Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?

[SplawnDarts]

I've noticed a continual gripe of internet players is the possibility of collusion. I've also heard occasional gripes about it in B&M joints.

However, I've never heard anyone propose a poker scenario where collusion is particularly +EV to the net bankroll of those doing it when compared to the oportunity cost of forgoing other legal (and usually simpler) strategies that could be applied in the same scenario. Anyone got any concrete examples?

The best I can think of is two colluding players with a victim between them repeatedly re-raising eachother when one of them signals they have the draw-proof (or nearly so) nuts. You might get a bet a session on average that way???

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed a continual gripe of internet players is the possibility of collusion. I've also heard occasional gripes about it in B&M joints.

However, I've never heard anyone propose a poker scenario where collusion is particularly +EV to the net bankroll of those doing it when compared to the oportunity cost of forgoing other legal (and usually simpler) strategies that could be applied in the same scenario. Anyone got any concrete examples?

The best I can think of is two colluding players with a victim between them repeatedly re-raising eachother when one of them signals they have the draw-proof (or nearly so) nuts. You might get a bet a session on average that way???

[/ QUOTE ]

It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]


It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, are you responding to the right post? I didn't ask if there existed a game such that collusion (either explicit or implicit) was possible. I will glady stipulate such a game might exist. I can also provide examples of hypothetical games where collusion of any kind is 100% impossible. The question is which catagory poker falls in.

It would seem to me that the only way to prove it is in the "collusion possible" camp would be to provide a clear example.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, are you responding to the right post? I didn't ask if there existed a game such that collusion (either explicit or implicit) was possible. I will glady stipulate such a game might exist. I can also provide examples of hypothetical games where collusion of any kind is 100% impossible. The question is which catagory poker falls in.

It would seem to me that the only way to prove it is in the "collusion possible" camp would be to provide a clear example.

[/ QUOTE ]

See The Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman for an example, though examples have been known for a long time.

[Gullanian]

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.

[SplawnDarts]

[ 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?

[PantsOnFire]

Personally, I believe collusion won't give you a very big edge. Let's take an MTT. Some easy collusions are telling your partner your hole cards and chip dumping. Knowing two extra hole cards could help you a little most of the time or perhaps a lot in certain instances. Small edge maybe.

If one partner builds a big stack and the other is short stacked, the dumping chips from one to the other should be +EV although how much I am not sure, but it's probably not much. This might happen a bit in casino tourneys where you end up heads up with your buddy and you either fold the best hand to give him some chips or you refrain from busting him with the nuts.

Other forms of collusions involving strategy are certainly more difficult to pull off. The whipsaw, or reraising a victim in between you might be one of the more simple forms. But how often will you be in that situation. And once and a while, the victim will have a better hand than both of you.

I think the +EV aspect of collusion is very overrated, especially online or in MTTs where you don't choose your seats or tables.

I believe collusion is at it's worst when either a) a bunch of guys invite a noob or two to their game or b) a couple of friends go together (perhaps separately) to a new game and work to bust it. In both cases, I believe it is the home game scenario that is most susceptible.

I may be naive about this but two players who are good enough to go to a casino and collude successfully are probably good enough to do well on their own.

And at the other end of the spectrum, if two bozos try to collude thinking they are getting the upper hand they actually might end up being -EV. Now that's poker justice.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

And at the other end of the spectrum, if two bozos try to collude thinking they are getting the upper hand they actually might end up being -EV. Now that's poker justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that I KNOW happens from experience. I've probably been at a table when I noticed some sort of signaling 20 times, and it's usually not hard to spot who's in on it once you know there's something to look for. Rarely if ever did the colluders seem to be +EV on the whole.

A couple of times I even managed to decode the signals and break a couple of cheats.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of times I even managed to decode the signals and break a couple of cheats.

[/ QUOTE ]
Poker justice at it's best.

[6471849653]

When ever both of those players are in the pot they can play it in a way that makes more money and loses less money, even win pots by raising the winner out. They can take more risks with it or not, the only problem being that they can't be on the same table too often.