Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

I've noticed a continual gripe of internet players is the possibility of collusion. I've also heard occasional gripes about it in B&M joints.

However, I've never heard anyone propose a poker scenario where collusion is particularly +EV to the net bankroll of those doing it when compared to the oportunity cost of forgoing other legal (and usually simpler) strategies that could be applied in the same scenario. Anyone got any concrete examples?

The best I can think of is two colluding players with a victim between them repeatedly re-raising eachother when one of them signals they have the draw-proof (or nearly so) nuts. You might get a bet a session on average that way???

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed a continual gripe of internet players is the possibility of collusion. I've also heard occasional gripes about it in B&M joints.

However, I've never heard anyone propose a poker scenario where collusion is particularly +EV to the net bankroll of those doing it when compared to the oportunity cost of forgoing other legal (and usually simpler) strategies that could be applied in the same scenario. Anyone got any concrete examples?

The best I can think of is two colluding players with a victim between them repeatedly re-raising eachother when one of them signals they have the draw-proof (or nearly so) nuts. You might get a bet a session on average that way???

[/ QUOTE ]

It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]


It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, are you responding to the right post? I didn't ask if there existed a game such that collusion (either explicit or implicit) was possible. I will glady stipulate such a game might exist. I can also provide examples of hypothetical games where collusion of any kind is 100% impossible. The question is which catagory poker falls in.

It would seem to me that the only way to prove it is in the "collusion possible" camp would be to provide a clear example.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, are you responding to the right post? I didn't ask if there existed a game such that collusion (either explicit or implicit) was possible. I will glady stipulate such a game might exist. I can also provide examples of hypothetical games where collusion of any kind is 100% impossible. The question is which catagory poker falls in.

It would seem to me that the only way to prove it is in the "collusion possible" camp would be to provide a clear example.

[/ QUOTE ]

See The Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman for an example, though examples have been known for a long time.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

If you know 2 more cards out of the deck, then you can know if your chances of making a hand are reduced or increased.

Say you have 2Q's, and you buddy has 2Q's, and it flops AKx then you wont want to hang on waiting for your next Q.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you know 2 more cards out of the deck, then you can know if your chances of making a hand are reduced or increased.

Say you have 2Q's, and you buddy has 2Q's, and it flops AKx then you wont want to hang on waiting for your next Q.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I can see that giving you a tiny but real edge. I would be very surprised if it turned a losing player into a winner though.

Perhaps I should re-focus this discussion: I play a lot of live heads-up NL against donks, but have the problem that my action dries up too easily after a couple of games. One proposition I use to try to get more action is that I'll play them 3-handed, with them controlling 2 of the hands, and free to look at both hands before taking any action. Almost inevitably I find they play WORSE in that situation than they would if they just cloned their donk self and played both hands independently. In fact, the only guy to make use of the proposition to his advantage played his regular "A" game except he folded out dominated hands preflop. Which I suppose is actually a good use of collusion, now that I think about it.

But anways, if I offered you that proposition (ignoring the implied criticism of your game), what changes would you adopt to your single-handed "A" game to beat me senseless?

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

can you choose which of the two hands you play or do you play both?

I often play HU with my mates, deal 2 hands to each of us, you each fold 1 hand face up. Gets interesting when he folds something strong because he could be bluffing or could have 2 awesome hands!

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
can you choose which of the two hands you play or do you play both?

I often play HU with my mates, deal 2 hands to each of us, you each fold 1 hand face up. Gets interesting when he folds something strong because he could be bluffing or could have 2 awesome hands!

[/ QUOTE ]

I should be a little more clear - it's exactly like 3-handed freezout NLTH (ie. seperate stacks and the other guy buys in for twice what I do) and he simply plays boths seats. The only oddity is that he can looks at both sets of cards before having to make any decisions for either of them. In other words, he's free to "collude" with himself.

I use this because many donks think collusion is a very strong advantage, and so are willing to take it even after a bad beating in regular heads-up.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

Ok this one is was not online but it surely was true and allegedly semi-unintentional.

Player A and B agreed beforehand to split winnings should either win -- that in and of itself is probably cheating in my opinion

30 person tourny
200 buyin
payout to 4
5 people left


Player A chip dumps to Player B because he is 'tired' -- clearly a despicable and collusive act.

