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?
|