Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

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?

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

LOLOLOLOOLOLOOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLO. PokerBob care to offer his thoughts?

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

Found the topic:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10592547

If this person you met is indeed Bicycles, I think he deserves a B_BAN.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ 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 ]

I've never been there but it would surprise me if there is not a good bit of it as I've never failed to see it at most places. What makes a game beatable to strangers is if there are enough fish to compensate for the collusion among regulars. 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.

On my last trip to commerce I was playing 60/120. A guy comes over and starts talking to the guy next to me. I hear him say, "I had pocket queens on that other hand. I didn't raise because I didn't want to end up heads up with you. I was trying to get your attention."

They are very blantant and don't even think they are doing anything wrong.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
On my last trip to commerce I was playing 60/120. A guy comes over and starts talking to the guy next to me. I hear him say, "I had pocket queens on that other hand. I didn't raise because I didn't want to end up heads up with you. I was trying to get your attention."

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually people that stupid wouldn't even understand how to collude correctly.

-ActionBob

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ 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.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

i have never played at Canterbury but if there is a small player pool consisting mostly of just regulars, then i could definitely see the game being pretty 'hostile' even if there was no collusion going on.

i have been to a bunch of small casinos in the northwest where the vast majority of the players are regulars. its pretty hard playing in a game where virtually half the hands you aren't involved in are checked down, and literally (and i mean literally) every time you muck someone asks the dealer to see your hand (nobody asks to see any other player's hand). the dealers had no problem digging my hand out of the muck either, its not like i am there tipping them 6 days a week.

none of that is technically collusion (though any reasonable place would think asking to see a mucked hand every time is insane), but with all those activities combined its practically 9v1 (or 10v1 with the dealer).

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ 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.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On my last trip to commerce I was playing 60/120. A guy comes over and starts talking to the guy next to me. I hear him say, "I had pocket queens on that other hand. I didn't raise because I didn't want to end up heads up with you. I was trying to get your attention."

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually people that stupid wouldn't even understand how to collude correctly.

-ActionBob

[/ QUOTE ]

"Collude correctly", that's good. Yes, there are many who may be amatures at collusion and do not get the maximum gain that could be derived by collusion experts. They are colluders just the same and have rough understandings of various things they can do when in the pot together that gives them an edge over 3rd parties.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

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

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?

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

hmm yes I finally won a real pot when some idiot had AQ and justice had AK and they had the misfortune of running into my 33. some people don't understand simple poker concepts like 333QQ>AQQQK>AKKQQ. unfortunatly I departed while the 8 seat still had like 1.5 racks, I'm pretty dumb.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

Vehn,
you left and around 4am i left with ~6.5 racks
thanks for leaving a glorious game
<3

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

meh I surely would have lost my shirt anyways I'm terrible at poker and basically try to hit one set and win a rack and leave every day. so far its been working out.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

five, Vehn, hopp--

Take this to the LC thread, perhaps?

--Nate

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

This is part of what I refer to as "subconscious collusion". It isn't collusion at all but appears to be. Take the big game, for example. Same core players for the most part for a long time. Now, fast forward to Doyle Brunson and Chip Reese on tv for a perfect example. Player limps in, Doyle raises with QQ, Chip reraises with KK. When it comes back to Doyle he folds immediately. Of course, 2 bet from behind from a top player is not the greatest spot to be, but almost any other player, if he were to fold, would have given a lot of thought before laying down the 3rd best possible hand without being sure he was already beat. To an outsider laying down here may have looked funny. It was just the two of them having played together so long Doyle knew he was beaten. Anyone else that hadn't played together for eons probably would have played the hand differently. This is part of, I believe, what makes the big game so tough for even a skilled player like Negraneau, let alone lesser outsiders.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

The former could be but there are occasions where the action makes perfect sense as well.

The latter is just poker. Raising and 3-betting to steal blinds and posts is just good poker sense. If you're not doing that, you're losing because you suck at poker, not because you're being cheated.

That said, pointless and inaccurate conspiracy theories belong in other forums.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

pocketpared--

Agreed that there's no collusion involved in playing quickly and accurately against a familiar villain.

threeonefour--

Agreed that such behavior is annoying, but if they aren't cheating you, they aren't cheating you. They're probably not very good at LHE. So what if they check it down (an action which, again, is almost always [in practice] neutral-EV for the third party)?

--Nate

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

this isn't from Canterbury but it speaks to the issues of this post so i hope its not considered a hijack.