Since Player A and B were not short stacked in this situation -- Player B is now a monster and wins the entire tourny...

That's cheating and I'll bet you it has happened many many times.

Now online -- you can't really pull this off as easily since the sites are actively looking for similar IP address originations and the same players landing in the same games repeatedly -- but again I bet it has and does happen...

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok this one is was not online but it surely was true and allegedly semi-unintentional.

Player A and B agreed beforehand to split winnings should either win -- that in and of itself is probably cheating in my opinion

30 person tourny
200 buyin
payout to 4
5 people left


Player A chip dumps to Player B because he is 'tired' -- clearly a despicable and collusive act.

Since Player A and B were not short stacked in this situation -- Player B is now a monster and wins the entire tourny...

That's cheating and I'll bet you it has happened many many times.

Now online -- you can't really pull this off as easily since the sites are actively looking for similar IP address originations and the same players landing in the same games repeatedly -- but again I bet it has and does happen...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now hold on - it's not at all clear that one player with 2x chips has a higher tourney EV than 2 players with 1x chips. In fact, the conventional valuation of chips in a tournament says that the exact opposite is true (ie. chips on the bottom of the stack are more valuable than those on top). It strikes me that perhaps you're complaining about results rather than expectations.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I should re-focus this discussion: I play a lot of live heads-up NL against donks, but have the problem that my action dries up too easily after a couple of games. One proposition I use to try to get more action is that I'll play them 3-handed, with them controlling 2 of the hands, and free to look at both hands before taking any action. Almost inevitably I find they play WORSE in that situation than they would if they just cloned their donk self and played both hands independently. In fact, the only guy to make use of the proposition to his advantage played his regular "A" game except he folded out dominated hands preflop. Which I suppose is actually a good use of collusion, now that I think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between this scenario and real colluding is that you know you are being colluded against, which makes a difference. It introduces new variables that a person normally doesnt think about if hes unaware that the other players are colluding

when you dont know the other players are colluding
i would NEVER raise with the hand to your immediate left, because then unless i reraise with my other hand the betting is closed if you call. So if i have a strong hand to ur left, i would limp it and raise with the other hand. If you are not aware of the colluding, you are more likely to call that raise and be faced with more difficult decisions when i reraise with my actual strong hand.. ur obv more likely to get trapped/pot committed etc

when you DO know the other players are colluding
you see through the my scenario above



personally, as a very analytical person it would be a huge headache trying to play against 2 hands played by one person (assuming we are playing for stakes i care about)

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I should re-focus this discussion: I play a lot of live heads-up NL against donks, but have the problem that my action dries up too easily after a couple of games. One proposition I use to try to get more action is that I'll play them 3-handed, with them controlling 2 of the hands, and free to look at both hands before taking any action. Almost inevitably I find they play WORSE in that situation than they would if they just cloned their donk self and played both hands independently. In fact, the only guy to make use of the proposition to his advantage played his regular "A" game except he folded out dominated hands preflop. Which I suppose is actually a good use of collusion, now that I think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this case, if I was equally skilled as you were, just the fact of choosing between two hands would give me an edge. My skill level would have slightly lower than yours for this to even us out. If my skill level was significantly lower than yours, then I would not only need the two hands, I would need to use them together (collusion) to get back any edge.

However, I believe you need very good poker skills in the first place to successfully collude. So the results of your experiment make sense to me.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]

In this case, if I was equally skilled as you were, just the fact of choosing between two hands would give me an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate on this? Yes you get to chose between 2 hands. But 2/3 or the blind money every round comes from one of your 2 stacks. It's not at all apparent that you're getting any advantage there.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

Personally, I believe collusion won't give you a very big edge. Let's take an MTT. Some easy collusions are telling your partner your hole cards and chip dumping. Knowing two extra hole cards could help you a little most of the time or perhaps a lot in certain instances. Small edge maybe.

If one partner builds a big stack and the other is short stacked, the dumping chips from one to the other should be +EV although how much I am not sure, but it's probably not much. This might happen a bit in casino tourneys where you end up heads up with your buddy and you either fold the best hand to give him some chips or you refrain from busting him with the nuts.

Other forms of collusions involving strategy are certainly more difficult to pull off. The whipsaw, or reraising a victim in between you might be one of the more simple forms. But how often will you be in that situation. And once and a while, the victim will have a better hand than both of you.

