Would this qualify as collusion...

[chesspain]

Last week, the wife and I traveled to Foxwoods to play some 2/4 Hold-em. When we came downstairs on Friday to play, they seated us at the same table, despite out request to be split. The poker room assistants insisted that we each should take these next two available seats at the same table, and then request a table transfer. Of course, no transfer ever occured, so we decided to stay at that same table, especially since none of the other players seemed to care that we were husband and wife.

As it turned out, we were rarely in the same hand together, especially post-flop. However, one hand stands out in my mind, given the ethical quandry I found myself in...

My wife openraised UTG, which given her somewhat loose-passive style (I know, I'm working on her /images/graemlins/smirk.gif), screamed to me that she had KK or AA...a couple of folds and a couple of calls to me in LP, holding 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. Although I would usually limp with a hand like this, I briefly considered raising in order to jam the pot for her, which would also have helped to conceal my hand. Since I was assuming that she was a large favorite on this hand, and that we would be looking for different types of flops, I figured that raising would have been a +EV play considering our [combined] bankrolls in total.

As it turned out, I only called...and play resumed.

My question: Would any of you consider it collusion if I had raised out of consideration to the hand I thought she was holding, even if she did not in any way attempt to signal me. And would it matter if it was a hand I was going to play anyway, as compared to a hand I might only play in order to help her?

[Dynasty]

Yes. That's collusion.

[Ray Zee]

yes it is cheating. thats why it shouldnt be allowed to have people in the game that have vested interests in the outcome of another. even if you didnt intend to you also made plays during the game based on what each other may win. that is also cheating. so try not to play together and you will not have to face the inuendos in the future. good luck. thanks for posting about a difficult situation.

[Easy E]

"Would any of you consider it collusion if I had raised out of consideration to the hand I thought she was holding, even if she did not in any way attempt to signal me."

If you are playing your hand in a manner to benefit only yourself, based on your "read" of your wife, then I think it slides by.
If, however, you play the hand in a manner that is primarily to help her, then that is collusion.

" And would it matter if it was a hand I was going to play anyway, as compared to a hand I might only play in order to help her? "

The latter should never happen, or it is colluding. Even if you would play the hand anyway, if you do it in a manner that is geared and intended towards her benefit rather than yours, then you are colluding.

[Barry]

Good choice on the ethics; bad choice on the call. You should have mucked the hand preflop.

While the vast majority of the time my wife and I play separately, we occasionally play at the same table. We have a "rule" and that is to play our hands as we would absent the other person. We have caused some raised eyebrows when one of us checkraises the other. We have never had anyone complain about us. On occasion, there have been some raised eyebrows and we agreed to show our cards after the hand was over. When we did everyone was satisfied and we played on.

Our only exception is if it's get heads up and the rake is not yet maxxed out. In those circumstances we check it down.

I've always thought that this way of playing is OK, but this thread has me rethinking. Does anyone have a problem with our approach?

[slamdunkpro]

Interesting thread since my wife and I also play. We always ask to be separated but sometimes it’s just not possible – I don’t think this is any different than two good friends who go and sit down together. You can’t separate everyone who’s familiar with someone else.

That being said I believe that any form of prearranged betting or playing strategy other than “everyone for himself or herself” IS collusion/cheating; so I’d have to answer “yes it’s collusion” to your heads up check it down policy. You are both playing with a pre-arranged strategy that no one else it privy to.

[chesspain]

I fail to see how a heads-up, check-it-down policy would qualify as true collusion, since the only one who loses is the house on the added rake. I would feel no sympathy to the house, especially if they coerced a husband/wife pair to sit at the same table despite requests to the contrary.

Anti-collusion rules are meant to protect the other players in the game, not the house's rake interests.

[slamdunkpro]

Main Entry: col·lu·sion
Pronunciation: k&-'lü-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin collusion-, collusio, from colludere
Date: 14th century
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Seems to me that a pre made check down agreement is a secret agreement or cooperation that is deceiving the other players and the house.

If I was at that table and saw them checking down all the time when they were heads up I'd probably say something the first time I went heads up against one of the two and got check raised.

[ QUOTE ]
Anti-collusion rules are meant to protect the other players in the game

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats right, and by using that agreement they are playing each other differently than they would play other players vis a vie a pre-made agreement.

[CrackerZack]

But they don't check it down.

When i play with a friend in a live game, you better play your best against me, because I'll c/r bluff you on the river if I think I can get you to lay it down. friendly home games are different, but in a casino with a table full of strangers, i'm not soft playing anyone.

I think Barry and Angelfish handle it well.

[GuyOnTilt]

Yes, I think that is considered collusion. Situations like this are why one of you should have requested a table transfer.

BTW, What are you doing calling a UTG raise with 98s anyway? Is this a normal call for you??

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
But they don't check it down.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm confused /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Barry wrote in an previous post "Our only exception is if it's get heads up and the rake is not yet maxxed out. In those circumstances we check it down."

If they do check it down as per pre-arrangement- I think it's collusion. If they don't - great.


