Possible collusion: did I handle this correctly?

I was recently informed by a person I trust that one of the Mirage 10-20 regulars had possibly found someone new to "partner" with.


Today, I am at the game and both of these players are present, seated at opposite ends of the table. The following hand comes up:


Folded to Possible Partner 1 (PP1) in LMP. He opens for a raise. Folded to tourist in SB who folds. PP2 is in the BB and looks up to see whats going on. PP1 says, loudly, "I raised it up". PP2 in the BB then looks at his cards and calls.


PP1 tells the dealer to stop. The dealer doesn't see a reason why and puts the burn down. PP1 then raises his voice (he is clearly a little upset) saying "I'm serious, stop." then looks at PP2 and says "Take back your chips and we can chop"


At this point, the dealer says "You can't make a deal, there was a 3rd person (he indicates the SB) in the hand. You must play it out."


At this point PP2 in the BB says "Take it" to PP1 and mucks his hand. The flop still hadn't been laid out and his called bet was still in the pot. The dealer dropped the $1 for the house as if the flop had been laid out, and then pushed the pot to PP1.


The whole table is a little uncomfortable. PP1 says something to the dealer like "I was just joking. You know that right?" And tokes him a buck. He smiles and looks at the table saying "These dealers can't take a joke".


What do you all think of this?


As for myself, I waited 2 more hands for my BB, racked up and left. After I cashed out, I called the on shift manager over and told her what happened and why I was leaving. She said (and I believe her) that she was going to talk to the involved parties about it.


As I walked out, I noticed that both of the involved players had stood up and taken a break from the table at the same time.


Thoughts appreciated.

Other than the fact that you sat in the game in the first place after suspecting collusion I'd say you handled it properly.


Jimbo

CM,


Heaping kudos on you for staying zipped tight at the table. Bravo!


Barely related, reading stories like this, I always hitch at the same spot. It's right after something funky happens, and right when the dealer says anything but, "floorman." I'm thinking it must be yet another regional delight I enjoy, that the dealers here are trained to not engage.


Tommy

Hey Dave - Wow...that was badly played by PP1 and PP2. Until now, I was actually giving them the benefit of the doubt, but what you described makes me suspicious, for sure. Thanks for the info. Babe. P.S. (come to Bellagio).

P1 is a "new" partner. I think he panicked a little.


The old partner was at the 'Shoe today.


As far as the Bellagio, I hate the 8-16, or I'd be there.

I actually went to the Horseshoe first, but was told that the live games might be broken due to unexpectedly high enrollment for the "Big One" at 1:00PM.


So.....with only one other 10-20 in town, off to the Mirage I went.

Thanks.


At least the dealer dropped the buck and wouldn't let them openly split the pot in any form. Though calling the floor instantly would have been by far the best measure he could have taken.


I figured that everyone else saw what I saw, so it was up to them to decide what to do. I did my part by deciding it was unacceptable and telling management on my way out the door. I don't know how you could sit next to either of these guys, suspecting that every blind defense could possibly be a 2 on 1 situation.


When I racked up after a brief walk, the guy next to me (not one of the parties involved) said: "It wasn't something we said, was it?" I played it off and smiled saying something about going to the WSOP, but I wonder if he was alluding to the incident.

You should follow up on your conversation with the shift manager to see if or what conclusions were reached, and to see if these two players are going to be under observation. If you are right that these people are colluding, this should all be done discretely so as not to alert them. This increases the chances of their being found out.

I will without a doubt be following up. I have a very good repoire with that shift manager (Pam).


I suspect that some action will be taken. The BB in this hand recently was told that he could no longer play in the Mirage with his former "partner". The BB and his old partner then moved to the Horseshoe where they were similarly disallowed from playing together.


So this player has apparently just recruited someone else to play with him. If anything unethical is going on, I suspect (hope) it wil be taken care of in short order due to this player's history.

Amazing, that even the top cardrooms, people try to pull this stuff.

Clarkmeister,

Why do you hate the 8-16 at the Bellagio? Just curious.

This whole story is silly.


1) how could a guy with any experience in cards pick such a dumb partner,


2) forget the floor manager, why doesn't this guy just take a beating on suspicion,


3) blah.


