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

[Army Eye]

I felt dirty just reading it. A clear squeeze play. Doesn't have to be pre-planned to make it so. You two ganged up on the guy.

[ZenMusician]

I recently read a book of dirty plays like this:

raising to drive out better hands, semi-bluff raising, pushing rocks
of hands, rasing to force free cards...and other really nasty inside
information like isolating and attacking weak players!! What a mean
game!! To understand these Shark plays I recommend this book...
it was, like, the Theory of Poker or something...

Greg Raymer is a scumbag too...I saw him use a SQUEEZE PLAY!

Some people...

-ZEN

[TripleH68]

This would be a great story if MP2 3-bet this river with A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

I think your play is part of the game, but it smells.

[DeuceKicker]

You really don't see how the presence of his buddy changes things? Do you really think he'd bet with a hand he was 99% sure was a loser if his buddy wasn't between him and MP2?

Let's say "Dave" is OP's arch-rival. They've played together enough to know each other's styles very well. The only difference is that OP and Dave cannot stand each other. Does OP bet this river, almost certain that Dave will raise to knock out MP2--but also pretty darn sure that OP's hand < Dave's hand < MP2's hand?

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg Raymer is a scumbag too...I saw him use a SQUEEZE PLAY!

[/ QUOTE ]

zen,

the fact that a few people didnt see it as collusion at first doesnt surprise me. the fact that after it's been explained to you and you mockingly insist that nothing was wrong w/ the play worries me.

hopefully greg will reply to your post.

bwana

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

This analysis is spot on.

[Ulysses]

bernie,

"Nice squeeze play."

Wow, just wow.

Very disappointed in you,
El Diablo

because you knew you would only call Dave's bet it's BIG TIME collusion.

had you re-raised over the top and taken down the pot...would make it a different story.

[bdypdx]

"I catch his eye for what couldn't have been more than a split second, but we know each other's game so well that I felt almost positive that we were thinking the exact same thing: i.e. the only way one of us was going to take down this sizeable pot was for us to bully out MP2 who we both felt nearly certain held an overpair based on his tightness.."

Yeah, it's definitely collusion; basically because you're talking about how "one of us" should take down the pot and a situation where neither of you would have otherwise. It's way worse than buddies playing together who will check to the river when they're heads-up together, but then not giving other opponents the same courtesy.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
"I catch his eye for what couldn't have been more than a split second, but we know each other's game so well that I felt almost positive that we were thinking the exact same thing: i.e. the only way one of us was going to take down this sizeable pot was for us to bully out MP2 who we both felt nearly certain held an overpair based on his tightness.."

Yeah, collusion; basically because you're talking about how "one of us" should take down the pot. It's way worse than buddies playing together who will check to the river when they're heads-up together.

[/ QUOTE ]

At first I thought this could be legit, but after further review I think it is cheating. My rationale:

"We know each other's game" could be enough to justify betting when you think your buddy will checkraise your buddy checkraising your bet, but only if each is doing it solely to improve his chance of winning the pot . This isn't possible given the hand OP holds.

When OP bets his 99, he has to expect that some of the time he will be checkraised by a hand that thinks it could be a winner but isn't. The only way the buddy can have a hand worse than 99 and think he has the best hand some of the time is if he thinks that the OP is willing to bet a hand that he knows is a guaranteed loser. The only reason OP would bet such a hand is to set his buddy up to win the pot.

Holding 99, OP's bet only makes sense if he expects Buddy to checkraise with the goal of winning the pot for OP, which he can't do legitimately unless Buddy would expect a bet with Ace high to set up his pair of 8's some of the time. Either the bet or the checkraise is made expecting the other party is colluding. There's no avoiding it.

I think a strong Ten is the weakest hand OP could have that could make what happened justifiable. Then he might have sufficient odds that Buddy will checkraise a worse hand legitimately (i.e. with sufficient odds himself of winning the pot by forcing out the overpair but still having to beat OP).