[Proofrock]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2 regulars are in a hand with an obviously weak player who is easily manipulated by common tells. Regular #1 bets, Weak guy calls, Reg. #2 raises, Reg #1 3-bets, as weak player is getting ready to call Reg #2 makes a show of getting his 4-bet ready. Weak player folds, Reg #2 just calls, the two regulars then proceed to turn their hands over and check it down.

[/ QUOTE ]
What did they have? Was it worthy of 3 or 4 bets in on the flop based on the way the game was playing? Did action like this happen multiple times?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was reasonable I think -- one of them had a draw, the other one had an overpair, but as soon as the bad player folded they flipped their hands over and checked it down before any more cards were dealt. No more bets went in either before or after the draw hit.

The only other specific example I remember now was sort of similar but also reasonable: One of the guys limps preflop, I raise with KK, other guy calls in SB, limper calls. Flop is 235 with 2 to a flush, SB donks, limper raises, I 3bet, SB caps, limper calls. Turn is an offsuit 6, SB leads, limper raises, I fold, they flip their hands and the SB's 53s checks it down with 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (straight draw + flush draw on the flop) on a blank river.

I would say more like soft-playing heads-up than obvious intentional angle-shooting collusion, but it's hard to say how much that influences the action prior to it being heads-up -- since the result of getting it heads-up is that the hand will be checked down, doesn't this necessarily influence the way the hand is played by both parties, even if there isn't an explicit agreement to collude before hand?

Oh, and it's not like they just decide for the future streets to go check/check as it happens -- it was always and unspoken "flip cards, check down" as soon as it got heads up.