I think the +EV aspect of collusion is very overrated, especially online or in MTTs where you don't choose your seats or tables.

I believe collusion is at it's worst when either a) a bunch of guys invite a noob or two to their game or b) a couple of friends go together (perhaps separately) to a new game and work to bust it. In both cases, I believe it is the home game scenario that is most susceptible.

I may be naive about this but two players who are good enough to go to a casino and collude successfully are probably good enough to do well on their own.

And at the other end of the spectrum, if two bozos try to collude thinking they are getting the upper hand they actually might end up being -EV. Now that's poker justice.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]


The difference between this scenario and real colluding is that you know you are being colluded against, which makes a difference. It introduces new variables that a person normally doesnt think about if hes unaware that the other players are colluding

when you dont know the other players are colluding
i would NEVER raise with the hand to your immediate left, because then unless i reraise with my other hand the betting is closed if you call. So if i have a strong hand to ur left, i would limp it and raise with the other hand. If you are not aware of the colluding, you are more likely to call that raise and be faced with more difficult decisions when i reraise with my actual strong hand.. ur obv more likely to get trapped/pot committed etc

when you DO know the other players are colluding
you see through the my scenario above



personally, as a very analytical person it would be a huge headache trying to play against 2 hands played by one person (assuming we are playing for stakes i care about)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, good point. One of the massive weaknesses the donks display in that game is that the very behavior you describe serves as a huge tell, and it allows you to either run away (nearly) free or trap at your leisure. If they used it as a randomized bluff occasionally, that would make it much tougher, but of course being donks, they don't.

Even if you get "trapped" it's often not that bad since you at least get 2:1 on your money up to the point where they fold the shill hand.

I agree that collusion is probably massively more effective when you don't know it's going on.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok this one is was not online but it surely was true and allegedly semi-unintentional.

Player A and B agreed beforehand to split winnings should either win -- that in and of itself is probably cheating in my opinion

30 person tourny
200 buyin
payout to 4
5 people left


Player A chip dumps to Player B because he is 'tired' -- clearly a despicable and collusive act.

Since Player A and B were not short stacked in this situation -- Player B is now a monster and wins the entire tourny...

That's cheating and I'll bet you it has happened many many times.

Now online -- you can't really pull this off as easily since the sites are actively looking for similar IP address originations and the same players landing in the same games repeatedly -- but again I bet it has and does happen...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now hold on - it's not at all clear that one player with 2x chips has a higher tourney EV than 2 players with 1x chips. In fact, the conventional valuation of chips in a tournament says that the exact opposite is true (ie. chips on the bottom of the stack are more valuable than those on top). It strikes me that perhaps you're complaining about results rather than expectations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree with your valuation evaluation [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] winning the whole tourny wasn't my point. With only 1 bubble and three winners -- the chip dump placed person B in the money thus the conclusion of the collusion.

However -- having agreed with your valuation evaluation -- I'd still much rather have the largest stack on the table against two stacks half my size in this situation -- any day of the week regardless of EVBVMEVEE [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Heh -- I took second so I was just fine by the way [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]

And at the other end of the spectrum, if two bozos try to collude thinking they are getting the upper hand they actually might end up being -EV. Now that's poker justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that I KNOW happens from experience. I've probably been at a table when I noticed some sort of signaling 20 times, and it's usually not hard to spot who's in on it once you know there's something to look for. Rarely if ever did the colluders seem to be +EV on the whole.

A couple of times I even managed to decode the signals and break a couple of cheats.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of times I even managed to decode the signals and break a couple of cheats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Poker justice at it's best.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In this case, if I was equally skilled as you were, just the fact of choosing between two hands would give me an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate on this? Yes you get to chose between 2 hands. But 2/3 or the blind money every round comes from one of your 2 stacks. It's not at all apparent that you're getting any advantage there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well think of it this way. There are three of us, all equally skilled. Over time we all pretty much end up even. Now, me and the third guy start showing each other our cards preflop.

Surely you can see that just by showing each other our hands, you will start taking the worst of it.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In this case, if I was equally skilled as you were, just the fact of choosing between two hands would give me an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate on this? Yes you get to chose between 2 hands. But 2/3 or the blind money every round comes from one of your 2 stacks. It's not at all apparent that you're getting any advantage there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well think of it this way. There are three of us, all equally skilled. Over time we all pretty much end up even. Now, me and the third guy start showing each other our cards preflop.

