Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?

[f it]

[ 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)