Obvious Collusion at *edited* (Long -Cliff Notes at bottom)

[Bicycles_Biatch]

MOD NOTE: I edited the title to make it not show the name of the club. I will not comment on these specific allegations other than to say that at various times part of my job has been to explain to people that aggressive poker is not collusive in nature. -RR


Was in MN this week visiting family...

Played the 15-30 at Canterbury and did pretty well (won a couple racks in about 6 hours).

Walked in today and decided to take a 1 rack ($1,000) shot at the "big" game, 30-60.

I kind of just wanted to splash around and have a good time, see how the locals played, and see some cards.

I know PokerBob is a frequent poster on this forum, so I'm sure we'll hear from him soon (he was at my table)... HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

There was at least 2 obvious teams of 2 players or more working that room... and that's just what I could observe in the 3 hours I played in the 30-60.

When I got there around 2pm, there was a main game and a 5 handed must move going. Two of the players at the must move tried to pretend as though they didn't know eachother when my brother and I first sat down; however, eventually through over-hearing their conversation with the dealers, the cat was out of the bag and I realized that they are best friends and noticed something about them playing raquetball together (one had a shaved head and the other was a taller man with dark hair, a black trendy cap, and long teeth).

These guys, in addition to one other "team" I observed were OBVIOUSLY working together.

A perfect example of their colluding was as follows...

My bro is under the gun with 10-10... he raises, Colluder #1 three-bets and says some phrase to his friend with the word "buddy" in it. I'm guessing "buddy" is some type of code word they use as I heard them use this several times prior to using a whip-saw move. Needless to say, colluder #2 four-bets. Both blinds and my bro folded.

Flop was 2-4-9 offsuit. C#1 checked... C#2 bet... C#1 folded the flop for 1 bet (mind you, the pot had 11 1/2 bets in it). Anyone that plays limit poker never folds the flop for one bet in an eleven bet pot... it just didn't make sense. If he was just a bad player, he would have peeled for overcards/ a pair/ or to pick up a draw; if he was a good player, he would know that the pot was laying him odds to continue with almost any hand.

This exact move happened several times.

Another move that was obvious to anyone paying attention was the following:

C#1 would raise under the gun and get a caller or two. C#2 would make it 3 bets on the button (I'm sure if this was to drive out the blinds and/or just to charge more bets to the players in between who hadn't re-raised).

C#1 would call. On the flop the two colluders would ask a question along the lines of "hey pal, you're not getting out of line over there are you?".

Based on the response and/or head-shake between the two, one of the two would fold the hand on the flop. They were OBVIOUSLY best-handing the field after the flop depending on who flopped the bigger hand and/or draw. This became obvious to me on a hand where the UTG raiser continued on with the pot, his friend 'colluder #2' folded the flop, and C#1 turned over something like 6-9 off suite for 2 flopped pair.

Finally, right before moving to the main game, I busted one of them out and asked them point blank if "buddy" was a code word for 3 Bet or just a code word for "I have a big hand".

As expected, the colluders did exactly what good colluders should do when I questioned them about their tactics. They didn't deny it, didn't make a big scene, didn't argue with me, and they just kind of waited to see if I was going to call the floor. I'm almost positive that anyone not colluding would have made a stand against the fact that someone was calling them a cheat.

Coincidentally, right as I started making an issue, we all got moved to the main game due to there being four seats open (Ironically, this raises another question: What are the chances of the main game loosing 4 players at the exact same time unless all of these players that racked up were working together?!? How many times have you actually seen a full ring game loose FOUR players at once in limit poker?).

Once at the main game, the two colluders took an immediate break and walked off together to obviously talk strategy.

When they returned I was only at the table for about 30 minutes before getting busted (1/2 from bad play and 1/2 from bad luck)... after they returned from their break they appeared to knock off the colluding.

Another situation that I observed was from another team of colluders sitting next to eachother in seat 4 and 5.

C#1 would be under the gun with a hand like KK. He would limp, and C#2 would raise, a few on the table would call, UTG would make it three-bets, and C#2 would fold for one bet.

IT WAS SICKENING. Being a mid-limit player in LA... I've seen some good teams, some horrible teams, and everything in between. I've been cheated by teams I didn't know existed until years later. I'm 100% sure that what I say is accurate and important to anyone playing poker in MN.

I glad to say that I didn't observe the same thing at the 15-30 game. I don't know if this was just luck, or if all the big cheats were in the 30-60 game when I was playing 15-30 on Memorial day.

Anyways, I felt the need to give you the heads up.

Anyone from the Canterbury Club that disputes these facts are either oblivious, or are part of a team working to STEAL your money.

*Cliff Notes- Canterbury club in MN has lots of cheats in their big limit game.