Surely you can see that just by showing each other our hands, you will start taking the worst of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm taking your post too literally, but I fail to see how simply showing the cards is going to help you. You're going to have to take some concrete action based on that knowledge, or it's of no use.

So far, I've seen a few credible suggestions of actions to take:

1) Dumping chips from deepstack to shortstack in a tourney
2) making additional preflop folds when dominated by your collaborator (TH only)
3) "whipsaw" raising
4) Doing pot odds math with 2 fewer remaining cards and a better count of outs, givning you more accurate numbers

Of those three, I can't see any of them giving a big edge against a sound player. 3) in particular is dangerous since it effectivly lays 2:1 odds to your opponent.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

All these posts seem to be about holdem. Two players just sharing hole cards at omaha or omaha8 could gain a very sizeable edge. Of course they would have to be pretty good to begin with to take advatage of this.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
All these posts seem to be about holdem. Two players just sharing hole cards at omaha or omaha8 could gain a very sizeable edge. Of course they would have to be pretty good to begin with to take advatage of this.

[/ QUOTE ]It does make sense you could acomplish a little more in omaha. However, you'd need a rediculous set of signals to make something like that work. Most of the holdem guys I decoded usually had 5 and always played 2 to broadway.

In omaha, you'd quickly start looking like a 3rd base coach.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All these posts seem to be about holdem. Two players just sharing hole cards at omaha or omaha8 could gain a very sizeable edge. Of course they would have to be pretty good to begin with to take advatage of this.

[/ QUOTE ]It does make sense you could acomplish a little more in omaha. However, you'd need a rediculous set of signals to make something like that work. Most of the holdem guys I decoded usually had 5 and always played 2 to broadway.

In omaha, you'd quickly start looking like a 3rd base coach.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was thinking online. live this would be pretty much imposible. you might be able to pick a few spots though

for omaha8 for example

1) i have aces
2) i have an a2
3) communicate the suit of the an ace in your hand

these three things alone i feel would add to your edge, mostly be allowing you to sometimes draw to king high flushes with impunity and make preflop raises and folds that you wouldnt normally make.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]

i was thinking online. live this would be pretty much imposible. you might be able to pick a few spots though

for omaha8 for example

1) i have aces
2) i have an a2
3) communicate the suit of the an ace in your hand

these three things alone i feel would add to your edge, mostly be allowing you to sometimes draw to king high flushes with impunity and make preflop raises and folds that you wouldnt normally make.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see that I suppose - I thought about the possibility of K-high flush draws, and the possibility of accounting for the A and possibly K of the flush suit in PLO to facilitate bluffing. Seems like a small but real edge.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

Seems to me the biggest edge from collusion would be in a pot limit game. In this case the two colluders don't need to go back and forth, each putting more money into the pot, in order to raise the stakes when one of them has the nuts; instead one just has to put in a pot-sized bet (presumably not a huge amount for the first PSB) in order to prime the pot for the other. This would be especially effective if hero had to act after one villain but before the other. First villain can then fold to second villain's huge reraise, but the damage to hero is done (assuming he called the first raise of course).
Agree that collusion in other situations is more questionable in terms of advantage.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

I always thought the biggest advantage would be that the non-cheaters can only get action from one cheater at a time. You will never have the two cheaters chasing the same flush. You won't ever have both cheaters calling on the river.

If Bob has AA, cheater 1 has JJ and cheater 2 has 88...flop comes AJ8...instead of tripling up, Bob will only double up. Thats a pretty big deal.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

Richard Marcus has writen a bit about his collusion escapades in card rooms. Though he doesn't quite go into the mathematics of it.

Anyhow, for anyone who doubts the power of collusion, just look at case history of Puggy Pearson. Here you have a world class pro, one of the best, who got his whole bankroll taken in just one summer by a collusion team put together for the sole purpose of busting him (and anyone else at his table).

If the best can't prevent going broke vs colluders, what hope is there for anyone else?

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

OF COURSE IT DOES!!!

First off, this is a sin on a forum as dedicated to poker math as this forum, but math is only part of poker. That taken into consideration, there are other aspects of colluding that make it profitable. With two people representing strong hands, it is easier to command a table and force out weaker action and take blinds and a bet or two.

