[Phat Mack]

2) If again their only collusion is bankroll sharing, but I do not know they are sharing, then I would expect to lose against "somewhat skillful" opponents, the same opponents who, without the collusion, I would expect to beat.

Wow. Are you saying that you would go from winner to loser if the same "somewhat skillful" opponents secretly started sharing their bankroll? That and nothing else? Not to kidnap a thread, but why?

Also, in thinking of your questions above, is there a semantic element of confusion here, over the word collusive? In collusive entanglement, the entangled players gain some edge merely by being entangled. But in collusive cheating, their edge still depends on how they utilize their entanglement.

It could be merely a matter of intent. But collusive entaglement, as I understand it, has the added feature of being able to change the composition and nature of the "colluding team" every time the action moves. This protean nature makes it harder to identify and deal with.