Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

Anytime someone raises w/o the 2nd or stome nuts it is collusion in a nit's mind. Softplay exists in alot of games all over the country. The 30 @ Canterbury is a game where you rarely see softplay and if you do someone will including myself will pipe up about it.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was up at grand casino in Millacs this past weekend and overheard a guy talking about how he refuses to play the 30/60 game at canterbury because of collusion between some of the regulars? Is this just some donk talking out his a$$ or is there some validity to it? If so.. what sort of collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the July 22nd entry of my blog . Was it someone like that? My guess is that it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may possibly have the greatest blog ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a very big variety of things that they do which they don't even consider collusion. Things such as playing tough in a multi-way pot and then checking it down after the stranger folds. Raising and three betting to steal blinds, posts, and especially kill pots and collection pots.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I'm convinced any of this puts the stranger at a disadvantage, if he's wise to what they're doing and compensates. You have to put them on somewhat different hand ranges and adjust your implied odds.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What makes a game beatable to strangers is if there are enough fish to compensate for the collusion among regulars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emerson--

That's completely wrong.

I've spent many many hundreds of hours in live LHE games full of regulars. (They're some of my favorite games.) While I agree that many of them play differently against each other, I think it's very rare that the effect on an outsider's expectation is non-negligible.

The commonest accusation is probably that pots between regulars are checked down. It's conceivable that this sort of play could give someone an edge, but in practice they're almost never trying to exploit the third guy: they're playing poker the way they know how, and that's to bet and call with certain kinds of hands, and not to bother betting once the pot gets heads-up. Any collusive effect would (almost always) be accidental, and my extensive observation suggests the opposite.

(Quick note: a big leak in many live regulars' games is that they don't valuebet the big streets enough. In effect, they're checking it down with everybody; the only difference is that you're not breaching any agreements by betting the river. In many situations it's like you--the non-regular--are on a freeroll.)

My best frame of reference here is Casino Arizona, where the 20-40 games are usually between 60% and 90% regulars. There are some general mumblings about people who play each other soft, and there have been some incidents wherein someone felt uncomfortable in a three-way pot. Almost all of those accusations were complete garbage. I played many hours with the accused, and they're not doing anything that affects me.

(By the way, the very existence of these sorts of discussions, where a completely clean game is treated as a divine right, shows how far poker's come. I've played in games where there had been problems with cheating; I've played in games where I wouldn't have been welcome if I hadn't played overloose; I've chosen games that weren't my best, in dealer's choice, to keep live ones happy.

I've never cheated in a poker game, and I don't approve of it, and everything else equal I far prefer high-sanitation poker environments. But this is gambling, and Rule One is that you have to get action. Put another way: you have to play the game that's there or none at all. If I've got an edge in the game, I'll play it. Even if I have to play 2/3-pot-limit studugi, or chase a few too many flush draws, be careful on Johnny's deal, or (heaven forbid!) watch two regulars check it down.)

--Nate

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a very big variety of things that they do which they don't even consider collusion. Things such as playing tough in a multi-way pot and then checking it down after the stranger folds. Raising and three betting to steal blinds, posts, and especially kill pots and collection pots.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I'm convinced any of this puts the stranger at a disadvantage, if he's wise to what they're doing and compensates. You have to put them on somewhat different hand ranges and adjust your implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

With some unsophisticated types it may not do much harm. But many are pretty savy. My buddy just called a raise and everybody is folding. I'll call also to protect him from being bluffed. He'll do the same for me. If we see any weakness from the other guy we can bet/raise, or even just bet and call each other and he'll have to fold.

There is a scene in the movie "Rounders". I believe they are at some AC casino. Anyway, the regulars are all sitting around playing. Then up walk two guys in suits, convention goers, with their convention tags on. The regulars all glance around the table at each other. They know they've just gotten two live ones and they can go to work. The narrator says, "Its like, we're not a team but we are a team."

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a very big variety of things that they do which they don't even consider collusion. Things such as playing tough in a multi-way pot and then checking it down after the stranger folds. Raising and three betting to steal blinds, posts, and especially kill pots and collection pots.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I'm convinced any of this puts the stranger at a disadvantage, if he's wise to what they're doing and compensates. You have to put them on somewhat different hand ranges and adjust your implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

With some unsophisticated types it may not do much harm. But many are pretty savy. My buddy just called a raise and everybody is folding. I'll call also to protect him from being bluffed. He'll do the same for me. If we see any weakness from the other guy we can bet/raise, or even just bet and call each other and he'll have to fold.

There is a scene in the movie "Rounders". I believe they are at some AC casino. Anyway, the regulars are all sitting around playing. Then up walk two guys in suits, convention goers, with their convention tags on. The regulars all glance around the table at each other. They know they've just gotten two live ones and they can go to work. The narrator says, "Its like, we're not a team but we are a team."

[/ QUOTE ]

Emerson--

The whole point of my post wasn't that collusion is impossible; it's that it's unusual. It is infrequent for these daytime-regular types to get involved with hands they would have folded simply for collusive reasons. (Despite the evidence in ~Rounders~.)

It's sort of analogous to the question of whether these guys play well. However little a priori reason there is for them not to be doing it, they don't.

--Nate

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

i have 250 hours in the cp 30 game in the last 3 months. there is no collusion.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
no one checks down or softplays each other in that game ever other than dumbazzes luke and john.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha, but we never do any collusion, we just dont like to take eachothers dollars

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

you should cut it out its annoying and makes the game look fishy to the actual fish. I even dont softplay soap and we're common law husbands.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

yah i talked to luke about it, that one day was especially dumb.

its pretty much donezo.

did you win some dollars vehn?