Second, why are we only looking at this as a two person team. Bump up the guys on the inside to 5 or 6 at 10 man table. Now it doesn't matter who wins. You know 12 cards dealt, whats in the deck and whats on the board, the only thing you don't know is the what the other 3 or 4 players have on them. At this point you are just attacking the players not on your team and whoever gets his money it doesn't matter because it is split 5 ways. Even without colluding this is powerful. If you played it straight, with 5 players of high skill, who probably have theory of poker memorized like a priest does the bible, they would kill the other four joes who sat down.

3. This is easier to do online. There is no signaling necessary. Just use instant messenger or call you friends cell phone. As for the sites checking ips, hell my brother and I play from the same house on the same site, from the same ip address at one of the 3 biggest sites out there. So don't bet the house that you are safe online. Do you know how hard it would be to monitor 20,000 players table playing patterns. They will only do it if you bring a complaint to them. Also, I have played many cash games, and most of the time, i know half the people at the table after a two weeks at the site.

Here is the bottom line, I am going to reference Rounders. If you can't tell who the sucker is in the first 5 minutes, you are the sucker. To change it, if you can't see how collusion can be a powerful tool, then you couldn't use it your advantage anyway. It requires a different thought. Not everything works out by the numbers. Math works everytime because its a static, controlled universe. There is no variance to the equation x + 5 = 7 X is always 2. In the real world, it is not so clear cut. You can't prove collusions advantage because it doesn't show up as a sole mathmatical gain. Only part of the dominance collusion ensures, if done right, can be demostrated by math. The other aspects, knowing when two or three colluders can start a raising spree and force top two pair out because the straight came, even though they don't have it, and take his blinds, raised flop bet and initial call on the turn, can't be shown in an ev play.

Trust me it works. If you have played online poker, you have been cheated by a collusion team. Online poker practically begs cheats to come clean out peoples money.

And, to ramble for a couple more lines...chip dumping in mtts is powerful too. Don't think small, think 10 guys dumping to 1 in at the world series. 10 professional class players, in the wsop, who probably did well and increased there stack, dumping utlimately to one guy, you could get 20, 40, 100 times your stack. And trust me, millions is enough to divide 10 ways. Hell, the choice could be made on day three to dump it all toward one guy.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought the biggest advantage would be that the non-cheaters can only get action from one cheater at a time. You will never have the two cheaters chasing the same flush. You won't ever have both cheaters calling on the river.

If Bob has AA, cheater 1 has JJ and cheater 2 has 88...flop comes AJ8...instead of tripling up, Bob will only double up. Thats a pretty big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is the most clear and obvious example. If cheater A and B are on cell phones, or MSN, etc...then each knows that that other has hit his set, hit his flush draw, hit his str8 draw, etc.

At 6 max it would be very helpful for me to know the hole cards of another opponent (without his knowledge). As such, I can't see how it would not also be profitable for 2 of the 6 players to know each other's hand.

I'm not paranoid, but I have to believe there are players colluding hand information online. Why? Because the can. That is all that has been ever required for some people to cheat. Add in the fact that they are cheating "strangers" (less guilt), and that it is hard to get caught, and you have even more reason to worry.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

When ever both of those players are in the pot they can play it in a way that makes more money and loses less money, even win pots by raising the winner out. They can take more risks with it or not, the only problem being that they can't be on the same table too often.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

A few more ideas as to why collusion may not be that helpful.

1.) The colluder only wins half as much (or 1/3, 1/4 etc.)with his winning hands. But he is still paying the full rake. So it will be harder for colluding players to beat the rake.

2.) Same theory will apply to blinds and/or antes.

3.) Unless the cheaters are bots, it would be difficult to multitable when playing online.

4.) The problem with chimp dumping was already addressed as far as devaluing your chips. I also wanted to point out that again you are splitting your winnings. And going from two (or 3, 4 etc.) chances of winning to one.

5.) If you don't know you're being cheated you could use game theory principals to neutralize any possible cheating until you are sure.

6.) If you do know you are being cheated, use the counter measures which have been discussed.

Just some thoughts, I don't really have any more proof to back these up.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A few more ideas as to why collusion may not be that helpful.

