Did I just collude?? I feel dirty... - Page 4

bernie · #31 12-12-2005, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm just not getting the animosity toward OP here either...the fact is that if these 2 players didn't know each other, everyone would be raving about the nice play that "Dave" made to win himself the pot. OK, so now let's add to the pot the factor that these players know each other, and on of them THINKS he knows what's going thru the other guy's head (but of course can't be sure, unless they've worked something out beforehand, although there's no indication that this was the case).

So while OP might indeed have had the mens rea of a colluder, the actions themselves are on the level...not quite sure how you can accuse him of being a cheat...

[/ QUOTE ]

The question would then be, would the OP have made that bet on the river, hopeless that it was, if it wasn't his buddy he's betting into. I doubt it.

b

bwana devil · #32 12-12-2005, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So while OP might indeed have had the mens rea of a colluder, the actions themselves are on the level...not quite sure how you can accuse him of being a cheat...

[/ QUOTE ]

would OP make the same bet if MP2 were next to act? hellno.

what if he did? that would squeeze his buddy out. OP would still lose the pot and neither of them would win. buddy folds, OP loses the hand and MP2 takes it down.

OP acted differently in this case because it was his friend who was in the hand and the order in which the players came. THAT IS CHEATING.

i dont think it's that hard to see.

bwana

#33 12-12-2005, 05:35 PM

I have questionable morals as others have seen in a home poker thread, but my two cents anyway:
A scare card (for the rock) comes on the river, two players check, you bet. Maybe you knew your friend would checkraise the rock out, maybe you just thought he would. We often raise to try and knock out a better hand. Had this been discussed previously, definitely collusion. As it stands, its a little shady depending whether or not you knew you were beat. If you knew Dave had you, and you were losing the pot no matter what you did, you should feel bad. In my mind, the collusion becomes true later on, when Dave buys you a drink/meal whatever for helping win that pot. That is when you profit from the move.

#34 12-12-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
nevada,

"the only way one of us was going to take down this sizeable pot was for us"

"working "together" (for ONE of our benefits, although we didn't know whose) without communicating"

This is out-and-out cheating. You and your friend were each playing a certain way so one of the two of you could win the pot, not so you individually could win the pot. You played poker as a team sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

Change the friend to a guy that OP has played a ton of hands with and knows will probably raise to take down this pot. And the rock to the table [censored]. Just out of curiosity, would this still be cheating? As I said in another post, for me the cheating comes in if he profits off this dirty move.

bernie · #35 12-12-2005, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So when you bet the flop into a preflop raiser, hoping he'll raise to drive out the draws and weak hands, that's collusion? You are "working together" to maximize the chance that ONE of you will win the pot. Sklansky talks about this in his books, stating that it may be correct to bet/raise even if you know you're beat in order to drive out draws (and potentially better hands) and maximize your chances of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the same thing. The difference is that this is so that even though you might be behind, you can draw out on the guy on a later street. Possibly also cleaning up outs and such.

This isn't betting into 2 better hands, hoping for a raise, knowing your hand isn't good on the river.

What would be real interesting is if you replace his bud with a major LAG that he knows might try for a bluff raise on the river with nothing. However, in that case, the intent is a little different. The unknown LAG wouldn't be raising hoping that the OP would win. He'd be trying to beat both players.

b

bernie · #36 12-12-2005, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That is when you profit from the move.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also profit from this move if you do it for each other on other occasions, not just in a single isolated hand. You could also see it as this was just Dave's turn to take down the pot, to which he could reciprocate at a later time.

2 people knowingly helping each other win pots by squeezing out another player(s). One player doing it with a hopeless hand.

b

TakeMeToTheRiver · #37 12-12-2005, 06:31 PM

I think this is not kosher because of the way you worded the post -- which may very well be your actual thought process.

If EP was just a player you knew well and you increased your own EV by betting with the knowledge that EP would likely check-raise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the play. Given that this was a big pot (approx 13BB), I think a bet on the end that you believe will win you the pot >8% of the time is a good bet. Calling the raise because you had a guilty conscience is very very bad (unless you believed that EP would checkraise with a hand that you could be beat).

wslee00 · #38 12-12-2005, 07:04 PM

he would not have done this if it wasn't his friend - it's collusion for all the reasons that bwana and bernie have already said on this thread

TakeMeToTheRiver · #39 12-12-2005, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
he would not have done this if it wasn't his friend - it's collusion for all the reasons that bwana and bernie have already said on this thread

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is that a bet is not always a bad move here if you know that (1) that both players will fold or (2) that EP will raise with a hand you can beat AND rock will fold enough of the time for you to increase your EV.

Many of the reasons given for this being collusion are wrong. It should be considered collusion for only one reason: OP was thinking about the collective increase in EV of him and his buddy together and not of his own EV. That is wrong.

bernie · #40 12-12-2005, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the reasons given for this being collusion are wrong. It should be considered collusion for only one reason: OP was thinking about the collective increase in EV of him and his buddy together and not of his own EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is at the core of many of the reasons given that this could easily be collusion.

b