Ethics/Collusion question

[clevername]

Home tournament. About 16 players. All but one or two of the players are terrible (call all the way with a low pair in a multi-way pot, don't raise when they are acting last on the river with the nuts, etc.) A friend from my weekly game finds out about it and invites me and another friend.

Here's the problem -- the payout structure really skewed towards first place (1st 80%, 2nd 15%, 3rd 5%).

Situation 1: Before the tournament, we agree that if one of us wins, we will pay back the other guys' buy ins. Is that collusion? We're all playing to win, even against each other -- first pays so much after all. The idea was that we are protecting ourselves against the high variance created by the skewed payout structure.

Admittedly, I didn't play my friends as hard as I played the other players. However, that was only because it was obvious that they were the best players there. I knew I was better off getting into pots with the morons.

Situation 2: My friends want to go back, but this time split our winnings evenly. I declined. That definitely crosses the line.

Thoughts?

[CrackerZack]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that collusion? We're all playing to win, even against each other

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, no.

but....

[ QUOTE ]
Admittedly, I didn't play my friends as hard as I played the other players

[/ QUOTE ]

now it was. You cheated. Play hard or don't split winnings.

[harboral]

I don't know why "splitting you winnings evenly" crosses the line. This makes it as though you are playing out of a common bankroll. If I believed you were NOT playing differently against each other, and NEVER gave out any signals as to hands then I would have no problem playing in a game with the three of you.

However, if I knew you were splitting, and then saw even one instance of "well, I'll let you have it (the pot)", or, saw two of you trap someone in a raising war and one of you had the nuts - then I'd introduce you to the closest wall, head first. AL

[clevername]

I didn't soft play my friends. However, they were the only two people there who could have out played me post flop, so I didn't want to get invovled with them unless I really thought I had the best of it. I figured my chips were better spent in pots with the people who didn't know what they were doing.

In fact, I busted out to one of my friends late in the tournament. I had QQ and called his all in. He had AQ and hit his ace.

[LetsRock]

Your agreement to "share" winnings is very common and not an issue. Many top tourney players have a piece of each other.

IF you played differently against your partners because of your agreement, then it does cross the line. If your choice to play or not play against them in a certain hand was based solely on your chances to win the hand, then it is not a problem - that's good poker. If this decision was because of your intention to keep them alive then it is collusion.

[Bogatog]

I agree with Letsrock...

The split itself isn't bad.

As for not entering many pots with your friends, thats just smart. Tournaments are about survival. Sometimes avoiding small edge situations that could bust you is the right play. I certainly wouldn't want to play many pots against the best player in a tournament if there were plenty of worse playere to prey upon, regardless of prize split.

The other less moral activities mentioned are typically viewed as cheating and should be avoided, also regardless of prize split.

[MRBAA]

Clearly the split is horrible. It's collusion and just because it's widely practiced doesn't make it right. No sane person is going to play as hard against someone he's splitting with as someone he's not. What's more, there are many, many situations where they will have strong motivation to behave collusively to either avoid one another or knock out other players. This is a major issue now that tournament poker is becoming so popular and could become a very ugly scandal.

Now, once players reach the final table on their own, I have no problem with in the open deal making. Tourney organizers may want to prohibit this, to get the drama of a winner, but ethically it would be fine.

[LetsRock]

Well I disagree with you. Just because you and I have a deal to share 10% of the winnings doesn't mean that I'm gonna let you walk to the 90% end of that deal.

I'm not saying it's not done, but I'd guess that most players who are good enough to be making deals have a little pride involved as well.

[Sloats]

A person might also go on tilt against other players because he has that 10% net. It can be a counter factor of emotions: with agreement you might go a little bit softer against your friend who you might actually play stonger against because of pride. It might be a wash.