1.) The colluder only wins half as much (or 1/3, 1/4 etc.)with his winning hands. But he is still paying the full rake. So it will be harder for colluding players to beat the rake.

2.) Same theory will apply to blinds and/or antes.

3.) Unless the cheaters are bots, it would be difficult to multitable when playing online.

4.) The problem with chimp dumping was already addressed as far as devaluing your chips. I also wanted to point out that again you are splitting your winnings. And going from two (or 3, 4 etc.) chances of winning to one.

5.) If you don't know you're being cheated you could use game theory principals to neutralize any possible cheating until you are sure.

6.) If you do know you are being cheated, use the counter measures which have been discussed.

Just some thoughts, I don't really have any more proof to back these up.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, lets go throught these reasons why collusion isn't helpfull one by one

1. Yes, you are dividing your winnings with another player. But it really isn't two players. Maybe you do pay a full rake for half the winnings, but everytime your partner wins a hand you get half of that for no rake. So it evens out.

2. Same as above.

3. Of course cheaters are not multitabling. You have to pay strict attention to every detail. In addition, you keep thinking its 2 players, why not 5 just attacking any unsuspecting fishes who sit at the table.

4. Chip dumping works wonderfully if you can pull it off. But again, you can't think small terms. You have 10 people moving chips off to each other when they can. Until ultimately two meet at the final table and double the other one up. And off course you are spliting your winnings. But think how much value you would gain by having a double up at key points in the tourney??? Spliting the winnnings doesn't matter when you are STEALING. A good colluding team will almost always get your money. They are cheating and have unfair advantages that you don't. Its not colluding, its STEALING.

5. I will leave game theory alone.

6. If you know that there are 2 or more people colluding at a table, then you leave. That simple. There are no counter measures. You just don't play that game. If you can say, I know player X, Y, Z are signalling and cheating at this table, but I am going to play anyway, then you have a serious gambling problem and need a lot of help.

Cheating exists, collusion exists. Thankfully for us, most people who try to cheat don't understand the game well enough to use its advantages, or are just not good at it. But trust me, at some point, be in amatuer hour at the apollo, or if you play high limit games a pro, you have been colluded against if you play enough poker.

For those who doubt me still, read Richard Marcus' "Dirty Poker" The man killed the tables he cheated with three player.

Or, reading Bringing down the House by Ben Mezrich. A group of MIT kids counted cards and by taking small advantages made millions before they got the screws put to them

I will make one concession to the original poster on this. Most people can't gain enough by collusion to get an advantage from it. However, there are cheats who make livings at it, and are effectivley STEALING your money when you play against them. If you don't play high stakes though, you don't have much to worry about.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Just wanted to point a few things out. If you reread my post, you'll see that I never assumed only 2 players are colluding. See #1 and #4.

Also, the only way the rake will balance out is if the colluding players never play in the same pot. And the more players in cahoots, the bigger the effect of the rake.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

Confession, I did not read all of the replies.

I don't care about collusion. It's an extremely rare group that has both good collusion strategy AND good poker skills. If they were great players individually, they'd make money on their own far in excess of what they would do by playing the same tables.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned yet, but the biggest problem with being colluded against is that you will need cards to win a hand. Not only that, but the colluding team is 2x more likely to hit the board than you are. And they ARE often getting good implied odds from you.

You can't draw profitably b/c your implied odds are not what they seem to be.

It is much more difficult to bluff 2 people than 1. It is pretty much impossible if they are colluding and 1 of them has anything of value.

You are basically always going to make the minimum when you win and lose the maximum when you lose.

If you don't understand how to do this, then I'm not going to teach you. You may be right that most cheaters don't maximize their profitability b/c they are lazy or unskilled or whatever. That doesn't mean that there aren't skilled cheaters operating as well.

BTW, why do you draw the line at 3 handed? Why not give them 10 hands if there's no advantage to it?

Dov

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned yet, but the biggest problem with being colluded against is that you will need cards to win a hand. Not only that, but the colluding team is 2x more likely to hit the board than you are. And they ARE often getting good implied odds from you.

You can't draw profitably b/c your implied odds are not what they seem to be.

It is much more difficult to bluff 2 people than 1. It is pretty much impossible if they are colluding and 1 of them has anything of value.

You are basically always going to make the minimum when you win and lose the maximum when you lose.

