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 [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]), screamed to me that she had KK or AA...a couple of folds and a couple of calls to me in LP, holding 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. 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??