How to handle open collusion in a poker room @ Roman Casino In WA

[bernie]

Selective softplaying is still very poor game etiquette.

b

[The Dude]

It's against the rules in tournament play, and it hurts the other players significantly. I would definatly make sure the floorman stopped it immediately. If it's in a cash game, I don't care as long as they don't do anything a-typical while there's a 3rd player in the hand (like raise to drive someone out, knowing they can just check it down).

[Sunshine]

This is collusion and one of the reasons I prefer limit: The variance in NL makes it possible for collusion to make a big-time dent in your stack while in limit, when it happens, it costs less overall.

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
It's against the rules in tournament play

[/ QUOTE ]

Um? One of the most common things in all of tournament poker is for two players to check down a hand in order to bust a third all-in player. In the case described here, there isn't even a third player involved.

SpaceAce

[slavic]

They don't have a NL game.

The muck will spread a NL game if there is demand. Unfortunatly the players who want to have it spread want a 10/20 blind game and there is only a $500 max bet size. If those players would allow for a 5 and 5 blinds or maybe even 5-10 blinds it might go, but the $20 blind is just to large for the washington limits.

Also the floor isn't that interested in spreading it and I'd only trust a handfull of dealers to be able to run it.

[SNOWBALL138]

this isn't collusion.

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
Selective softplaying is still very poor game etiquette.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but I don't see it harming anyone. Players who do this are usually there for more socail/gambling reasons, I would imagine. Making a big deal about it is just likely to make the game unfriendly and possibly tighter.

To The Dude
I have no tournament experience, but how is it different in a tournament if it is just them?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but I don't see it harming anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can make a new player to the room rather uncomortable. Especially if they soft play each other yet play him hard. He could be leery of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Making a big deal about it is just likely to make the game unfriendly and possibly tighter.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it's a necesary evil that one has to deal with. It still sucks.

b

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no tournament experience, but how is it different in a tournament if it is just them?

[/ QUOTE ]
In a winner-take-all tournament it wouldn't matter much. But normal tournaments have multiple prizes. Your equity in the prize money improves when another player is knocked out. It also improves when two equal stacks fight and the money is redistributed so that one stack becomes big while the other becomes small (because the small stack could go out soon).

Imagine there were two prizes and three players left including you. Wouldn't you be excited to see your opponents go head-to-head with one of them likely to be forced all-in? Wouldn't it suck if they had an understanding that they would never bet against each other in this situation? Theoretically your chance of winning would not be affected. But your chance of finishing second instead of third would be greatly reduced.

Historical note: Round-robin tournaments to pick the challenger for the world chess championship were replaced by knockouts in part because Soviet-block players were cheating under secret instructions from their government. They would play easy draws against each other so that they could save their energy for "rest-of-the-world" opponents who had to be prepared to fight every round.

Young Bobby Fischer was heavily criticized for making these accusations but history proved him right.

[Victor]

this isnt collusion really. its an understanding that these 2 players have. it doesnt even affect others. they dont even kno what they are doin.

the next level is what pisses me off tho.