how can this NOT be collusion?

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I'm in the not-beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt camp.

If I were in your shoes, Josh, I'd report them to UB (which it looks like you've already done), and field PMs from people who might be interested in playing in this game and would like to know the identities of the players involved. But I think a public shaming is a bit much. I'm having a little bit of trouble wrapping my head around the fact that trying to get a calling station to fold in a huge pot is an ineffective collusive strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]


i agree with you, which is why i didn't want to let the names out. apparently someone figured it out so it's out anyway.

one thign i should add is that the player i noted as a bad LAG was playing a lto of hands in a short period of time but not showing down much, and according to schneids he is a great player, so i was wrong in my read. now it would make some sense if dumbanimal tossed AA-TT. the third player had laggy tendencies, ie cold capping Q7s from the bb, so it's possible dumbanimal was trying to protect his hand on the turn by inducing a raise from player B, and then 3-bet because he still liked his hand vs B's range. then when C, who we now know is a good postflop player, calls 2 cold on the river, he knows he's beat and lets it go.

unlikely, but conceivable. obviously this will be easy to prove for ub. if he had a big hand he's absolved. otherwise he cheated