Thorladen cheating? - Page 9

anyone saying what mez and adz did isn't cheating seriously needs to this about this

imagine a FR table, u vs 8 people who share a single bankroll. If even their combined IQs reach 20 u will be crushed

tomson are you serious? didnt affects their game? lol

btw who is sorel and how did he cheat in the past?

On August 27 2010 06:22 Roald wrote: I can't imagine anyone here hasn't talked with friends about all the different ways they could make big bucks cheating online poker. Unless there's evidence of them having actually done any of this, it is just senseless gossip

I'm unimagineable

On August 27 2010 13:58 Steal City wrote: anyone saying what mez and adz did isn't cheating seriously needs to this about this imagine a FR table, u vs 8 people who share a single bankroll. If even their combined IQs reach 20 u will be crushed

The fact that they share a bankroll has no effect on the profitability of the player having an independent bankroll. Now, if they start colluding it will. But I'd imagine colluding profitably, while a disgraceful activity, is not as easy as you make it out to be.

On August 27 2010 14:07 EvilSky wrote: tomson are you serious? didnt affects their game? lol

Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say it didn't affect their game. I just said, while it's certainly possible, you can't automatically assume it did.

On August 27 2010 13:56 Stim_Abuser wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2010 13:44 tomson wrote:   On August 27 2010 05:06 Daut wrote: ive def done some things that arent 100% ok, but they are not really all that bad either. i.e. looking at my phone for shoving charts between hands at the wsop when im short. Is that forbidden though? I heard using Pokerstove is illegal, but who's to say having a piece of paper with some strategy on it should be banned?   On August 27 2010 03:40 Baal wrote:   On August 27 2010 02:26 nolan wrote: mez and adz didnt collude they just split profits 50/50 in a 3 handed game wtihout the third party knowing about it. diff than outright collusion that is collusion Nolan What they do with their winnings is their business. It's only collusion if it affects their game (I would guess it might have somewhat in this case, but didn't necessarily have to). how is profit/loss sharing not going to affect the game? lol dont be silly. its affects it hugely.

Let me ask you this. If you'd happen to join a table where there was a player you were currently staking would it affect your game?

It wouldn't affect mine. That's why I don't automatically assume it does with others. But I see why some might see this situation as inappropriate.

On August 27 2010 13:44 tomson wrote: [ that is collusion Nolan

What they do with their winnings is their business. It's only collusion if it affects their game (I would guess it might have somewhat in this case, but didn't necessarily have to).[/QUOTE]

What you do with your money is your business, BUT when you make your money 2v1 with sharing agreement while playing the same table is 100% collusion

lol its not even close to the same thing.

the stakee or w/e is going to keep his wins/loses and nothing changes.

lemme give you an example. if you share profits/loses you can play extremely aggressive against said player and build a super crazy image knowing you wont suffer any loses because they will be shipped back. you can basically play as crazy weird as you want against your partner and have a sick image unfairly.

I'll try and find it but I remember reading something on 2+2 about the big game in Vegas people sharing action and being in the same game. It was not a big deal since it was announced before hand still find it kinda odd though seems like that is just asking for soft play even if its out in the open.

On August 27 2010 14:44 Stim_Abuser wrote: lol its not even close to the same thing. the stakee or w/e is going to keep his wins/loses and nothing changes. lemme give you an example. if you share profits/loses you can play extremely aggressive against said player and build a super crazy image knowing you wont suffer any loses because they will be shipped back. you can basically play as crazy weird as you want against your partner and have a sick image unfairly.

Perhaps I misunderstood something. Somebody said they split the profits 50/50. Did they give each other back whatever they lost against one another and split the profits from the fish? If yes, then I agree - it's bad. If not, then I stand by my opinion. Building an image against the person you're sharing profits with will still lose you money. And the player 'targeted' should realise that just because someone plays in a certain way against a given player 3handed doesn't necessarilly mean that's the way he's going to play against him.

On August 27 2010 15:18 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2010 14:44 Stim_Abuser wrote: lol its not even close to the same thing. the stakee or w/e is going to keep his wins/loses and nothing changes. lemme give you an example. if you share profits/loses you can play extremely aggressive against said player and build a super crazy image knowing you wont suffer any loses because they will be shipped back. you can basically play as crazy weird as you want against your partner and have a sick image unfairly. Perhaps I misunderstood something. Somebody said they split the profits 50/50. Did they give each other back whatever they lost against one another and split the profits from the fish? If yes, then I agree - it's bad. If not, then I stand by my opinion. Building an image against the person you're sharing profits with will still lose you money. And the player 'targeted' should realise that just because someone plays in a certain way against a given player 3handed doesn't necessarilly mean that's the way he's going to play against him.

naive

rofl - we're cheating, and its YOUR responsibility to figure it out, fish!

