Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!

[Shandrax]

That wasn't a big laydown, it was collusion. Doyle and Chip are known to be partners and I am quite sure they had some sort of deal going. Do I have evidence? No, of course not.

[MafiaPrince]

[ QUOTE ]
That wasn't a big laydown, it was collusion. Doyle and Chip are known to be partners and I am quite sure they had some sort of deal going. Do I have evidence? No, of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So just because two friends play together and one of the best poker players ever makes a big laydown that leads you to state that there was collusion going on...Really bright analysis

[pindawg]

If Reese went allin I bet Doyle calls.

[SuperUberBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That wasn't a big laydown, it was collusion. Doyle and Chip are known to be partners and I am quite sure they had some sort of deal going. Do I have evidence? No, of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So just because two friends play together and one of the best poker players ever makes a big laydown that leads you to state that there was collusion going on...Really bright analysis

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Shandrax was joking.

[Shandrax]

I was not joking, I still think it was collusion, in fact I am 100% sure. They both knew that it was obvious and that's why they looked extremely uncomfortable with it.

Flop comes 2-3-7 rainbow and Chip re-raises the minimum giving Doyle the chance to move in with aces in which case he would have folded his kings without much of a thought (losing the minimum on the play)...

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
I was not joking, I still think it was collusion, in fact I am 100% sure. They both knew that it was obvious and that's why they looked extremely uncomfortable with it.

Flop comes 2-3-7 rainbow and Chip re-raises the minimum giving Doyle the chance to move in with aces in which case he would have folded his kings without much of a thought (losing the minimum on the play)...

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes sense to me on the surface, without thinking about it further. Collusion but not really cheating.


One theoretical question I wonder about sometimes, not of practical interest to me because I don't play 4000/8000 nor with any regulars -- if 9 people are at a table and they know each others' betting patterns, and then a 10th player sits down, isn't that 10th player at a disadvantage? Don't we see that in posts here with "reads" all the time?


The implications remind me of prisoner's dilemma a little bit...

[chicken10der]

This is degenerating into one of the most ridiculous threads ever.

[alphatmw]

while it was a great laydown, chip's play smelled like a set more than anything, so it's not like doyle knew chip was slowplaying AA/KK.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
This is degenerating into one of the most ridiculous threads ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked a theory question. You know, with math and game theory and stuff. That sure is ridiculous! If you don't think the question is at least interesting then you don't think too much.

But anyway... Let's talk more about big laydowns and "smelling when you're beat"!

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
if 9 people are at a table and they know each others' betting patterns, and then a 10th player sits down, isn't that 10th player at a disadvantage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. How could they not?

[ QUOTE ]
The implications remind me of prisoner's dilemma a little bit...

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.