[andyfox]

What do you guys think of this?

40-80 game. 3 players left in the pot. On the turn, it goes check, check, bet. First checker goes all in for four chips out of the eight, second checker folds. Before the river is dealt, the bettor says, "give him the side pot" and shoves the $80 side pot to the all-in player.

The river card is dealt and the bettor slides his cards towards the muck. The third player, who had folded on the turn, asked to see the cards. They were exposed: top two. The all-in takes the $80 and tries to muck. The player who had folded on the turn asks to see his cards too: a missed flush draw--no pair.

After much to-do, it is decided that the bettor did not have the right to fold on the river, but that if he wanted to give $80 to the all-in player, nobody would object. But the all-in player had already just made a short-buy before the hand, and it is ruled the $80 "gift" constitutes a buy-in, not a won side pot, and he must now make a full buy.

It was evident there was no collusion, just a player trying to be nice to another player who is a nice guy and was running bad.

No biggie?