You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Use of 'tech' in live tournaments
Thinking about the UKPC hand where the chap had 9-7 on 7-8-T, facing the shove from the exposed QQ.
He's reported to have taken about 10 minutes before making the call. A few people had thought he'd be ahead with the number of outs he had, but on closer inspection it was something like 45% to win the hand and was interesting with the ICM considerations and value of the pot at that stage.
Disregarding the hand really (just giving some context), given that live players seem to play with their phones and ipads updating facebook, tweeting away etc, what would happen if within that 'thinking time' the player picked up his phone and went off to some calculators? Would the other player be within his rights to call the floor in that instance?
No doubt players will check ICM sites when deals are being discussed (or in preparation for a deal to be discussed), but obviously it's a bit different when there's an influence on a given hand. It is a more extreme example, as he also knows what he's up against.
Any thoughts? And any examples of live play when something similar has taken off?
He's reported to have taken about 10 minutes before making the call. A few people had thought he'd be ahead with the number of outs he had, but on closer inspection it was something like 45% to win the hand and was interesting with the ICM considerations and value of the pot at that stage.
Disregarding the hand really (just giving some context), given that live players seem to play with their phones and ipads updating facebook, tweeting away etc, what would happen if within that 'thinking time' the player picked up his phone and went off to some calculators? Would the other player be within his rights to call the floor in that instance?
No doubt players will check ICM sites when deals are being discussed (or in preparation for a deal to be discussed), but obviously it's a bit different when there's an influence on a given hand. It is a more extreme example, as he also knows what he's up against.
Any thoughts? And any examples of live play when something similar has taken off?
Comments
Dress it up any way you want, it's cheating.
And we all know who will agree, or disagree, with that.
As for HUD's etc, i don't agree with their use but wont berate anyone who uses one. One of the reasons I play on here is they can't be used.
It is an interesting point raised about the additional information that streaming services can provide, this for me falls into that category as players would be getting information from outside of the game via their web-based chats with friends. Harder to police though, unless you ban phones etc or ban the streaming service showing the hole cards.
The HUD threat to poker is not really relevant to this discussion, but agree that it's a game-changer and is one of the reasons that keeps me on this site above others.
For context, Carl, I was replying to this excellent Post.....
".....Worse use of 'tech' imo is when there is live streaming and players mates watch and give them the info with only a short delay. Completely compromises poker as a game of incomplete information....."
There was a Live Tourney recently, where hole cards were shown in real time. 4 guys left, three of them had mates on the Rail who were watching the live stream, who were telling their guy what their opponents had in hands immediately after they were played. The 4th guy never had any mates on the rail.
I really can't see how that is fair, or right, & it placed Billy No Mates at a significant &, imo, very unfair disadvantage. I suppose we could say "cheating" is ther wrong word, but it feels like cheating to me. Three guys had a significant advantage over the other guy. Were Live Streams really intended to confer such advantges to the lucky few with mates on the rail? Is that part of their intended purpose? I don't think so.
I've never watched the WSOP Live Stream (in fact, I've never watched ANY Live Stream, lol), but I'm pretty sure it is on a time delay.
They are the steroids of the poker world.
Blue- Yes , they had an advanage but it goes back to the organisers for allowing such a short delay.
Green- Live streaming should always be with a delay to stop this advantage you are talking about. Sky show hands with a delay, so we are all used to seeing hands like this. The whole problem is the amount of delay. As long as everyone playing IS aware that their hands can be shown 15/30/45 mins or whatever later, players would be stupid not to use it.
I agree with you that it wasn't fair on billy no mates but it's the organisers fault for allowing this scenario to arise.
I disageee that the players did "nothing wrong", but it's a moot point & a fine line. We all see that one in different ways.
Thats it, end of thread. .
In the example of the guy who had no mates on the rail, that is not the fault of those who did have mates, surely it is the fault of the guy who didn't have any mates? He failed to use all the legal information possible.
Don't get me wrong, I believe it should be against the rules, but all the time it is within the rules then it is a valid activity.
Otherwise, where do you stop? At which point should the players stop using all the info available to them? And why should they be the ones to have to decide what legal info to use and what not to use?
Maybe Ivey should stop making reads on people's ranges because he is better at it than his peers? Or maybe Negreanu should stop remembering people's images at the table, surely it gives him an unfair advantage?
Poker is NOT a team game, it's an individual pursuit. Getting half the rail to help is not the idea at all.
We don't have to live our lives by what we can get away with, the spirit of the game is really the satisfying thing to most of us.