Sorry Dn I Have To Disagree

[Swyft 0]

First off I'll agree with you in that they should have absolutely, no doubt about it, informed the players of the format and the rules (or lack thereof) regarding what is and is not acceptable. However, I have to disagree with some things. I believe that if they would have informed you ahead of time about what was going on that this form of poker may actually be more complicated and thus require more creativity, skill, and strategy in order to gain an advantage over the other team. (Yes the bold part is very important, I know).Take out of the equation the fact that you did not know ahead of time about the format, would you still have an extreme distaste with the tournament? From your blog it seems like you would. However, I think if you think things through further you may start to appreciate how deep of strategies teams may come up with. It may just be a flat out difference in opinion where you think poker should have been played in more of an Olympic swimming type atmosphere where, although you are from the same country you are still competing at your highest level in order to try to win the race. However, in a sport like cycling where there is a team and they usually get in formations where they let the best rider draft off the team and then take over at the end of the race to win it for their "team" even though the riders are competing individually.

The dilemma I now faced as team captain was whether or not to devise a "legal cheating" strategy for our team. One in which we would either LEGALLY soft play each other, or worse, dump chips to one another.I just couldn't do it. I couldn't be a part of that even though I knew that our decision to play the game straight up would put us at a big disadvantage.

Apparently you think more along the lines of the swimming analogy, but to me the cycling analogy is just as relevent. Like I said, maybe it's just a matter of taste, or maybe you were just mad that you hadn't been informed about the layout before you arrived.

[ShakeZuma 585]

However, I have to disagree with some things. I believe that if they would have informed you ahead of time about what was going on that this form of poker may actually be more complicated and thus require more creativity, skill, and strategy in order to gain an advantage over the other team. (Yes the bold part is very important, I know).

The problem is, this new skill and strategy that would be involved to win this is illegal in any other poker setting, no exceptions. Poker does not allow collusion, thats one of its basic principals. By adding in the angle of collusion by making it a team sport in the manner in which it was, its basically saying "see who can cheat the best."

[Swyft 0]

It's only "cheating" if an action is against the rules of the game. Clearly collusion was not against the rules here. And it's a bit ominous to say that pokerdoes not allow collusion as one of it's basic principals. It does if the rules of the game allow it. Poker is just about betting, folding, and calling and the best hand at the end wins. I think Team Poker is an extremely intriguing idea and I would very much like to see what the more creative poker pros come up with as strategies against other teams. Poker is all about adaptation, and, rather than just having to adapt your style to another players' style, you'd have to adapt your entire team strategy against their teams'. The levels of thought would be fascinating.I have a feeling more of the "solid" poker players like Phil Hellmuth, Dann Harrington, T.J. Cloutier etc. would not appreciate it, but I would think that players like Chris Ferguson, DN, and other who are more creative and love the strategy of the game would like to try something like this out.

[LadyGrey 6]

Making cheating legal doesn't make it fair. And specifically to this case, making collusion legal doesn't add anything to the game.

[gilbertology 0]

Cycling, NASCAR, other stuff like that are team sports. Poker is not. Maybe one day there will be a creative way to play 'team" poker, but in any tournament it is against the rules to collude, same with online. If all of a sudden they allowed colluding online, how would you feel? Although you'd be allowed to collude with your friends, you probably would feel as if online poker had become dirty or scummy, and maybe even stop playing. As I said in another thread, one of the greatest aspects of the game of poker is the individual competition, one guy against everyone else. That concept is what has made the game explode the last three years. If they want to introduce this type of "team play", it would be acceptable if they had let all the participants know the exact rules beforehand, not after they fly halfway around the world to play in the event.

[thatguy 0]

Making cheating legal doesn't make it fair. And specifically to this case, making collusion legal doesn't add anything to the game.

If its legal it's not cheating. If Daniel won this event I highly doubt any of you would be complaining.

[antistuff 0]

But what if the whole idea of the event was teams colluding against eachother? I think that might be an interesting way to play poker.

[LadyGrey 6]

If its legal it's not cheating. If Daniel won this event I highly doubt any of you would be complaining.

If all parties involved had colluded then there would be no argument, so of course no one would be complaining. And as it is, I am open to the idea of players other then DN winning events.

[Swyft 0]

My friends and I are having a "team poker" night tonight 3 v 3... everyones really curious as to what each other is going to do

[Dane 0]

I think the format sucks, if you want to play team Poker, then set up a series of one table tournaments, one player from each team on each table, give points for how you place and add it up afterwards.We play a Team tournament on Ladbrokes every wedensday and this is the format and it works.

[Mercury69 3]

Poker is not a team sport, end of story. WTF is wrong with you people arguing in favor of that shitty format?

[Swyft 0]

Poker is not a team sport, end of story. WTF is wrong with you people arguing in favor of that shitty format?

Because this to me is a very ignorant statement. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that poker isn't a team sport? No one person came up with poker, it has no predefined parameters, the very fact that there are so many forms of poker speaks volumes for its adaptability.

[Mercury69 3]

Maybe it can be adapted into a team sport, but it's very nature is individual play. Don't even try and deny.

[srblan 0]

Because this to me is a very ignorant statement. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that poker isn't a team sport? No one person came up with poker, it has no predefined parameters, the very fact that there are so many forms of poker speaks volumes for its adaptability.

One player to a hand is a fundamental rule of poker. Anything else shouldn't be called poker IMO.

[blueodum 0]

Because this to me is a very ignorant statement. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say that poker isn't a team sport?How about giving weight to the entire history of poker.