LL - Implicit collusion, is this an obvious fold?

Or was this too weak?


Online 2-4, I'm in the SB with Kc4c.


There are _5_ limpers, I complete and the BB checks.


Flop: Kh 9s 8s


I check, BB checks mid-position bets and gets 3 callers.


I fold.


Thoughts?

You played the hand perfectly.


lars

Not only are you likely to get outdrawn, but there's a good chance that you're up against a stronger K. Being able to lay down K-little in this situation takes discipline, but I think it's a must in a loose-passive game.


If the flop had been something like Kh-9s-8c, I might stay in to see if I catch a club/K/4 on the turn. But without even a backdoor flush possibility, I think it's an easy fold.

Agree with previous posts.


Why the subject "Implicit collusion"? What brought that up in this hand?

.. is a term to describe when you have a lot of people calling the pot, so it becomes a lot harder for your hand, even if it is the best, to hold up.


Often called the "one-legged bear theory" - as in, you can outrun a one-legged bear, but it's damn hard to outrun 80 of them, and only one of them needs to catch you..


Well okay, not often, just by me, but still..


M.

Why the subject "Implicit collusion"? What brought that up in this hand?


The idea is that with 4 players already in and the BB yet to act, I have to wonder if I have any outs short of running K's or, possibly, running 4's.


If I was heads-up, then I might have to contend with a better K, OR a straight draw, OR a flush draw, but in this case, I might have to contend with all three.

Implicit:

Implied or understood though not directly expressed


Collusion:

A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.


I'm sure you can see my confusion. This is a poor term to be used for your definition. Especially when discussing an online game.


Certainly not meant as a knock on you. You could say it is "irregardless" =)

Let's say there are five people seeing the flop. Each of them has a drawing hand. None of the five have sufficient implied odds to call by themselves, but if all five of them call, then they are all correct to do so. Thus, the term "implicit collusion", they are all colluding in effect but they aren't explicitly planning it.


I'm pretty sure a poker writer coined the term, which is why it probably doesn't make sense in a strict dictionary-definition way. /images/smile.gif

When I read my post it didn't make sense. What I meant to say was: One of the five has a made hand (let's say top pair). Top pair bets out. The other four have drawing hands, and none of them is correct to call by themselves, but if all four do, then they are all correct to call.

Don't know if it originated with Morton or not, that was a little before my poker playing days started.