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

[The Goober]

I think this is pretty straightforward. OP knows that his buddy will CR a weakish made hand if he bets, and that the PF raiser will likely fold his overpair. Nothing wrong so far, OP just knows the players well and is using some hand-reading.

Now the question is, whose interest is OP acting in? If OP honestly thinks that when he calls the river he'll win more than 12% of the time (his pot odds on putting in 2 bets to win ~15 bets), then there is nothing wrong with the play - he simply acted in his own interest and used knowledge that he got legitimately.

IMHO, however, this was clear cheating. This statement:

[ 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 ]

tells me that the OP didn't really think he'd win very often - if he even considered folding here, after everything went exactly the way he hoped it would, then he knew that his play was costing him money in order to help out his friend. As someone else said, would you make this play if it was your mortal enemy instead of your friend? I think its obvious that the answer is no.

[bdypdx]

Like I said, it was collusion on the part of the OP.

The OP made statements like...."I catch his eye", "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...", etc...

What makes it collusion is where the OP says, "the only way one of us was going to take down this sizeable pot", with the key being "one of us" instead of "the only way "I" was going to take down the pot". So to the original poster, why was it important for "one of us" to take down the pot?

Quit rationalizing and looking for some support from us to make you feel better. You played the hand differently than if you were in it for only yourself. If you were the guy in the "squeeze play" you would have been pissed. You cheated, period.

[teddyFBI]

i'd like to point out that none of you are really using the term 'squeeze play' properly.

[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

[Ulysses]

bernie,

Got it. Was just skimming the thread and thought you were approving the play. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
i'd like to point out that none of you are really using the term 'squeeze play' properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But many people identify the play like this as a squeeze play because you're, as a team, squeezing the person out of the pot. I've heard it many times in reference to collusion.

b

[andyfox]

The evidence:

"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"

"he hoped that I would bet the river, so he could bully check-raise to win the pot for one of us."

Any time you play in a cash game to win the pot for somebody other than yourself, you're cheating.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a pretty good one at that. Making two people lay down better hands. Telling Dave afterward what you had.

[shant]

Sounds like you bet so that your buddy could win, not becauase you thought you were value-betting. Bad form.