Collusion? Or am I Overreacting? (2 Viewers)

[Frogzilla]

It’s a good squeeze spot with a marginal hand (a hand near the line of what’s squeezable). If it’s a crusher I really want out of the way I might be less likely to make the squeeze. If it’s a fish I have a read on, more likely to squeeze. How much I want or don’t want the other player to stay in is probably a factor. If we’re in Vegas and it’s my buddy, I’m squeezing…but in my defense, all my buddies are huge fish.

I’d give them a “no teamwork” comment and let it go. Ive never seen collusion enforced strongly in a casino setting. The worst incident I’ve ever witnessed was when a guy called his wife with exclusive nuts on the river instead of raising at a $1700 WSOP circuit, I softly joked ”are you allowed to do that”, the dealer sighed and called floor, the guy got a round.

 

[Taghkanic]

I think I agree with both of these in part, but I'm not really sure a clear line can be drawn and a workable rule made. When playing tournaments (especially in casual environments where there are a lot of off-the-table friendships) I think a lot of things happen like this whether subconsciously or not. If I'm a short stack in a league tournament but I'm leading the league in points for the year, is it collusion for me to prefer that I get taken out by the guy who hasn't won yet this year and make him the big stack, as opposed to the other guy who is sitting in second place and would pass me if he wins this tournament? Not saying I've been in that exact situation, and of course I would prefer to win myself, but we're deceiving ourselves if we pretend that stuff like this doesn't happen frequently on a less blatant scale. And I'm not sure one can or even should try to ban that.

I would differentiate the example above from the example in the OP, in that it is a lot harder for you to control who stacks you than it is for the wife to protect or dump to her husband. You’d have to wait for just the right situation to arise where the low-points guy shoves against you with no high-points players still in the hand. Also, what you are talking about is using a strategy to help yourself, rather than colluding with anyone else.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

It’s a good squeeze spot with a marginal hand (a hand near the line of what’s squeezable). If it’s a crusher I really want out of the way I might be less likely to make the squeeze. If it’s a fish I have a read on, more likely to squeeze. How much I want or don’t want the other player to stay in is probably a factor. If we’re in Vegas and it’s my buddy, I’m squeezing…but in my defense, all my buddies are huge fish.

I’d give them a “no teamwork” comment and let it go. Ive never seen collusion enforced strongly in a casino setting. The worst incident I’ve ever witnessed was when a guy called his wife with exclusive nuts on the river instead of raising at a $1700 WSOP circuit, I softly joked ”are you allowed to do that”, the dealer sighed and called floor, the guy got a round.

Yeah no joking necessary, that's frustrating. We all know they'll play differently vs eachother but humor us, min-raise instead of call, or at LEAST have the decency of figuring out some good signs to secretly communicate and save us the trouble!

 

[Taghkanic]

There are all sorts of meta game considerations late in tournaments. We often gang up on short stacks trying to knock them out. The biggest stacks can act to keep the bubble lasting as long as possible. Maybe I want to focus on harming the points leader rather than winning the hand or even the event. Maybe I want to stick it to my buddy just for fun?

All or most of these “meta game” considerations strike me as wholly different than a wife (possibly) saying, “Oh no, my hubby is all-in short, he’s going to be called by multiple players and likely get knocked out. I’m coming over the top to increase his chances of survival. At worst I get his 6BB and he gets his birthday sex several months early tonight.”

…

….

……..

That said: I’d want to know more about the players involved.

Is the wife someone who normally recognizes a squeeze spot? A lot of amateurs don’t even know what this is. With KJo? Or only with premiums?

Is the husband a nit who only goes all in with AK/JJ+, even with only 6BB? If so, then his wife knows she’s coming over the top with worse and it looks more like collusion.

 

[DrStrange]

Are we thinking that the rules are different for different players based on their relationships and experiences? Does that mean the host has an obligation to investigate this prior to the game? Is the host obligated to announce who is allowed to do what prior to the game and why? It seems a little late to be making special situation rules after the fact. Or to have special rulings that only a few people know about.

This sort of thing can get messy fast. People have secrets. And even if not exactly secret, I'd be concerned if my host started asking about my life outside of poker. Along a separate line, I wouldn't always tell the truth about my poker skills and wouldn't be happy if the host shared that sort of information with the table.

