Collusion evolved?

[chaosuk]

The ashamedly very limited amount I've read on collusion would tend to keep you on guard against active actions of sorts, essentially manipulation of flops in a number of subtle and not so subtle ways - and then there's soft play.

Tonight I I played around 70 hands - not a huge sample - 3 handed in a game effectively just shy $40-80. After a while a began to notice I was playing an awful lot of pots out of position; the battles seemed to be between the guy who was bb to my SB. The other guy was fairly aggressive ordinarily -6-handed - I'd played with both a fair bit over the couple of days. It seemed uncanny, there were very few hands between them - nothing beyond the faintest of flop skirmishes - bet-fold. Anyway, I sat out and said I'd return in 5 they played one hand and this one was to the river and they both quit - not that surprising as its HU.

Anyway, I looked at the hands and found not only that there were no significant pots between them (and few significant between me and passive in the blinds I believe) but that of the 24 opportunities passive foe's btn had to raise agrressive foe (no limps) he did so 3 times. Sure if we can spin a coin and get 3 heds out of 24 then we can easily find the same number of btn passes. It could be variance, I also don't think he defended from the SB against a very aggressive button.

Sure, if the foes were colluding they could steal my SB but this can draw more attention and force them to play more pots and I'm for the most part not playing and so not putting in money/ making decisions with J7 out of position.

The question is: is the ineviable hit the passive foe takes
worth the gain from aggressive foe playing so many pots in position. Is this prevalent?

Thoughts appreciated.

thanks

[JAA]

Honestly, I normally respond to posts like this by saying that you are imagining things and it's just variance....but, I have seen situations like the one you explained and I don't necessarily doubt it.

I have actually been in one similar 3-handed situation where both players left after about 4 or 5 orbits after they realized I wasn't the type of player they could best take advantage of (read: they weren't willing to collude outright, but were playing much like the two you described)

- Jeff

[chaosuk]

Thanks, I should also add I won a ahndful of big bets, so I wasn't looking for it as such - I just noticed how uncomfortable I'd felt. Naturally it could be variance, even so very few players are disciplined enough to pass 21/24 buttons 3-handed - most would figure rags are eventually profitable to raise given the number of passes - and he wasn;t usually so pasive. I'm asking for a judgement on this case, simply whether such approaches are viable and effective.

[The Bryce]

I have no idea when anyone who colludes would bother to do it playing limit hold'em.

[tflanny]

Post deleted by Paluka

[chaosuk]

I'm glad you liked my style, though poor grammar and needless repetition leads me to doubt your adulation. Though I appreciate it's a step up.

If the requirements of the role of moderator didn't include the removal of homophobic comments they should be deemed insufficient; to be fair it wasn't a $20-40 post.