-Nate

i think the sum total of the little things can be tantamount to cheating. in my example, i would consider everyone asking for your cards to be flipped over every showdown to be cheating even if the floor doesn't recognize it due to some backwards policy.

another example, in this game i played in there were about 8 to 10 pairings of the 9 players at the table that checked down their hands virtually everytime they got heads up. i would guess on average 2.5 hands were checked down at somepoint per rotation of the blinds (its actually a fairly tight game), this is based on a couple of sessions during the height of the problems i was having at this place.

there were constantly situations where the flop was 3 way with me in it and action would be like:

dude1 bets
i call
dude2 raises
dude1 reraises
i fold my gutshot or whatever i had
dude2 elects to call and they proceed to check down the future streets.

is that cheating? obviously it is not, at least there is no grounds to conclude that from the evidence given alone. however, its pretty damning when 3 bets NEVER go in between these two when i am not in the hand, and if i happen to elect to call it always gets capped (well nearly always to be fair). still, thats just one tiny piece of evidence.

but combine this with not being able to muck, seeing players pass money back and forth between each other for buyins and such, its just a hostile game. to the point where even if they aren't actively cheating (i am pretty sure there was no anti-outsider conspiracy) the game was hostile to the point it simply isn't worth playing it. i rather play the 4-8 game where i don't have to worry about a hundred things extraneous to the actual cards being played.

i guess my point more than anything is that floor staff and regular players who depend on outsiders for income should try and make sure that the game isn't going to be *percieved* as sketchy even if it isn't.

even little things like a regular tossing a 5$ chip back to another regular after calling a river bet and losing can seem kind of weird to people new to live play. i see asians do this a lot with other asians, i have even had one a guy give a girl 5$ after the river action was:

guy bets river
i call
girl call

girl and i lose, guy gives girl 5$ from the pot (i get nothing obv). if this girl knew she was going to get 5$ in advance, then she has a much stronger incentive to call, which [censored] things up for me because there is a good chance i really don't want her to overcall, clearly it would be cheating if he told her in advance that he would pay her to call but its pretty hazy since there is only an implicit possibility that he might based on their previous relationship. they actually chatted a bit before the call 'do you want me to call? because if you do i will?' but didn't actually discuss anything beyond normal stuff you hear at the table. of course i am sure they meant no harm, but that action distorted the game and definitely shouldn't be allowed in non-heads up situations.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

sorry didn't mean to muck up this oh so serious thread.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
even little things like a regular tossing a 5$ chip back to another regular after calling a river bet and losing can seem kind of weird to people new to live play. i see asians do this a lot with other asians, i have even had one a guy give a girl 5$ after the river action was:

guy bets river
i call
girl call

girl and i lose, guy gives girl 5$ from the pot (i get nothing obv). if this girl knew she was going to get 5$ in advance, then she has a much stronger incentive to call, which [censored] things up for me because there is a good chance i really don't want her to overcall, clearly it would be cheating if he told her in advance that he would pay her to call but its pretty hazy since there is only an implicit possibility that he might based on their previous relationship. they actually chatted a bit before the call 'do you want me to call? because if you do i will?' but didn't actually discuss anything beyond normal stuff you hear at the table. of course i am sure they meant no harm, but that action distorted the game and definitely shouldn't be allowed in non-heads up situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played with a lot of Asians in California games and have never seen this (luckily).

I think this is way over the line and I probably would complain about it. This should be a rules violation if for no other reason than people generally aren't allowed to take money out of their stacks except to tip a dealer. This sounds like the "tipper" is taking money out of his stack to give it to another player.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

chillrob, its a limit game and he has like 3k in front of him. i agree its wrong, but i certainly wouldn't make it on the grounds that he is effectively going south to the tune of 5 dollars.

i didn't complain, but i am a little bitch. i did complain about the other situation though (which happened in a small casino in the northwest).

the 'tipping' situation happened at the commerce, which i have only been to on a couple occasions but each time i have seen players flipping a chip or two back and forth on occasion. usually when a player is on a heater a buddy with ask for a chip and get one, but also on heads up river situations. this was the only flagrantly abusive one that i saw though. i have seen similar practices in many other casinos except usually in the instance of 'heater chips' people trade a chip of equal value for one, not give them away.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

threeonefour--

Thanks for the detailed response. I'd agree that some of what you saw, combined with the right intent, could be cheating. It's just that my own experience is so far from that, even in the nittiest and most inbred games, that I'm disinclined to think that cheating is the likeliest explanation.

And also agreed that little agreements can tweak proper strategies... but again, though I as much as anyone want everyone to be playing 100% straight-up, that's not always realistic, and part of sitting at a poker table is figuring out where everyone's priorities are. A five-dollar "ping" is almost never enough to make much of any sort of difference.