And what if people lie? Sure, we often know the married couples. But maybe Bill and Tom don't want to disclose their relationship publicly - is the host going to out them regarding collusion? How well do I have to know someone before I need to say something?

Are you really sure you want to go this direction? Seems like a thorny situation to get into.

 

[Taghkanic]

I don’t see it as that complicated. Sure, there are lots of different relationships which are conceivably problematic for poker but can’t realistically be policed. Sharing a home, a bed and a bank account is a pretty obvious conflict of interest and couples ideally should be at separate tables or should be mindful to play as if their spouse is a stranger.

 

[Jake14mw]

... but WTF is A2 suited doing calling here?

This was my first thought!

 

[grebe]

Table is 9-handed and Amy (a fairly competent player who usually does well at these events) is sitting with a monster stack. They are sitting on opposite ends of the table. Bob is first to act, and jams his 6bb stack. There are several callers who have very large stacks. Amy is in the SB and postures, then shoves her entire stack,

Amy rolls over , Bob rolls over and UTG rolls over

This is a legit next level play, although usually done a little differently. She is trying to isolate the all in with a bunch of dead money in the middle. Both players are at a +ev here if effectively isolated due to the dead money in the middle. She is obviously a very savvy player, willing to take chances when they favor her.

I say no collusion, but watch playing with her. She got game.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Here's another way to look at it: Assume it was collusion. Assume she wanted to protect her husband from all the callers, with the plan B of "if someone is going to take his chips, at least it'll be me". Since the play she makes is a legit isolation play (I wouldn't call it a squeeze), shouldn't she be allowed to make it? Should a certain specific play be outlawed based on the thought process behind it? And if so, how could one possibly in any way enforce it? (Except if she admits, of course)

To complicate things: If you say "Well, K-J is one thing, but suppose she does it with 3-2 or 7-2 or something". Well, if there is an UTG call, a BB, a 6 BB raise with "several callers" (let's say 3), and your 0.5 as a SB, then that's 26.5 BBs out there. If nobody calls your shove, you'll be wagering another 5.5 BBs to win the 26.5. I would not be convinced this is a collusion even with a crap hand!

And as @DrStrange wrote (who is my favorite PCF poster in these type of threads), if you would allow someone to isolate a stranger, then you can't really forbid someone to isolate a spouse.

 

[upNdown]

Haha.
I wonder if everything in this story was the same, especially the comment made afterward about giving cover or whatever, except instead of husband and wife, it was two guys - really good poker player buddies who like to play together, I wonder if the feedback would be any different.

 

[DrStrange]

I had been wondering the same thing @upNdown Sometimes I find women aren't really all that welcome at the poker table.

I am not saying this thread is about that - but I admit I did have those sorts of thoughts.

 

[davislane]

Ive done the same sort of play with a covering stack for strangers that I had met at the table whose company I enjoyed so wanted to help them out so to speak. I do have a bit of gamble in me so Im not sad if I bust them also.

I had no idea home tourneys were taken so seriously. This is really a non event IMO.

 

[Trihonda]

I question your recollection of the hand.

If Bob is first to act, he must be UTG, and is thus seated two seats away from Amy in the SB (not at opposite ends of the table). And if Bob is UTG, then who called Amy's shove and showed the A2 -- the BB sitting between them?

ya the group are mostly horrible players, with the exception of a select few who play more. The entire group is limpy or shovey, not much in between., so when I say he was first to act, I meant after a couple limps, he’s the first to do any meaningful action, he ships 6bbs. Two callers in between Bob and Amy, she shoves, etc etc.

The reason it raised eyebrows of me and the host, was this was abnormal play for Amy. It isn’t something she’d normally do. Squeezing isnt really in her wheelhouse. Also, since it’s pretty standard with this group to check down all ins to eliminate players, I wouldn’t discount one of the flat callers having a monster they could call with. Heck, one person called with A2… lol.

 

[Trihonda]

Haha.
I wonder if everything in this story was the same, especially the comment made afterward about giving cover or whatever, except instead of husband and wife, it was two guys - really good poker player buddies who like to play together, I wonder if the feedback would be any different.

“Buddies” is different than people who share the same bank account…. If this was two married dudes, I’d have the same questions.