JJ and implicit collusion
 

My basic question is this: does implicit collusion exist preflop? I was playing in a live game that was way below my normal limit, so I was screwing around a lot, playing hands without looking at the hole cards, loads of semi-bluffs, etc. Anyways, I get like 5 limpers before me and I'm on the button. I don't bother looking at my cards, and I raise about 7 BB. I get one EP shortstack caller, and a LP shortstack comes over the top of me for about 10 BB more, I call, and so does EP for all his stack. The three of us are all-in, EP turns over AQo, LP flips AKo, and I flip over JJ. Given, I'm a slight favorite over both of them, but I think with both of them in there, I become a dog. Do I want both calls?

Another everyday occurrance: you get AA and about a million limpers before you. I tend to raise about the size of the pot to isolate. Is this correct, or do you really want 3 or 4 hands to see the flop with you? Thanks, hope this is coherent.

Re: JJ and implicit collusion
 

the fact that they both called you makes you an even bigger favorite, 2 aces are already gone as well as 1 Q and 1 K and you already have a pair..

Re: JJ and implicit collusion
 

You are certainly not a dog here since you are getting 2-1 on your money, and you would only be a slight dog if somehow you managed to get in at even money against both these hands (basically not possible). You wouldn't want either one of them to fold though since AQ is getting 2-1 on his money as a 4-1 dog (he is making a big mistake that you benefit from) If he folds you definately have a somewhat better chance of standing up vs. AK, but basically when your hand stands up against both of them, you win twice as much money.

BTW whether AQ calls or folds 1 of AK's ace outs is obviously dead either way.

Re: JJ and implicit collusion
 

I tried AA in twodimes against up to five random hands, you are still a good favorite against up to five players at least, so I don't know if you really want to isolate.

Re: JJ and implicit collusion
 

Yes, but if you don't isolate, there's the chance that you might have trouble getting away from the hand and losing a big pot as opposed to winning a small one.

But most good players know when to fold AA anyway, but it's still harder for me to have a multi-way read on five players, so I tend to isolate with AA.

Re: JJ and implicit collusion
 

JJ is ~46% to win in a 3-way vs. AK (~33%) and AQ (~21%).

With a million limpers and your late position, I see nothing wrong with a pot-sized raise. If you have the same wild table image in this hypothetical AA situation, you will likely get a few callers even if you push. At least, this is what I see in the micro NL games on UB.

Re: JJ and implicit collusion
 

I'm interested to know how you define "implicit collusion" and how you think it applies here because I don't see how it does. It usually implies players working together tacitly for mutual gain. For instance, in a tourney two big stacks not butting heads until the small stack blinds out.

In any event, with 1 caller you're 57% to win 2 units or 1.14. With 2 callers you're 45% to win 3 units ot 1.35. Clearly, you want the extra caller.

With AA the situation is different because you will likely not be all-in preflop. By slowplaying preflop or just putting in a modest raise you let a lot of people draw cheaply against you and this usually sets up a negative implied odds siuation as getting away from AA is a tough thing to do. With AA your best bet it to get it heads up or at most 3-way to the flop. The fact that no one raised to you with AA makes it especially imperative that you raise big because they likely have hands like suited connectors, small pocket pairs, etc. against which you will win a small pot or lose a big one. A hand like AK or AQ that you could hope to win a big pot against would probably have raised to you.

Re: JJ and implicit collusion
 

I play very different in superlow stakes live games than I do online for real stakes, so no my table image isn't the same.

Re: JJ and implicit collusion
 

So do I.

Obviously
 

The original poster demonstrates little understanding of the word "collusion" and the game "poker."