[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Implicit collusion is rife in life in general, not just online poker. You get it at brick and mortar for the same reasons you get it online, and you get it in business for the same reason you get it in poker.

AP's calling someone who already worked for them their independent outside auditor is pretty rich. More like, "Here's your chance to get yourself fired. Now write a report!"

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Blarg, implicit collusion is everywhere in the world. I think that the key to avoid being hurt by it is to exercise some social intelligence when entering into relationships. If you enter into a relationship where you are giving up your right to have any say other than the termination of the relationship, you are seriously screwing up. What's more, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to exploitation, loss of control over your environment, or just plain being taken for granted.

I think this is the situation that the vast majority of 2p2 online poker pros have found themselves in with regard to this latest episode. We've seen that movie before, as well, with potty and the affiliates and we'll prolly be seeing it again in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is anything wrong with implicit collusion per se. I am not sure that you need to get hung up on the concept. All it means is that two or more parties will independently realize that the best solution for themselves provides a mutual benefit with another party or parties to the detriment of another.

The ethical problem is where implicit becomes express and one of the "colluding" parties does so at the suggestion of the other.

Using the poker example, it is good strategy to sqeeze out short stacks. Many players know this, and most realize it happens and is within the rules of play. Therefore, it is a natural part of the game and if the potential scenario is thought through logically, the player (being the shortstack) would realize that getting squeezed out by the bigger stacks is inevitable.

For real life you should always exercise prudence and think through how any deal will play out. You must assume that individual parties may act to fulfill their interests in a manner where one party benefits to the detriment of another. If there is a stong possibility that that party will be you, perhaps you should rethink the deal or avoid it all together.

Finally, I am not sure the characterization of the relationship between pros and the online operators as implicit collusion is apt. There may be a codependence, but I don't see the collusion angle. The site is to provide fair, secure gaming to attract customers (pros included). The pros are just there to win, which does not provide any collateral benefit to the site. In fact, the pros and operators play the game of "who can get the sucker's money first?"