Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

You are a nit. Its a 2/4 game come on, but I mean, you had to know theres always cheating going on in live game, havent you seen Tilt?

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is kind of a general problem with Indian gaming casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean generally smaller casinos/cardrooms with about 4 tables max. Not just Indian Casinos.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

This stuff wouldn't fly at my local Indian casinos. They have about ten to fifteen tables each, and I know the floor people are better than this. Blatant collusion, and the dealer should have spoken up in your favor. Even if it wasn't colluding, they wouldn't harass the complainer about it. They would most likely issue a stiff warning and offer to split the guys up. If it persisted, the floor would ban them. The only complaint I have about our local casinos is they allow the players (and sometimes the dealers) to speak Spanish at the tables.

Maybe this stuff just happens at smaller Indian cardrooms. FWIW.

ScottieK

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

It seems quite simple collusion was occurring, maybe not in a malicious manner, but happening still. The real question is: can we profit off these jokers? If we tighten up, and they are our maniac raising machines, can't they help us take home some bank?

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

Horrible job by the floor, if your account is accurate and complete

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure you can. Minor semantics. You can announce to the table that you are going to raise no matter what when the action gets to you prior to the cards being dealt. You just have to wait for your turn to act.

This was an issue I had to explain to a dealer coming off the 2+2 table last year over the holidays when they took over a 3-6 table.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

<nit>You're describing a blind raise which doesn't have the final option at the end of the preflop action. The casinos around here allow a single straddle UTG and blind raises beyond that - no restraddling.</nit>

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

This seems disturbing because it was very visible and blatant (although probably harmless college guys who were laughing it up). I actually think there is significant risk playing off the beaten track from the regulars. When you have a finite number of players, it is fairly easy to prey on the newcomer regardless of their skill. Having said that, teams are everywhere, for sure in Vegas. I've witnessed a couple of troubling events while at the Bellagio on two different occasions. In big rooms like that where it is extremely busy, policing this type of activity can be difficult. The raise/re-raise to get player A out of the pot then checking down is one easy tell. Another more blatant (similar to what you said) was a maniac next to a guy, maniac lady three-bets folks out of a pot then says, "let's chop the pot." The blatant one's jump out at you, it's the invisible one's you have to be alert for...

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this stuff just happens at smaller Indian cardrooms

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking smaller cardrooms in general. Regardless of whether they are Indian or not.

b

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Simply raising blind preflop isn't colluding.

[/ QUOTE ]
It can be. A while back a poster complained about an online game where a whole table was playing kill the TAGs. There were two TAGs at the table IIRC. Everytime a TAG took the BB the table captain predesignated a player to autoraise preflop. They rotated the raises so that no one took it all the time.

The player who raises blind incurs negative EV but this is distributed across the entire table and not merely to the BB. The TAG is losing money because he can never play his blind for free. The rotating aspect ensures that those EV losses are distributed fairly to all the other players even though the autoraiser is losing on a particular hand.

Back to OP, teaming up to attack the kill blind (really all the blinds) is collusion even if it's announced in advance. It places the kill blind at an unfair disadvantage compared to the other players at the table. It's certainly true that a bunch of magoos can legally achieve the same effect by being themselves, but so what? It's still collusion for two players to agree to work together to hurt a third player.

Nor is it a defense that the colluders are incompetent and spewing chips, although that might be a reason not to complain. In this case I'd be reluctant to try and exploit their "spewing" because their apparent ability to wringer people with impunity might offset their so-called mistakes.

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply raising blind preflop isn't colluding.

[/ QUOTE ]
It can be. A while back a poster complained about an online game where a whole table was playing kill the TAGs. There were two TAGs at the table IIRC. Everytime a TAG took the BB the table captain predesignated a player to autoraise preflop. They rotated the raises so that no one took it all the time.

The player who raises blind incurs negative EV but this is distributed across the entire table and not merely to the BB. The TAG is losing money because he can never play his blind for free. The rotating aspect ensures that those EV losses are distributed fairly to all the other players even though the autoraiser is losing on a particular hand.

.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to how one raises blindly online. Online is a much different situation than live. Especially in regards to collusion and sharing information.

[ QUOTE ]
teaming up to attack the kill blind (really all the blinds) is collusion even if it's announced in advance. It places the kill blind at an unfair disadvantage compared to the other players at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Many times it's 2 people doing it regardless of who is in the blind. Just because you posted a blind doesn't mean you can expect any more special treatment/consideration than anyone else at the table. They're raising them blind too. Ever play in a blind capped to showdown game? Are you saying that's an unfair game? C'mon.

It is advantageous to the players yet to act to know that players are raising blind preflop.

Complaining that players are raising blind preflop after announcing in advance to everyone that they are doing so is ridiculous.

b

Re: Potowatomi collusion
 

It is not ridiculous when player A tells player B to do it. That's the problem, teamwork is not allowed.

That's why it's called collusion and not just flat out cheating. (even though collusion is cheating)