Playing my regular $2-4 PokerStars razz game this afternoon I had a rather jolting experience, when a player not in the hand stepped in via the chat box, and probably altered how the hand played out.
Here's a screen shot of how the hand looked when it was over. We ended up with the same best five cards, and split the pot.
As you can see, we both started with excellent hands. Predictably, we capped the betting on 3rd. I improved nicely on 4th; he did not. And he got even worse on 5th. So he had decisions to make when I bet out in both spots.
Here's the relevant portion of the hand transcript, so you can see how things played out:
*** 4th STREET ***
Dealt to Rakewell1 [Ah 3h 4d] [2s]
Dealt to Phoinix [4h] [Tc]
Rakewell1: bets $2
Phoinix: calls $2
*** 5th STREET ***
Dealt to Rakewell1 [Ah 3h 4d 2s] [Ts]
Dealt to Phoinix [4h Tc] [Qh]
Rakewell1: bets $4
Phoinix said, "u lucky"
bizzlenuts said, "he paired"
Phoinix said, "u might have a deuce"
Phoinix: calls $4
So "bizzlenuts" appears to have planted the suggestion that my 2 on 4th street paired one of my down cards. What the hand history doesn't show is the delays. "Phoinix" first got the 15-second warning, then it showed him having requested extra time. It is in that window of time that "bizzlenuts" speaks up with "he paired." After another delay we get "Phoinix" saying "u might have a deuce" (i.e., another deuce in the hole--a pair).
It's pretty clear that he couldn't call there with a 10 and a Q showing without making the decision that I had, in fact, paired up. Now, maybe he would have come to that conclusion on his own. But it sure looks like it was the chat suggestion that pushed him that way.
This is so obviously wrong I hope I don't have to explain it. It's as clear a violation of the "one player to a hand" rule as I can imagine. And in this case, it likely cost me half of the pot, because without it, I think my opponent would have folded on 5th street.
This ticked me off enough that I fired off an email to PokerStars support, with the relevant portion of the hand history included. Here's the reply I got back:
Thank you again for bringing the actions of this player to our attention.
His comment was inappropriate and violated the rules listed on our
site.
Although many of our players are not aware of all proper rules and
etiquette, this player has been informed of the rules now. A future infraction
by this player is potential grounds for chat revocation.
The help of players like yourself is integral to maintaining the
integrity of our games on PokerStars, and we appreciate vigilant players like
yourself who help us police our games.
Regards,
Larry
PokerStars Support Team
Personally, I'd prefer that they forcibly confiscate the money I believe I lost on that hand from "bizzlenuts" and transfer it to my account as just compensation. I suppose that's asking a bit much, though.
What is so damn hard about just shutting up about the one subject that is forbidden to discuss while playing a poker hand, which is the hand in progress? It's like Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit. There's a whole garden full of every variety of things to eat, but what they go for is the one thing that is off-limits. It's the same with poker. The entire universe of possible topics of discussion is open, with one exception--the hand currently being played. Yet that is the one thing that players seem most unable to refrain from commenting about.
I will never, ever understand this.
Posts
8 comments:
You know, one sure way to eliminate the nasty habit some people have of talking about the hand in progress would be to have those people removed, subdued and ruthlessly beheaded. Although I've noticed that "loose talkers" can also be some of the most "loose players" so perhaps we should let them live, and stay and lose their chips?
This type of "table talk" occasionally happens in live games, but generally is inadvertant and occurs because of the social nature of the live game. There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for someone taking the time to type a comment like that for a game they are only observing. It should be common sense. I understand giving someone a warning about rules violations, but maybe a week-long suspension of chat privileges might have reinforced the lesson.
Unfortunately, online poker has no "1 player to a hand rule" as there is just no way to enforece it.
I have just double checked Stars website, and I am very cusrious about which "rule" they reminded the other player of.
5.3. COLLUSION. Collusion between Users by sharing hole cards or by any other methods is strictly forbidden.
One player advising a course of action to another is pretty clearly collusion.
At first I was wondering how this could be collusion when bizzledick wasn't actually playing at your table, but upon review, i see that he was sitting out of the hand in question. I hope that you left the table after this hand because it is clear that they were playing together. How else would he have known what the villains hand was?
You did the correct thing by letting PStars know. I would be willing to bet that these two never were involved in a hand against each other.
Nice blog.
Thanks for the support, willbg, but I don't have much reason to think that they were working together. Bizzlenuts didn't have to know anything more than I did about the other guy's cards. He was speculating about my hand. Doing so in chat is bad enough without needing to further assume that the two of them were working together. If they were, they'd probably use IM or phone rather than chat to share their information and ideas.
I jave no idea why a anonymous poster claims there is no online rule of one player to a hand.
While there would appear to be no online rule to prevent a player form getting priovate assistance on the play of a hand because it would be almost impossible to enforce, pokerstars clearly has rules which are part of one player to a hand.
"6 In both cash games and tournaments, players who have folded during a hand may not discuss the cards that they folded. This provides unfair information to players still in the hand.
7 In cash games only, players still in a hand may chat about what cards they claim to hold. This is "coffee-housing," which is common in poker. However, players (in the hand or not) may not coach or otherwise suggest how another player should play his hand. For example, it is okay to say "You should call; I'm bluffing." It is not okay to say, "You should call; he's bluffing."
8 In both cash games and tournaments, if there are more than two players left in a pot, players (in the hand or not) may not chat anything that might reasonably be interpreted as affecting the play of the hand. For instance, suppose players A, B, and C are in a hand. A bets, and B is next to act. C may not chat, "I'm going to fold" (whether he intends to fold or not)."
http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/policies/
It is pretty clear that this players comment violates the rule that "players (in the hand or not) may not coach or otherwise suggest how another player should play his hand."
Looks like to me that he may of actually been helping you. The odds that they player actually did hit runner runner to tie you are extremely low all the while you are heavily favored to win. If someone calls with 2 bricks on fifth street, this is a person I want at my table.
Post a Comment