Ok,
this question is a variation of the old Chris Ferguson problem, but now its limit and a full table.
Players are not colluding, but thinking. If all they wanted to do is beating the KK-guy they could do so by: implicit collusion:
KK always raises and everyone calls: what are the odds that KK will win against 9 random hands? below or above 50%?
doesnt matter anyway: KK will postflop never know for sure where he is. The rest will. opponents could play "solid" poker postflop and only bet if they have the goods. how big is the profit KK will make? even if there is something left: what if they try to bluff him with an optimal frequency? (ok, forget the optimal frequency, just bluff him from time to time). Im pretty certain that KK cant show a profit against a competent field (even if that is not the standard 30/60 game). Suddenly the game starts to look like real poker, with the KK at a real disadvantage.
The problem with all this:
People play poker to win money for themselves, not the whole table. So it is not sure if the players will really use this strategy, despite the "fact" that this is the only way to beat the game. (Because i havent done any math someone else will have to do that, i'll only take the nobel price for asking the right questions).
So how much does KK in reality make? i dont know, i cant think that far.
my 2 cents
u