the bubble? It seems harsh as he went all the way to the bubble and only did it the once; but still.... Or would you penalise him say miss out 1/2/3 rounds - but would there be any point to that as it's the bubble and as the big stack he can sit out till he gains a seat anyway?

Thoughts???

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2011, 09:49:15 AM »
Trackman,
 There is definitely something going on that warrants some type of reprimand. It looks like he is really trying to keep his buddy in action and I don't blame the other guy for complaining. There have been other posts on this subject (not quite as obvious as this). The fact that he exposed his pocket pair before discarding his hand makes it tough to not penalize him. He would have to come up with a pretty convincing reason why he would rather face one opponent instead of the other.
 I don't know how you could disqualify him, but a stiff warning and a penalty would be appropriate.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 07:06:28 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2011, 11:14:06 AM »
My question is what would you do? It's obviously collusion, Thoughts???
 Hi Track... First, the vernacular issue. I wasn't there but I'd be inclined to think this isn't collusion, but rather slow play. Collusion requires the conspiratorial intent of both players and while the BB's intent may have been to send chips to his all-in friend, this doesn't by itself necessarily mean the all-in friend expected this action or somehow enticed it or "signalled" for it... but he might have, it's hard to know for sure.

So we're back to what we know with certainty: a guy already has 4000 in the pot and only has to put another 100 in pre-flop to see if he can beat an all-in out when the board cards are dealt.  That's a total and limited bet of 100 to win a pot over 8000, ridiculously favorable odds for any bet, especially for a deep-stacked player.

You as TD have the authority to call this soft-play if that's what it looks like to you, under TDA Rule 40. There are too many situations where soft play might occur to list everyone, so it's left to TD discretion. There is an implied rule in all of poker, and especially at tournament poker, that it is an "aggressive" game that is to be played with the idea of knocking out other players. This combined with the fact that the guy folds for just another 100 would definitely have me thinking about a soft play determination... For links to threads on this topic please see: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=228.0  and also see: http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=254.0  Soft play has been a popular and controversial subject on this forum for awhile so perhaps it should be explored in greater detail at the next Summit. Thanks alot for sharing this situation!
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:23:09 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2011, 01:22:27 PM »
 I've looked at the links that Mike suggested. I really think that the situation described by Trackman is very different. The fact that the player in question showed his pocket 8's, makes it more suspect.

 I also have a problem with TD's or the "floor" looking at a players discarded hand. What does that prove? He might have decided to fold rather than expose his attempted bluff. Cheating, or collusion would be; a player with a very powerful hand, conceding the pot to an inferior hand of a partner. Discovering a "rag" hand means nothing.

Oddvark

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2011, 12:37:31 PM »
Mike: in the first line of your response, you wrote "slow play" instead of "soft play" (right?).  Also, you didn't address the more interesting part of the OP's question: assuming you as TD determine that there was soft play, what penalty do you assess under these circumstances?  I would love to hear your thoughts on that.

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2011, 04:58:13 PM »
If I was there I would of forced the BB to call the bet it's a ridiculously small raise 100 to win 11,100 (assuming 10 seats), but presuming we have missed it I would penalize the BB by way of a minimum of 1 orbit, some will tell you you can't force a player to put a another single chip into a pot at any odds, but in this case it's 1/40th of his forced bet so farcical that he is folding.

On the other hand, did the BB realise how much it was to call? perhaps not, I have folded the BB to an all-in where the player had less than the BB! simply because I didn't bother to look at his stack when he shoved it in, and didn't ask for a count.

Regards
stuart

trackman

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2011, 08:31:39 PM »
That was my first thought Stuart, that if I were there at the time I would have bound him to call as his actions cannot in anyway be anything other than an attempt to pass chips off to his friend. There is no player in his right mind that would pass for 100 in that situation...

I don't think collusion has to be proven in this; as Mike B said it may not necessarily be collusion as the other player may have expected a call. But semantics aside, I feel a penalty should be given. The problem with this was that even a 3 orbit penalty wouldn't mean anything as the player was chip leader on the bubble for a seat so he could walk away and still take his prize. So he has no real punishment.

My only issue is that it somehow feels innately wrong to force a player to call a bet!

