Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

Ethics/ Fairness Spot - What do you do?

Here is the situation. You are on the left of drunk guy in a late night crazy game. Kid on right of the drunk guy is looking at drunk guy's cards. Drunk guy is very agro - bets made hands and bluffs hard - but its likely he cant tell the difference at this point anyway. That's letting kid check call as last to act having seen cards. This is a huge advantage as his relative position lets him know how everyone else on the field is going to act - the action would often be something like - check to drunk guy who pots -then it goes around and kit can then, knowing what the field has done and the drunks cards, decide the best exploit

What about if we do or dont know the drunk guy and/or kid - does that effect our actions? Does it matter if we do or don't like /respect either of them - for example what if the drunk and the kid were scumbags? Does it matter if the kid is a winner or looser? (Ie -are we ok with the kid getting a bigger stack if he is bad but we don't want that if he is good Is there an exploit we should be thinking about?

Any other considerations? Ill add spoiler later.


  • neverlearn2 Posts: 2,862Subscriber
    If i saw the kid being able to see and gain an advantage over ME than im saying something

    If I was the kid, i notify the player next to me at least once and maybe more depending on his behavior to me. But after that ill look and not make it obvious.

  • FreeLunch Posts: 1,311Pro
    Thats a branch - if we are the kid and have told the drunk but can still see do we need to have told the drunk in a way that whole table (who had not noticed this) could know what we know? Or can we tell the drunk quietly and its on the table for noticing?
  • FuzzypupFuzzypup Posts: 2,546Subscriber
    This spot is not advantageous for you. There are ways to exploit it via a logic tree of actions that give a greater or less chance of a hand strength depending on whether the kid folds, calls or raises. We assume the drunk is betting way to much which means he has more bluffs in his range.

    When the kid calls his hands are very skewed toward weakness since there will be hands he would fold but not calls with perfect information

    When the kid folds it means the drunk is stronger than expected. Why? Because if the drunk had air the kid would XR his air to make the drunk fold.

    When the kid XRs his hands are again skewed toward weakness because the drunk is, supposedly, betting often.

    Basically when the kid continues to the turn more of his hand range is weak than strong and when he folds is leans the drunk on more stronger hands slightly.

    BUT the problem with it is that you always have to put in money 1st. So that is the exploit of the situation. Personally I think this is a really bad spot for you. It's like playing blackjack. You have to make your hand 1st then the dealer does.

    Ethically? I'd tell the player. If I gauged he was that blasted I'd call the floor and advise them. He isn't in his right mind to even have a chance to win and it's the right thing to do. If the floor doesn't do anything I'd tell the table.

    Unethically? I'd get on the kids right.

    But I am an ethical person. If the guy wasn't drunk I'd tell him once he is showing his hand.
  • FreeLunch Posts: 1,311Pro
    @fuzzypup What if the drunk was a real dirtbag - do we adjust our poker ethics based on the person? I'm thinking of one guy who is my nut low person - he shoots every angle and talks about traveling abroad picking countries based on how young the prostitutes are. Ignoring my not yet posted spoiler of what I actually did - I'm pretty sure I would evaluate the situation differently if he was the drunk one.

    I agree about your analysis re the lack of decent exploit and that this is a horrible spot for me
  • FuzzypupFuzzypup Posts: 2,546Subscriber
    Scumbag? Don't say shit and get his money. I hate scumbags.
  • CycleV Posts: 1,195Subscriber
    From an ethics perpective, of course you say something.

    From an EV perspective, of course you say something.

    This seems like a spot where doing the right thing and doing the thing that benefits us the most line up perfectly.
  • FreeLunch Posts: 1,311Pro

    This room has a top section floor floor who is good. I racked up and left and let the floor know on the way out. I'm pretty sure the floor would step in to protect the player - but that is specific to this room, I know plenty of places where the floor wont step into protect someone. So I dont think the tell the floor strategy works without knowing the specifics of the room, and it can create the illusion you did something to make you feel better without actually doing anything - same as telling only the drinker you can see his cards when you know it wont change anything,

    So in a spot where I cant trust the floor I think I would tell the whole table I can see his cards - probably by telling the drunk firmly enough that everyone else should figure it out. I would still have to leave or change seats because the disadvantage is too big. Moving seats is not an option often enough so leaving is unfortunately what I would have to do in most spots.

    In this case the kid was a super tight NLH player new to PLO - making some beginner mistakes but since he was super tight he was not getting into that many bad spots. If he was a really bad player that was also likely to give it away then I can see staying.

    If the drinker was a scumbag - the situation is still bad for me so I would still leave -but I would likely let the situation continue.

    I'm still surprised that I seemed to be the only one who noticed as there were friends of the drunk guy on the table as well. Its possible others noticed but did not figure out the edge this gave the kid - or they just take the normal "its his fault" view of the drinking player (which I share absent the card issue).

    I'm a big proponent of relative position in many spots. I think I assume people see more than they do so one lesson is that in similar spots where the thing I see is not as dramatic as knowing the cards I might want to seek relative position and move to the villains right more than I do because I really should not assume other people are noticing the same things - or even if they are, can figure out the positional advantage I have

Sign In or Register to comment.