collusion?
 

30/60 game. player A and player B softplay each other heads up. player A is LAG, player B TAG, maybe extremely so. player A open raises in late position, player B just calls from the SB with AA.

Re: collusion?
 

if its heads up why would it matter? more money for the house?

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
if its heads up why would it matter? more money for the house?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: collusion?
 

basically i was trying to say
if their is 2 chairs, and 2 people are colluding well they really cant make a profit can they because of the rake???
So why would they collude?
Never mind its not heads up (as i thought it was, you didnt mention the size of table) but if your saying late position .....

Re: collusion?
 

Wait...so are you saying that the SB is colluding against the BB? I'm confused.

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wait...so are you saying that the SB is colluding against the BB? I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

I was not involved in the hand.

Re: collusion?
 

I think this hinges on some questions of intent, but if I had to guess I'd say yes.

--Nate

Re: collusion?
 

Its the most mild form of it but yea soft playing is collusion everytime.

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Its the most mild form of it but yea soft playing is collusion everytime.

[/ QUOTE ]

but this example is a perfect example of why soft playing is in fact collusion.

Re: collusion?
 

He check calls down from SB, or are you asking if just calling from the SB with AA preflop is collusion?

Re: collusion?
 

To me the biggest beneficiary of this is player c, the BB.

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait...so are you saying that the SB is colluding against the BB? I'm confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

I was not involved in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can see how this might *develop" into collusion later on in the hand. But not getting squeezed out here has to be good for the BB, no?

Re: collusion?
 

explain how calling an early position raiser in the small blind to keep the big blind in the hand rather than 3-betting is colluding, there has got to be more to the story no? Looks more like bad play to me.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: collusion?
 

If A and B are a 'team', why would they soft play each other HU? Please, tell me. I assume that this is a timed game, or that the rake has already been maxxed.

If I were colluding with Bob, every time we were HU, I would have us do strange and wild plays. That way all the other players would get the wrong reads on us, and the team would benefit.

Re: collusion?
 

I've played with my dad in the same game. Once i had QQ he had KK and once I had KK he had AA.

My dad basically said after the 1st time "I should have just called, everyone knows I wouldn't 3 bet you without a strong hand" or something to that effect. Would that be colluding? Meh i don't think so at all - he is basically using deception in this spot and deviating from his normal play.

That being said, we both concluded it's kinda bad for the game and the 3 or 4 BB's you can win in this spot by just calling isn't worth turning a good/happy game sour.

Re: collusion?
 

I really didnt think I would have to explain this but to me this seems pretty obvious collusion or at least being unethical. Obviously the sb cannot make any more money than one sb if he 3-bets preflop and knocks out the bb as he will check down post flop with the other player. By just calling he allows the bb to come in and gets to play the hand out.

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
player A and player B softplay each other heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, if by this you mean he will always check-down with his buddy then yeah. But I sort of assumed there were shades to softplaying....

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
explain how calling an early position raiser in the small blind to keep the big blind in the hand rather than 3-betting is colluding, there has got to be more to the story no? Looks more like bad play to me.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

whether it's good play or bad play isn't really relevant. the intention seems pretty clear, particularly if this is a guy who normally doesnt cold call with aces.

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the sb cannot make any more money than one sb

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprisingly, I am not at all confused by your posts. It might be collusion, but when collusion actually hurts the team and helps the "victim", I'm not sure there is a problem, other than acceptance of disintegrity (if that is a word).

Re: collusion?
 

uh how could this possibly hurt the team?

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
uh how could this possibly hurt the team?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they mean it hurts the "team" if BB has crap and flops 2 pair.

How blatant was the soft-playing? Might the TAG have been trying to isolate the LAG then botching it post-flop?

Re: collusion?
 

maybe A is planning to c/r B on the flop or turn

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
maybe A is planning to c/r B on the flop or turn

[/ QUOTE ]

"lol"

they would softplay (check down) whenever they were heads up. kinda the definition of softplay.

Re: collusion?
 

You need more info than this more hands ect. If they are colluding it will be much more obvious in other hands.

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really didnt think I would have to explain this but to me this seems pretty obvious collusion or at least being unethical. Obviously the sb cannot make any more money than one sb if he 3-bets preflop and knocks out the bb as he will check down post flop with the other player. By just calling he allows the bb to come in and gets to play the hand out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really think so. Given the types of things they *should* be doing if they always softplay each other, this is pretty tame.

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You need more info than this more hands ect. If they are colluding it will be much more obvious in other hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who have never played live and have never known people who always check down hands HU should not respond to this post.

Re: collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uh how could this possibly hurt the team?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they mean it hurts the "team" if BB has crap and flops 2 pair.

How blatant was the soft-playing? Might the TAG have been trying to isolate the LAG then botching it post-flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I am saying is that it allows for the "victim" to not make mistakes, or at least reduce the severity. He is now getting 5-1 on his call, which he would make with the many hands that should be close to that percentage to win. I think it would more likely be collusion if the SB called with garbage PF to entice a call from the BB, with the intention of teaming up with the partner and ramming and jamming him out of the pot on the turn with a check raise. In your situation, how are they going to play to extract value that would not have been won otherwise? If they try to push the BB out later, they were ahead in the hand anyway, so no big mistake forced there.