[PFrese]

Guys -

I respectfully disagree. It does not matter to Hachem or dannenman if they win that pot or not, it ONLY matters that Tex gets eliminated. The pot was only 15M, if Hachem loses he has 25M to daannen's 37M. If Tex wins, he and Dannen are tied. So, if you are Dannen, you definitely want Hachem in. If you are Hachem, you want Dannen in, just in case Tex has AK, and say the board comes up 4A5T6. You need that extra hand, just in case Tex's overcards hit.

here is the deinition and explination of implicit collusion (I thought it was implied, sorry).


[ QUOTE ]
In implicit collusion, all opponents come to an independent agreement--that is, without consulting among each other--to all play in such a way as to minimize the chance of the player with the best hand winning the pot. For example, in a hold 'em tournament, a small stack may go all in and get called by one or more players with larger stacks. Those players collectively have a better chance of beating the all-in player than any does individually, and they may check down the hand till the end, that is, with no one making a bet that might drive anyone else out. The all-in player may have the best hand and be the favorite against any one of the others, but collectively, the remaining players have a better chance against the all-in player, and if they all understand--even though nothing is ever said to that effect--that all will check the hand down, that is implied collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be applied to snapping off bluffs in a cash game, but that is a different deal (trying to bluff one player is easier than bluffing many). And also, in a cash game, this is the wrong play, since the all in player can rebuy. THIS IS A TOURNEMENT STRATEGY ONLY.

This paramount issue here is you want many players to go up against the small stack so that you have the best COLLECTIVE chance of knocking him out. ESPECIALLY, since by him getting knocked out, Hachem and Dannen each got an extra 2Million bucks!