[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you were able to squeeze Party for a few bucks. Better you than them, eh?

"but I have reported such situations before where it didn't effect me because I think it is inappropriate for players to 'team-up' and discuss stalling at the tables."

Here's the real test. Answer honestly.

Final 4 players of a regular pay structure MTT you find yourself in a three way pot. The short stack is all in pre-flop and you are chip leader along with the #2 stack still in the hand. There is no side pot and the main pot = 3 BBs. Tell me you wouldn't check it down and I'll completely reevaluate my opinion of you.

Obviously, the common practice of checking it out is collusive but accepted. I see a distinction with little difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This has been discussed. Two or more players checking down with a dry side pot and one player all in is very common tournament strategy that most experienced players are aware of. It is an accepted strategy and generally accepted as ethical.

Discussing whether to check down in the situation, on the other hand, or telling a player to check down is commonly accepted as unethical and a form of collusion. Perhaps the distinction is subtle (although it doesn't seem so to me) but it is very real.

Bob's situation is similar. Stalling is ethical, if annoying as hell. Discussing whether to stall or instructing players to stall crosses the line into collusion. Quite frankly, I'm a little puzzled by Mike's attempt to draw distinctions between where it would be ok to discuss stalling and Bob's situation, which Mike agrees crosses the line. Both are unaceptable in my view.

--Zetack