--Nate

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

-Nate

i in turn, agree with you. 99% of the time there is no malice involved, regardless of intent though, there needs to be guidelines to prevent things from getting out of hand. *especially* if a newbie could misunderstand something, a lot of us live players don't realize how intimidating playing live for the first time is. i was shaking like a leaf the first time i sat in a 3/6 game live. my ex girlfriend played about 50k hands online but literally refused to play in front of people, i think many people are too intimidated to even play pit games because they are afraid to look foolish, which is one reason why slots are so popular imo.

usually the floor, dealers, and regulars do a pretty good job of enforcing the rules adequately without being to nitty.

the 5$ tip thing was a one time thing, and certainly no big deal as such. but if somehow i was getting a 5$ rebate from every showdown i got to, i would likely be the best 30/60 player in the world and probably one of the better 50/100 pros.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

I think that in general, the collusion you really need to be worried about is the kind that you'll never take notice of.

People who check it down with other players arent going to be threats. It's not at all effective at fleecing those who're uninvolved, and it arouses a ton of suspicion.

Situations that are deservedly suspicious are spots where you're faced with two bets on the big streets (getting you to fold) and no hand is shown down. Or similarly, when you find yourself sandbagged on multiple streets without the bettor (or raiser) showing their hands down. But of course both those things happen quite often for legitimate reasons.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

That's why they let you ask to see people's hands.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]

That's why they let you ask to see people's hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't help when there is no showdown. How often with collusion to push people out would there be a showdown anyway. IWTSTH is bogus as far as preventing collusion.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

From the description, it sounds like "pinging," and it is hard to believe that anyone has played more than a few hours live with Asians without observing "pinging."

In my short history of poker play I've even observed one pinger cheat the other pinger but it is too long of a story to feel like typing it now. Boils down to, they made an agreement to "ping" and one of the players then just spent a lot of time somehow sitting out so he was collecting chips from her rush but never put any chips at risk and so of course never "pinged" any back. She finally caught on, cursed and swore, and he decided to depart the table altogether. For all I know, they had a shoot out in the parking lot over it later. Sure, people who share bankrolls, soft play each other, pass each other chips, and so on may end up stabbing each other in the back on a dark night behind the barn, but it doesn't much help any third parties they teamed against.

For the record, I don't consider "pinging" to be cheating. But it makes it pretty clear that some people are friends, couples, teams, etcetera, and doesn't really make the tourist feel welcome. And certainly it is naive in the extreme to think that only stupid people collude in a situation where the chances of being prosecuted for cheating are virtually zero, as is the case with live poker. Stupid people rob 711s, bright people look for angles and deniability.




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
even little things like a regular tossing a 5$ chip back to another regular after calling a river bet and losing can seem kind of weird to people new to live play. i see asians do this a lot with other asians, i have even had one a guy give a girl 5$ after the river action was:

guy bets river
i call
girl call

girl and i lose, guy gives girl 5$ from the pot (i get nothing obv). if this girl knew she was going to get 5$ in advance, then she has a much stronger incentive to call, which [censored] things up for me because there is a good chance i really don't want her to overcall, clearly it would be cheating if he told her in advance that he would pay her to call but its pretty hazy since there is only an implicit possibility that he might based on their previous relationship. they actually chatted a bit before the call 'do you want me to call? because if you do i will?' but didn't actually discuss anything beyond normal stuff you hear at the table. of course i am sure they meant no harm, but that action distorted the game and definitely shouldn't be allowed in non-heads up situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played with a lot of Asians in California games and have never seen this (luckily).

I think this is way over the line and I probably would complain about it. This should be a rules violation if for no other reason than people generally aren't allowed to take money out of their stacks except to tip a dealer. This sounds like the "tipper" is taking money out of his stack to give it to another player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]


I have played with a lot of Asians in California games and have never seen this (luckily).

I think this is way over the line and I probably would complain about it. This should be a rules violation if for no other reason than people generally aren't allowed to take money out of their stacks except to tip a dealer. This sounds like the "tipper" is taking money out of his stack to give it to another player.

[/ QUOTE ]

It happens all the time, and there is absolutely no way it's collusion or anything. The players who do it are pretty much always the people you're winning from. Calling the floor here is -EV.

That said, I know some people are real nits about that crap. I've had people complain that I was playing red/black with another player, even though I had better than 70BBs in front of me in a limit game.

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

I've never played at canterbury but live close by. whats your take on the entire operation?

Re: Collusion in canterbury 30/60 game?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never played at canterbury but live close by. whats your take on the entire operation?

[/ QUOTE ]

its obviously rigged because poker is always rigged.