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2011, 12:20:39 AM »
Mike: in the first line of your response, you wrote "slow play" instead of "soft play" (right?).  Also, you didn't address the more interesting part of the OP's question: assuming you as TD determine that there was soft play, what penalty do you assess under these circumstances?  I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
Yes, should read soft play in first line, good catch Vark, thanks.... Actually I feel that is the most interesting aspect of the post: is this collusion or soft play? Those are quite different offenses... As for the exact offense, based on the information available I would most likely rule this to be soft play, perhaps suspecting collusion but I personally need more than suspicion here.

As for penalty assessment, TDA Rule 40 requires that a penalty be imposed if soft play is determined, but the exact penalty is also left to TD discretion.... On the mitigating side, the BB has no standing warnings and I'll assume he's played exemplary poker except for this blunder. On the aggravating side his action may just have allowed a player to double up who should have been put to the test given the long odds of the bet the BB should have made, and a message should be sent. I feel that for first offense a one-round penalty here sends the message adequately.... Note that TD's are given wide latitude and a player puts himself at risk, and has only himself to blame, for whatever is assessed. BTW, while I understand Track's point that the BB is deep stacked and can survive a penalty, this truly is still punishment. He misses out on the opportunity to at least look at his cards while facing several players who can't really put a dent in his stack. Plus it's an embarassment.....  but in the scheme of things perhaps most importantly it sends a message to the rest of the players.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:53:39 AM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2011, 09:03:04 AM »
Mike,
 How can you say that this is soft play, when it is definitely collusion. How would you like to be one of the players that would "make the money" if the BB called for another 100 and won the pot. IMO, soft play is when a couple of players "ram and jam" the pot, and when they knock-out, or elliminate the opposing players, they (the colluders) check it to the river. I think Trackman is right on. It is collusion.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 07:07:26 AM by Nick C »

MikeB

  • Administrator
  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2011, 12:00:09 PM »
Well, soft play or collusion? This also is left to the TD to determine is it not? Here's one definition of collusion (from Wikipedia): [u]"...Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights..." [/u] I see people all the time doing what the all-in did here: facing a bet that's 99% of their stack and just tossing their extra chip(s) in and calling it all-in. That's not a certain secretive signal to another player to fold. Strangers strike up conversations all the time at the poker table and develop a sort of temporary friendship. It's not uncommon for one of them to play a little softer at their new-found friend (or object of interest). So we have rules against playing soft...

Certain collusion to me is when players act as "partners" pursuant to an agreement between two or more persons at the poker table, sending each other info on the cards they hold, when to raise, when to dump-ship each other chips, etc.

 In between these two extremes is a grey area: the two are strangers, didn't come to the event together, but they've sort of struck up a pattern of activity that indicates they have a tacit agreement going on. I don't have enough information in the original post to reach this conclusion but maybe that's what Track observed, I wasn't there. Just based strictly on the long-distance info I have I can only personally say this is soft play, I can't be sure it goes as far as an agreement to ship the chips.  Also, if that's what the BB had in mind, would he have exposed his hand, I personally don't think so. But you are certain that this is collusion, fair enough, players attend a tournament and accept the fact that different TDs will rule differently on matters involving discretion, we don't have a way to standardize all rulings.    BTW, when I originally read this post I was thinking in terms of the damage already being done, i.e. the cards had been mucked and the chips awarded, by the time the TD arrived to answer the complaining player. If in fact all board cards and hands are still intact, it's in the best interest of the game to declare a call by the BB here. Where's the breakpoint for such action? It's also not determined specifically but as one rule of thumb I think it's proper to say that any level of betting you would call soft play you could also require a call if the board and pot are still intact. If I was able to do that, I wouldn't also issue a penalty in this case if I suspected it was merely friendly one-sided soft play, a warning would suffice for first offense. Again, I 100% respect another TD's alternative ruling, fortunately this sort of ridiculous soft play (or collusion if you want to call it that) is relatively rare. There's enough disagreement regarding soft play over the past year that it's seemingly worth re-visiting at the next Summit, IMO. Thanks for the comments!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:08:45 PM by MikeB »

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: BB passes for extra 2.5% of his BB
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2011, 01:06:19 PM »
Mike,
 I really like that.....one-sided soft play. Now I understand what you mean. Collusion would invole more than one person. In this case, let's say, that the all-in player just got lucky because the BB folded because he felt a friendship (or something to that affect) for the player. That is a good explaination. I still feel that the BB was wrong and deserves some kind of reprimand, but your explaination brings a new twist to the situation.
Collusion should involve penalties for two or more players (possibly). However, the one-sided example would exclude the other player. Now we just have to figure out which is which.
Thanks
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 01:15:24 PM by Nick C »