Re: SwCpoker.eu | No Banking, Only Bitcoin | Bitcoin Poker 2.0 LIVE NOW!
Quote
it probably didn't have any effect on the hand.
This is a very slippery slope.
Quote
someone actively trying to lower your EV by giving information to your opponents
This is exactly the problem. In fact, by announcing that he will not raise, he is sacrificing his own ev to the benefit of all other players still holding cards.
Eh, I mean, it's kind of making a mountain out of a molehill, imho. While it's definitely not proper for players to talk about hands while they are ongoing, or try to instill action one way or the other, particularly in a hand that they're not even involved in, this shit happens. It happens live all the time too.
There's no dealers to police table chat or players' behavior in-game at SWC, so might as well chalk it up as an occupational hazard of playing online poker and move on. You know, like losing a pot because your internet or power went out.
Fact is SWC has been mute (or dead) for months now, particularly here, and other forms of social media. They've already stated they're not doing any more work on the current client and that they're happy to continue the majority of operations as is, regardless of most players' feedback/input. Embrace and accept that fact, or find somewhere better to patronize. I recommend the latter.
Also, as an aside, that's not how EV works.
If this is a tournament where stack sizes much shorter, it's a much bigger deal.
Except tournaments on SWC, last time I checked, averaged payouts comparable to maybe an hour or two of flipping burgers. And I'm talking net, not gross.
-BttB
You are correct that people will try to cheat you in all forms of poker. You are incorrect that the best way to handle this is to just "let it happen".
I never said let cheating happen. I guess we just have different opinions/rationales on what constitutes cheating. I considered the above topic more table banter/angle shooting than actual cheating. Would you consider it cheating if villain said he wasn't going to raise, got someone to open, and then villain 3-bets? Who's to blame in that situation? Now, if we found out villain was talking to someone off site, on Discord or Skype, and sharing hand histories or player info, then I would consider that to be more along the lines of cheating. And let me assure you that I know for a fact that situation happens in the SWC player base.
That being said, personally, I don't base my play off of what anyone says at a table, other than possibly analyzing it for a tell. There's an old adage that goes something like, believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see. I think that applies more in poker than just about anywhere else, other than maybe politics lol.
Also, the main point I was alluding to, which I think is what you misinterpreted as me being complacent as to what you deem cheating, is that realistically nothing will be done about this situation, particularly on SWC. Villain may get a private warning, AT MOST, which I doubt, since support already takes over a week to respond to actual legitimate emails about cash outs, etc. And by if some chance this escalates, it's not like he couldn't just create a new account.
In summary, there are many risks we accept when playing Internet poker that we wouldn't face in a regular brick and mortar; sites absconding with player funds, bugs and connection problems, and yes, plebs talking about hands when they shouldn't be and not having a floor person to immediately come over and tell them to cut the shit.
-BttB
Yes, if Person A tells Person B that they are folding, that's cheating. It doesn't matter if it's in private or in public. And when the intent of the message is to fuck up Person C's equity, that's even worse.
Saying "Oh well, nothing will be done about the situation" (which you've said twice now) is defeatist and shitty. It's insinuating that people shouldn't care and shouldn't report it and shouldn't work to eliminate this element from the games. Even if that's not what you meant, that's how it's coming across.
In your scenario, where Person A tells Person B that they are folding, yes, I would agree that's cheating.
However, that's not the case in this situation and that particular scenario was never alluded to. The original statement made by OP was that at the start of the hand, small blind announces to table that someone should raise since he's not. He never said he was folding, he never said he wouldn't call, and in all in reality, there's nothing binding him to his statement. That's why this is more of ill-mannered table talk than flat out collusion, like you're trying to suggest.
And here, since you're having trouble processing what I mean, let me make it clear for you. I do not condone or endorse cheating in any way, and I agree all such instances of suspected cheating/collusion should be reported for further investigation. In my opinion, this isn't necessarily one of those situations though.
And, obviously, fun players get their own rules.
Pretty sure that statement makes anything else you have to say about the point moot.
-BttB
P.S. At least thanks for using (hand) equity rather than EV as mentioned above lol