[Rushmore]

I think it is just the second hand which might detract, as it did not involve the patented bet/no-call on the river between the two colluders.

The first looks like they just got in over their heads, with the remaining colluder making the error of trying to buy the pot on the end, as opposed to the more prudent check-fold to what looks like an inevitable bet on the end.

The third is the poster child for bad collusion, but certainly looks like collusion nonetheless, especially given their reactions to your chat.

To be honest, I think the whole thing is getting out of hand, and am really scaling back my online play hours. I believe the sites have about a 50% chance of eventually ensuring the integrity of their games against collusion, etc., as their incentive and motivation in this regard is in conflict with the players'.

Until then, I think I'll just sit on my winnings, for the most part.