My first instinct was, if people this dumb are going to collude, let them collude, just so you can have them at the table. But, beyond that, I am curious about the generally cerebral nature of poker players. If there are 10 Bellagio high-limit pros, then why don't two or three of you pull together, and have the 7 extraneous hustlers taken out of the picture?


Does anybody know how to take control of a floor anymore? Why bleed off cash to a bunch of career hustlers, whose only contribution is to sit around mucking T5o all day, and paying the time? Soften up the games, pay off the floor manager, cover the comps, employ a guy in Zurich, New York, Tokyo to bring them in, and kick these flea-bitten check-raisers out on their asses.


eLROY

you met me once, im a pretty nice guy, but a lot of times


(like mickey rourke in that one movie about a cop in san fransico against japanese mafia or something when hes says hes just a dumb pollock (polish) so he doesnt do anything sophisticated he just plows straight ahead like a bull in a china shop)


, but a lot of times in this situtation i would just tell the guy (making sure the two 'evil' guys saw me) that im leaving because 'that' (point) guy and 'that' (point) guy are total fucking assholes who probably have cards up their sleeves.


i find it helps make me seem more 'well rounded'.


(ill throw this in too)


one time an older guy, bad player, was being really nasty to everybody, me too, and then somebody asked if they could have the empty rack by him (near mean guy), mean guy says he likes an empty rack next to him, asker goes ballistic (probably because mean guy was really acting like a jerk), i jump in (i have to listen to this?) and say hey, carton of racks 20 feet away, go get one, if he (mean guy) wants an empty rack by him hes entitled to keep an empty rack by him. after that for some reason the mean guy wasnt just nice to me, he was kind of nice to everybody. but i didnt mean it personally.


brad

Boy ,if these guys were partners they sure found an easy way to bring it to everybody's attention.

My opinion of cheaters has gone way way down.

Go ahead and cheat me

Looks very much like collusion to me. However, it's unprovable, (even if it's obviously distasteful), based on just this ONE simple instance. Bummer, 'cause it seems obvious to me that they were cheating, particularly given their positions at opposite ends of the table. Any decent player who also has integrity would know that chopping at this stage is illegal.


By the way, I think that it shows a lot of character in that you play other two-plus-two-ers, particularly D. Andrew and myself, very hard when in the same game, despite any friendships you might have on the side (there's no friends at the poker table). Sometimes people resent pro players because they think they all collude, and obviously YOU don't collude, at least not with us.


I think you handled it very well. I would have left the table just like you did, and would (quietyly) point it out to the floor, as well as to my trusted friends. I would also NEVER play in the same game with these two again.


Dave in Cali

Clarkmeister:


I know both players who were told that they could not play in the same game,first at the Mirage and then the Horseshoe. One of them for about 3 years and the other for 25 years. I can honestly say that all the accusations against the are false. You will hardly ever find both of them in the same hand.They are being given a bad rep from people who don't know what they are talking about. I am a very good friend of the one I know for 25 years and played with him day after day and year after year. He is an excellent player and doesn't need to resort to collusion to beat the game.The bullshit about him has gone too far and I wish it would stop.

I believe you meant to respond to Clarkmeister and not me, therefore that is what I will assume at this time.


However, in the purely theoretical sense of a question being posted on the forum, I believe Clarkmeister had legitimate concerns and handled it well.


I also would not change my position on the matter based solely on the word of one person on this forum whom I don't know. I've been on these forums for years and I don't know you. That doesn't mean your opinion is invalid by any means, or that I assume you don't know what you are talking about, it's just that I would need to hear this info from someone I knew, trusted, and was sure knew both of the players in question as you state. I do concede the possibility that you may in fact be totally correct so I hope you are not offended by this, but you must admit it DID look awfully fishy.


Dave in Cali

Your case is one that I made for a while. But when they got barred from the Mirage, why would they just pick up and try to do the exact same thing at the Shoe. Wouldn't they agree to just play at separate tables when possible? Why would they play at the same table, every day, no matter how many tables were open. If the 20-40 got too wild for them, they would both leave that game and go to the 10-20. Not one of them, but both. It is inconceivable to me that two players would act in such a way without some profit motive. And since both are tight solid players, there is only one way that they can benefit from having each other at the table.