[ QUOTE ]
When i play with a friend in a live game, you better play your best against me, because I'll c/r bluff you on the river if I think I can get you to lay it down. friendly home games are different, but in a casino with a table full of strangers, i'm not soft playing anyone.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - When my wife and I are forced to sit at the same table we call it the "battle for the living room couch" since we are so intent on taking each other's money in a friendly sort of cutthroat way /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[chesspain]

I think that any husband/wife pair who bet against each other after it was heads up would be considered foolish in my book. I don't think one needs to prearrange this check-call--simply having an IQ above 80 should be sufficient.

And anyone who watches a known husband/wife pair do this and then is surprised when one of them checkraises another player on the river certainly arrived at the casino on the short, yellow school bus.

[CrackerZack]

I missed the non-maxed out rake thing. you're right.

[chesspain]

In the first fifteen minutes at the table, we requested two different times that one of us be given a table transfer. I gave up trying after hearing other players on the waiting list getting called to their tables even after we made our requests.

To answer your other question, I might occasionally call two cold with mid-to-high suited connectors after a few limpers if I felt I would have at least five others to the flop with no raise behind me...is that too fishy????

[GuyOnTilt]

It would be fine, though debatable, if you were in LP and there were say 3 or 4 cold-callers to your right. But in this early of position, you're just not sure you'll get a multiway pot, and you're not sure that it won't be reraised behind you. In this hand, I think it's pretty fishy, even if you didn't know that UTG had a high pocket pair.

[Barry]

Help me understand your problems with our way of playing at the same table.

If we are multi-way we play hard against each other; we've checkraised each other many times. Same goes for when the rake is maxxed out, we play hard. Homer, JTG and CZ and others have seen this.

So if everyone else has dropped out, why should we donate an extra buck or two to the casino?

I don't think that's collusion; I think it's stupid. But I'm willing to listen.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I think that any husband/wife pair who bet against each other after it was heads up would be considered foolish in my book. I don't think one needs to prearrange this check-call--simply having an IQ above 80 should be sufficient.


[/ QUOTE ]


so you are saying that all husband/wife pairs that have IQ's over 80 (each /images/graemlins/grin.gif) collude?

i'm not saying i disagree with you

[CrackerZack]

I don't have a problem with the way you two play against each other at a table. I don't particularly agree the check-it-down when the rake isn't maxed is collusion either. Although I believe it could be debated. If I were at a table and a couple did that when they were heads up in that situation, I would not be offended or think ill of it. On the other hand, if one bet, the other raised to fold out a 3rd person, then they checked it down, I'd call the floor. But I know you two play fairly when sitting at the same table, as do almost all couples/friends/etc I've seen sitting together.

Edit: from my previous post, the "You're right" in my post didn't mean I believed it was collusion, it meant that the poster was correct, there was a comment about checking it down, which I hadn't seen before.

[exeph]

The problem I have with a check-down policy stems from the situation where husband, wife, and 3rd party see the flop, and husband or wife raises/check-raises the other to confront the 3rd party with 2 bets, knowing that if the 3rd party folds then the turn and river are free cards. For me to be comfortable with a check-down policy I would have to believe that getting free turns and rivers never factors into the decision process for the husband and wife. I think it's just too easy to let that kind of consideration slip into your thoughts, even if you don't mean to

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that any husband/wife pair who bet against each other after it was heads up would be considered foolish in my book. I don't think one needs to prearrange this check-call--simply having an IQ above 80 should be sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your book it's OK for two players to have an arrangment where they jam the pot pre flop and on the flop until it's heads up and then free ride to the river?

[slamdunkpro]

Truth to tell I really don't have an issue with the way you are playing.

To me this thread was about defining collusion in the most technical and abstract terms. Under the most stringent definition of collusion is what you are doing collusion? I’d have to say yes.

In the practical real world are you doing it to gain advantage? From what I’ve read in this thread I’d have to say no.

If I saw you doing it at a table would I call the floor – no.

[chesspain]

Any sort of "prearrangement" is unethical. And in your situation, any two players who always attempted to jam PF and on the flop without knowing the cards the other held would probably lose most of their money fairly quickly.

[andyfox]

It's the very definition of collusion. You're playing out of the same bankroll and you would have played your hand so as to try to win more money for the other player playing on the same bankroll.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Any sort of "prearrangement" is unethical

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - that's been my whole point

[ QUOTE ]
And in your situation, any two players who always attempted to jam PF and on the flop without knowing the cards the other held would probably lose most of their money fairly quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if they are sharing the same bankroll

[Copernicus]

I think I'm pretty conservative when it comes to rules and collusion, for example I think folding when a check is available is inconsiderate at best, and quite possibly unethical. I also have major problems with players buying a piece of each other in tournaments. If they wind up at the same table their decisions are bound to be influenced by their deal.

Despite that, I have no problem at all with them checking it down once its heads up, whether the rake is maxed or not. The definition of collusion given includes the intent to deceive...there is no one else left in the hand to deceive so by that definition it cannot be collusion.

I was at a table at Mohegan Sun with a father and son. They went at each other just as hard as they did against anyone else until they got heads up, when they checked it down. I had far less problem with that than I did with the Foxwoods dealer flirting with his neighbor and helping her when he was out of a hand.