If you don't understand how to do this, then I'm not going to teach you. You may be right that most cheaters don't maximize their profitability b/c they are lazy or unskilled or whatever. That doesn't mean that there aren't skilled cheaters operating as well.

BTW, why do you draw the line at 3 handed? Why not give them 10 hands if there's no advantage to it?

Dov

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a lot of this is sound reasoning. Yes, you need more hand on average to beat two people than you do to beat one person. But that's true whether they're colluding or not. Similarly, yes, they will hit the board twice as often as you will, but when you hit there are twice as many people to potentially pay you off. It's a wash. Similarly, yes, it's more difficult to bluff two people than one, but when you do they contributed more of the pot on average via blinds, so again it's a wash.

Now, I don't disagree with you that there might be skilled cheaters operating. The question is, what constitutes a skilled cheater? What would they do different from their normal "A" game? We've got a few examples thus far, but nothing very exciting. Seemingly the best one so far is to fold dominated hands, and those with outs poisoned by your teammates.

As far as why I draw the line at 3-handed, it's pretty much a matter of convenience. There's no way the donk is going to look at 9 hands, figure out his oh-so-brilliant strategy, and then play them all in a timely manner. The donk will get confused and bored and quit. But two hands makes them feel like they've got a real edge.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Richard Marcus has writen a bit about his collusion escapades in card rooms. Though he doesn't quite go into the mathematics of it.

Anyhow, for anyone who doubts the power of collusion, just look at case history of Puggy Pearson. Here you have a world class pro, one of the best, who got his whole bankroll taken in just one summer by a collusion team put together for the sole purpose of busting him (and anyone else at his table).

If the best can't prevent going broke vs colluders, what hope is there for anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take a look at what Richard Marcus wrote.
Edit: Maybe I won't. The amazon reviews make it sound like a waste of time for a serious player.[ QUOTE ]
I was disappointed in the author's lack of understanding in general gambling theory, which was showcased in his analysis of the World Series of Poker collusion. His explanation of why the same players often do well in WSOP bordered on "conspiracy theory"; it was clear he did not understand how and why the best players in the game succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]


Got somewhere I can read about the thing with Puggy? I've never heard that one before.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

I believe if done correctly, collusion could be very profitable.

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe if done correctly, collusion could be very profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Of course, the proof's in the pudding. How would YOU do it correctly so that it would be profitable?

Re: Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a lot of this is sound reasoning. Yes, you need more hand on average to beat two people than you do to beat one person. But that's true whether they're colluding or not. Similarly, yes, they will hit the board twice as often as you will, but when you hit there are twice as many people to potentially pay you off. It's a wash. Similarly, yes, it's more difficult to bluff two people than one, but when you do they contributed more of the pot on average via blinds, so again it's a wash.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is true that you need a better hand to beat 2 opponents who are not colluding, but that is partly because they can both be expected to be holding a reasonable hand. In the case of collusion, you can never be sure which is the real hand, but you still will require a hand good enough to beat both of them. (assuming you don't know they are cheating you)

In addition, the colluding partner's weak hand can sometimes fluke into a monster unintentionally. This is a hand that you would have won had the colluder not been playing his partner's hand.

Not to put too fine a point on it, there are no situations where collusion isn't an advantage to the cheaters except when you happen to hold the nuts. If they are donks, then they become slightly less disadvantaged depending on the opponent.

It's not a wash at all. Normally, in this 3 handed game, everyone will have 2 opponents. Here you will have 2 opponents, both of whom are better informed than you are about the current conditions of the game. Not only that, but they know how the hand should play out on future betting rounds as well. They will only have 1 opponent.

Poker is an information game. Whoever has the most quality information will get the money in the end, provided that they use it properly. Given enough information, even a donk will beat you eventually.

Your point doesn't speak to collusion as much as skill gap. I think you may have been lucky to find exactly the right donks to play with so far.

If you want, I will play your 3 handed game anytime you want for whatever stakes you want up to 5K per freezeout. Just PM me if you want to set it up.

Dov

PS

I'm not trying to be childish and throw down a gauntlet. I honestly believe that you really don't understand how much edge can be gained from just knowing a couple of extra cards, not to mention the ability to act twice per round in position.

You will need to be extremely lucky cardwise to overcome this disadvantage.