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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ 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. This sounds like a sandwich play, nothing more.

Again, NH

ScottieK

[bwana devil]

that's true. however the times you lose those hands you dont consider them as your "benefit." that's what OP referred to it as.

[ QUOTE ]
for ONE of our benefits

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: this guy was all too happy to lose his hand. he bet so his buddy could win and he said that in his post. this is not a move from sklansky.

bwana

[teddyFBI]

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...

[bernie]

[ 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]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing. OP couldn't have known his buddy's hole cards. If he did, then he was cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basic handreading could tell him that his buddy has some sort of made hand. He just bet into a tight preflop raiser twice during the hand.

b

[Ulysses]

bernie,

"Nice squeeze play."

Wow, just wow.

Very disappointed in you,
El Diablo

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
bernie,

"Nice squeeze play."

Wow, just wow.

Very disappointed in you,
El Diablo

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that?

I wasn't too fond of the play given the OPs thinking. I meant it with a dose of sarcasm.

b

[teddyFBI]

[ 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 ]

Uh, not quite sure you "get it".

Hypothetical 1: OP checks it through, random dude takes down $530 pot.

Hypothetical 2: OP invests $80 to help his friend take down $690 pot; Friend likely buys beers for him afterward (maybe even pays him back the $80 he put in on river...I know I'd do that for a buddy...although then the situation does approach cheating).

[phish]

Even tho it was not pre-planned, this IS collusion. You bet knowing that you would not win the pot, but is rather providing the opportunity for another player to win it. THAT is collusion.
Fair poker is each player acting solely in his own self-interest. Dave did the correct thing, raising to drive out the winning hand so he can win. But you had bet that river knowing it would only provide Dave the opportunity to do this, without real expectation that your bet alone would win the pot for YOU.
That third guy was right to go bonkers. You cheated him.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
I call down, just because pot is so big, and I thought that it would look uber-suspicious if I had just folded

[/ QUOTE ]

More suspicious than calling with a pair of 9s? If you wanted to avoid suspicion, why'd you show your hand?

-McGee