D. Andrew and I are both great friends, but if there were 2 tables open in our game, we would switch to separate tables because we hurt each others hourly rates when in the same game. What if suddenly we changed this and only played against each other despite the fact that on the surface, it isn't in our best interest? What would you think? I think the answer is obvious.

Wouldn't it be less conspicuous if they had checked it through or simulate some sort of action where PP2 checkraises the flop and PP1 releases?


Seems to me that whatever they'd lose to the rake is far less than the impression they left with this boneheaded drama.

It seems obvious that they were playing partners. But why was one so stupid as to bring it to everyones attention. Then they tried to make it a joke. Definitely not funny. The floor man should have been called. and the "Partners" forced to separate or quit.

Exactly...it was far too obvious. If you're working with someone, you definitely don't say "stop, wait, let's chop before the flop."


Is it possible that, instead of collusion, it's just stupidity at its highest level?

I ALSO WAS IN THIS GAME, BUT IT DIDN'T GO DOWN EXACTLY AS CLARKMEISTER EXPLAINS IT. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT, CLARKMEISTER WAS IN THE 1 SEAT AND DID LEAVE THE GAME, SO HE WAS NOT AROUND TO HEAR THE AFTERMATH ABOUT THE HAND. THE RAISER DID NOT SAY CHOP, HE SAID YOU FOLD AND I WILL GIVE YOU BACK 5.00 SO TO SAVE TIME THE BB FOULDED AND THAN THE RAISER SAID HE WAS JUST KIDDING,AND LAUGHED. THE BIG BLIND KEPT AFTER HIM SAYING WHERE IS MY $$$ FOR ABOUT AN HOUR. THERE WERE TOURIST IN THE

4 SEAT 6 SEAT 7 SEAT AND 10 SEAT THAT ALL THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY FUNNY. THE TOURIST IN THE 7 SEAT OFFERED TO BUY THE DEBT FOR HALF PRICE(ALSO A JOKE

AND EVERYONE THOUGHT THAT WAS ALSO FUNNY. I'VE PLAYED WITH THESE GUYS WHEN EVER I COME TO TOWN FOR ABOUT THE LAST 4 YEARS AND THIS WAS NO BIG DEAL. I DON'T HAVE A CLUE

WHAT ALL THIS COLLUSION IS ABOUT, ITS NONSENSE.TODAYS EPISODE WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER GAME WHERE PEOPLE ARE THROWING AROUND $5 CHIPS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WHY? WOULD THE BB CALL IN THE 1ST PLACE IF THEY WERE PARTNERS. THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY WON THE SMALL BLIND. AS FAR AS THE OTHER PARTNER BEING AT THE HORSESHOE, I ASKED ABOUT THAT AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY COULD NO LONGER PLAY IN THE SAME GAME. THIS ALSO MAKES NO SENSE TO ME AS I'VE PLAYED WITH BOTH OF THEM IN THE SAME GAME ALSO AND NEVER SUSPECTED ANY COLLUSION. I WAS TOLD OF THIS POSTING THIS MORNING AND JUST GOT HOME SO AM NOW READING AND SENDING IN MY ANSWER

Just one more question. HOW CAN 2 PEOPLE COLLUDE IF THEY ARE NEVER IN THE SAME HAND? Think about it

Its very easy. Especially when you sit next to each other. The money you save/make in blinds alone is probabaly worth about $3-5 an hour. Not an insignificant sum when you claim a win rate of $19.


I stand by my walks like a duck post above. There is no other reason for two thinking winning players to insist on playing at the same table 100% of the time OTHER than to collude.

Take it easy on the Caps Lock key. Its hard to read.


Did you know who I was before or after reading my post? You should have introduced yourself, I'm always glad to meet forum readers/posters. What seat were you in?

Just one more question. HOW CAN 2 PEOPLE COLLUDE IF THEY ARE NEVER IN THE SAME HAND? Think about it


I believe it is called playing 'best hand'. It is very effective. Never being in the same hand should be your tippoff at to their being possible collusion. Not the other way around. If you think that colluders today sandwhich players, then you are sadley mistaken.