In a tournament, if you swap (is this the good word, not sure) 10% of the buy in with a friend, and during the tourney you get a seat on the table where your friend is... is this cheating ?
So as you enter the same field, and you could seat both on the same table, swaping is cheating ?

they're all fuken cheaters, agreed.. but then again, so what?
not too concerned at my 50nl tablez atm

On August 27 2010 17:22 kingpowa wrote: In a tournament, if you swap (is this the good word, not sure) 10% of the buy in with a friend, and during the tourney you get a seat on the table where your friend is... is this cheating ? So as you enter the same field, and you could seat both on the same table, swaping is cheating ?

a 10% swap wont make you softplay your swappin partner I guess

On August 27 2010 15:18 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2010 14:44 Stim_Abuser wrote: lol its not even close to the same thing. the stakee or w/e is going to keep his wins/loses and nothing changes. lemme give you an example. if you share profits/loses you can play extremely aggressive against said player and build a super crazy image knowing you wont suffer any loses because they will be shipped back. you can basically play as crazy weird as you want against your partner and have a sick image unfairly. Perhaps I misunderstood something. Somebody said they split the profits 50/50. Did they give each other back whatever they lost against one another and split the profits from the fish? If yes, then I agree - it's bad. If not, then I stand by my opinion. Building an image against the person you're sharing profits with will still lose you money. And the player 'targeted' should realise that just because someone plays in a certain way against a given player 3handed doesn't necessarilly mean that's the way he's going to play against him.

lol as rek said, naive... do you think they "shared profits" because they were underrolled for the game or because it was the strategy to maximize profit against a fish who was not aware of this, seriously man dont be stupid.

iirc the 3rd person ended up not being a fish and won like 70k or something during the session

fwiw

On August 27 2010 20:53 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2010 15:18 tomson wrote:   On August 27 2010 14:44 Stim_Abuser wrote: lol its not even close to the same thing. the stakee or w/e is going to keep his wins/loses and nothing changes. lemme give you an example. if you share profits/loses you can play extremely aggressive against said player and build a super crazy image knowing you wont suffer any loses because they will be shipped back. you can basically play as crazy weird as you want against your partner and have a sick image unfairly. Perhaps I misunderstood something. Somebody said they split the profits 50/50. Did they give each other back whatever they lost against one another and split the profits from the fish? If yes, then I agree - it's bad. If not, then I stand by my opinion. Building an image against the person you're sharing profits with will still lose you money. And the player 'targeted' should realise that just because someone plays in a certain way against a given player 3handed doesn't necessarilly mean that's the way he's going to play against him. lol as rek said, naive... do you think they "shared profits" because they were underrolled for the game or because it was the strategy to maximize profit against a fish who was not aware of this, seriously man dont be stupid.

I don't want to be constantly put in a position where people sort of imply that I said they're innocent - I don't know if they are.

Did they profit share to maximize profits against a fish? Sure. Does that HAVE to mean they softplayed against each other? No. It's still in their interest to win money off each other.

I would assume them playing normally against each other is a likely scenario given that (from what I understand) Mez openly talked about this deal. It's possible he could have colluded with ADZ and still maintained this level of honesty, but that would show extraordinarily bad judgement on his part.

I'd also challenge the effectiveness of colluding (while still maintaining it's obviously a very bad thing to do), apart from rare situations where ,based on what your partner has, discounting certain cards from your opponents range is vital information. Apart from those spots I can't think of situations where it's really advantageous. But I digress.

lol

Tbh isn't it already somewhat wrong when you're staking someone at a tournament that you play yourself?
It's not in your power on what table you'll end up and the % of the stake obv cannot determine whether it's ethical or not

But this happens so often it's ridiculous, ppl don't even mind.

On August 27 2010 21:56 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On August 27 2010 20:53 Baal wrote:   On August 27 2010 15:18 tomson wrote:   On August 27 2010 14:44 Stim_Abuser wrote: lol its not even close to the same thing. the stakee or w/e is going to keep his wins/loses and nothing changes. lemme give you an example. if you share profits/loses you can play extremely aggressive against said player and build a super crazy image knowing you wont suffer any loses because they will be shipped back. you can basically play as crazy weird as you want against your partner and have a sick image unfairly. Perhaps I misunderstood something. Somebody said they split the profits 50/50. Did they give each other back whatever they lost against one another and split the profits from the fish? If yes, then I agree - it's bad. If not, then I stand by my opinion. Building an image against the person you're sharing profits with will still lose you money. And the player 'targeted' should realise that just because someone plays in a certain way against a given player 3handed doesn't necessarilly mean that's the way he's going to play against him. lol as rek said, naive... do you think they "shared profits" because they were underrolled for the game or because it was the strategy to maximize profit against a fish who was not aware of this, seriously man dont be stupid. I don't want to be constantly put in a position where people sort of imply that I said they're innocent - I don't know if they are. Did they profit share to maximize profits against a fish? Sure. Does that HAVE to mean they softplayed against each other? No. It's still in their interest to win money off each other. I would assume them playing normally against each other is a likely scenario given that (from what I understand) Mez openly talked about this deal. It's possible he could have colluded with ADZ and still maintained this level of honesty, but that would show extraordinarily bad judgement on his part. I'd also challenge the effectiveness of colluding (while still maintaining it's obviously a very bad thing to do), apart from rare situations where ,based on what your partner has, discounting certain cards from your opponents range is vital information. Apart from those spots I can't think of situations where it's really advantageous. But I digress.

soft playing against eachother? use ur brain lol

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.