[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you both (Mason and David) for following up with the original post on this thread. You both make a compelling logical case that collusion is not (and really could not be) prevalent in major cardrooms for ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower levels.

What I read into Sklanksy words is that collusion makes a lot of sense for world class players playing at very high limits where games are scarce. Basically, implying the same thing as Roy Cooke, but these guys hide it behind the creative use of language.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering if it would be harder or easier to collude in a major tournament? I assume that it would be harder in the sense that colluders would have no control over whether they appear at the same table or not. But let's take the case of a 400 person tournament where 10 players have been backed by a single source and two of them reach the final table with average stack sizes. Or is that not the right place to be looking for cheating/collusion in tournaments? Have either of you written at all on this topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tournament cheating is nothing new. Whether the very large fields nowadays affects things, I don't know. I don't think it makes much difference.

I recommend you google search Russ G's posts on the methods. Daniel negreanu made a post about it a few years back too, concerning men the master. Maybe Sklansky posted in one of those threads.