Did I just collude?? I feel dirty...

whodaman · #1 12-12-2005, 03:39 PM

while your play wasn't cheating, it simply sucked. You put in 2 bets on a river where you should have put 0. Maybe thats why you feel dirty.

Edge34 · #2 12-12-2005, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
while your play wasn't cheating, it simply sucked. You put in 2 bets on a river where you should have put 0. Maybe thats why you feel dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing. OP couldn't have known his buddy's hole cards. If he did, then he was cheating. All this commentary about "the only way one of us was going to win" is in hindsight knowing the way the hand played out. To add to my first post, its not the cleanest thing in the world, but far from collusion.

The play was suboptimal all around. Not cheating though.

Riverman · #3 12-12-2005, 03:54 PM

The play is cheating because there is no way it could have benefited him were there not an implied arrangement to split the money at a later time. He intentionally made a bad play in order to have an opportunity (implied) to split money that he had no chance of winning fairly. That is collusion, and it is cheating.

teddyFBI · #4 12-12-2005, 03:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The play is cheating because there is no way it could have benefited him were there not an implied arrangement to split the money at a later time. He intentionally made a bad play in order to have an opportunity (implied) to split money that he had no chance of winning fairly. That is collusion, and it is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can point out where the arrangement was to split the money, I'd be interested. As far as I can tell, there was no such arrangement. Just one guy who liked to help his friend take down a big pot. (as i wrote above, if i were "Dave", I'd probably pay my buddy back the $80 he put in on river...which I admit, only further sullies the situation)

Riverman · #5 12-12-2005, 04:01 PM

Even if the money was never returned, hero's river bet has no purpose other than helping his friend win by squeezing the other guy out. Since the bet has no value, and hero knows this, he is cheating.

Edge34 · #6 12-12-2005, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Even if the money was never returned, hero's river bet has no purpose other than helping his friend win by squeezing the other guy out. Since the bet has no value, and hero knows this, he is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero didn't know his buddy's hole cards. If he bets and both others fold, was this play still cheating? The bet has value because it may win hero the pot. If he knew either A) his buddy's hole cards, or B) that there was a repayment coming later on, then I'd give you cheating. But not here. Stop being such a nit, there was no collusion here.

Edge34 · #7 12-12-2005, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The play is cheating because there is no way it could have benefited him were there not an implied arrangement to split the money at a later time. He intentionally made a bad play in order to have an opportunity (implied) to split money that he had no chance of winning fairly. That is collusion, and it is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly lack understanding of what happened...so...

OP couldn't be certain that his play wouldn't win HIMSELF the pot. He DIDN'T KNOW that his buddy would do what he did. He fas fairly certain, but he wasn't sure.

Had no chance of winning fairly? WTF are you talking about bro? Bad play? Not with an uber-tight player who makes it clear he's disgusted with the river. Bet at it and try to get him to fold a better hand. Not to mention, where the hell do you get the "implied arrangement to split the money"? You need to either brush up on your reading comprehension, or at the very least your poker game.

bwana devil · #8 12-12-2005, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing. OP couldn't have known his buddy's hole cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's what OP said to that though:

"we were...[ QUOTE ]
working "together" (for ONE of our benefits, although we didn't know whose)"

[/ QUOTE ]

so he didnt know the hole cards but he figured one of them would win the pot w/ the river play. clearly collusion. anyone arguing differently should buy some ethics.

bwana

Ulysses · #9 12-12-2005, 04:53 PM

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.

#10 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.