Thorladen cheating? - Page 10

gtfo

On August 28 2010 07:05 SolidState wrote: Why does everyone on this website hang off Rekrul's balls like he is some fucking god? Some washed up American SC player. Who fucking cares. Ya I said it. Jesus christ, get lives.

Pfft... from Canada you say that...

On August 28 2010 07:50 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2010 07:05 SolidState wrote: Why does everyone on this website hang off Rekrul's balls like he is some fucking god? Some washed up American SC player. Who fucking cares. Ya I said it. Jesus christ, get lives. Pfft... from Canada you say that...

the fuck are you and why should I care?

Some TL.net hero who is a decent expletive filled storyteller. Give the faggot that. Maybe he should go into creative writing then. I am from TL.net and I have followed this website over the years. Fucking absolute ball lickers on here. Its like you have a man crush on him. He is some retard who hasn't been relevent in SC or Poker for yrs. Go hump a seal. Fucking apes.

User was warned for this post

Most of us are old men and could care less about internet cool guys. Thats not why people are responding.

On topic. Who the fuck cares. Lets the sites deal with it. Gossiping faggots.

User was temp banned for this post.

On August 28 2010 08:42 SolidState wrote: On topic. Who the fuck cares. Lets the sites deal with it. Gossiping faggots.

Ok Zeus. Anything else?

lol is it that time of the month again

What could of evoked such emotion?

jesus thompson come on.. its not softplaying, but if you say that from that point on, you split 50% of the profits/losses it allows you to squeeze the fish out of pots, to play overly agressive with both in the pot till they finally stack them and split the profits between them two of them.

In Clays defense, ADZ didnt send 4k he should have so he made a thread about it in 2+2 obviously unintendedly confessing which probably means he wasnt even aware that was cheating, so maybe there wasnt malice in his actions and thought he was just being clever..

lol solid state has to just be randomly trolling.

how can he be washed up? if anything the game itself is washed up its like 15 years old; he crushed it went to korea then made money playing poker.

get real

On August 28 2010 13:14 Baal wrote: jesus thompson come on..

Way to butcher my nickname, dude. =]

its not softplaying, but if you say that from that point on, you split 50% of the profits/losses it allows you to squeeze the fish out of pots

Not profitable.

I'd challenge you to come up with an example that proves otherwise. Think in terms of how much the colluders are risking to win a given amount (I did simple calculations on this in a different thread a while back) and how long would it take for a player to adapt to what's going on.

Intuitively it certainly might seem like you say, but if you actually think about specific spots and crunch some numbers I think you're going to come to the same conclusion as I have.

to play overly agressive with both in the pot till they finally stack them and split the profits between them two of them.

By splitting the profits do you mean a situation where if player A wins 1k$ in the session and player B loses 1k$ in the session then they end up at 0$? Or player A gives B 500$ back? If the former all they can accomplish is create a crazy image while playing each other (which, I admit, might give them an advantage, but the player targeted can still attribute it to history between them and have little effect on his game). If you mean the latter however the colluders have no incentive to play differently against one another, because they're still playing for each others money.

And the point I'm trying to make here (and which has nothing to do with where I stand with the ethical aspects) is that colluding in a cash game is a lot less profitable than what people make it out to be. I'd go as far as to say that I imagine in most cases when 2 people are colluding in a 3handed game it causes them more harm than good.

thompson stop trollin

Its not even about image, its about squeezing people out of pots

On August 28 2010 17:33 Baal wrote: Its not even about image, its about squeezing people out of pots

Humor me and give me an example with pot and bet sizes where you think it's going to be profitable.

On August 28 2010 17:38 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2010 17:33 Baal wrote: Its not even about image, its about squeezing people out of pots Humor me and give me an example with pot and bet sizes where you think it's going to be profitable.

Player A and C are profit sharing against player B...


Player A bets on a flop.
Player B raises with .
Player C goes all-in with and both player A and B fold?

On August 28 2010 13:14 Baal wrote: In Clays defense, ADZ didnt send 4k he should have so he made a thread about it in 2+2 obviously unintendedly confessing which probably means he wasnt even aware that was cheating, so maybe there wasnt malice in his actions and thought he was just being clever..

pretty sure he wasn't "obviously unintendedly confessing", he knew he was confessing and did it anyway because he wanted to out adz and get his money.

This is the example Baal gave on MSN:

Użytkownik Baal mówi: like ADZ raises Użytkownik Baal mówi: fish calls, mez 3bets Użytkownik Baal mówi: ADZ 4bets they pushed you out of the pot same thing postflop

Ok. In this example colluder A opens for 3bb, the fish calls, colluder B 3bets 11bb, colluder A 4bets to 23bb.

The colluders are risking 10bb (3bet by player B) + 20bb (4bet by player A) to win 3+3+1=7bbs in the pot. Therefore this play has to work 30/37=0,81... 81% of the time.

I'm not sure how I should understand the definition of the fish. If he is a really terrible player there is always the risk that he will make some crazy move like shoving 66 in that spot.

If he is bad, but not THAT bad it's certainly a reasonable play that will work most of the time. However if he is not as bad as to be unpredictable in that situation there is a probability that he will start coldcalling strong hands in the SB or reshoving light. Before you say it's unlikely I want to point is that he has to fold 5 out of 5 times in that situation in order for the colluders to be profitable (in total he would lose 15bb). All he has to do is make a shove in that spot by the 5th time to nullify all profits made.

Of course you can argue that he is going to fold every single time. I would counter that by saying yes, fish don't adapt very well, but they have a really short fuse too. I seriously question the notion that he would fold 5 out of 5 times. The fact that we're referring to a fish makes it even less likely in my opinion, because folding every single time would imply strong discipline.

Same logic applies to post-flop.

What you're suggesting has a very big risk to reward ratio with the pretty bold assumption that the target NEVER adapts.

Is this really this awesomely profitable collusion you were talking about?

Tomson your posts are all very well written and thought out, but what exactly are you arguing? If two people team up against another player then they will have an advantage right?