floor decision?

[redfisher]

[ QUOTE ]

Killing a hand is almost never correct.

I like Rottersod's line on this one: explain to the players that doing this is wrong, and warn them that it won't be tolerated.

If they do it again, no, you don't kill their hands. You tell them to finish the hand, cash in their chips, and GTFO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't B & C have their hands killed? Player A is all-in and involved when B & C openly discuss colluding against him and then agree to do so.

Kill their hands, return any sidepot action to them, ship the main pot to A. Punish the guilty, protect the innocent.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Killing a hand is almost never correct.

I like Rottersod's line on this one: explain to the players that doing this is wrong, and warn them that it won't be tolerated.

If they do it again, no, you don't kill their hands. You tell them to finish the hand, cash in their chips, and GTFO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't B & C have their hands killed? Player A is all-in and involved when B & C openly discuss colluding against him and then agree to do so.

Kill their hands, return any sidepot action to them, ship the main pot to A. Punish the guilty, protect the innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot kill their hands. Poker rooms do not have the power to hand out fines for bad behavior. Killing someone's hand just isn't an option that is available to enforce rules.

[nortonmalc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Killing a hand is almost never correct.

I like Rottersod's line on this one: explain to the players that doing this is wrong, and warn them that it won't be tolerated.

If they do it again, no, you don't kill their hands. You tell them to finish the hand, cash in their chips, and GTFO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't B & C have their hands killed? Player A is all-in and involved when B & C openly discuss colluding against him and then agree to do so.

Kill their hands, return any sidepot action to them, ship the main pot to A. Punish the guilty, protect the innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot kill their hands. Poker rooms do not have the power to hand out fines for bad behavior. Killing someone's hand just isn't an option that is available to enforce rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a player has the clock called on him and doesn't act in time, his hand can be killed. Exposing a live hand in a tournament gets the hand killed. Why wouldn't a similar action be available against open collusion?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Killing a hand is almost never correct.

I like Rottersod's line on this one: explain to the players that doing this is wrong, and warn them that it won't be tolerated.

If they do it again, no, you don't kill their hands. You tell them to finish the hand, cash in their chips, and GTFO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't B & C have their hands killed? Player A is all-in and involved when B & C openly discuss colluding against him and then agree to do so.

Kill their hands, return any sidepot action to them, ship the main pot to A. Punish the guilty, protect the innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot kill their hands. Poker rooms do not have the power to hand out fines for bad behavior. Killing someone's hand just isn't an option that is available to enforce rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a player has the clock called on him and doesn't act in time, his hand can be killed. Exposing a live hand in a tournament gets the hand killed. Why wouldn't a similar action be available against open collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exposing a hand in a tournament does not kill the hand unless you are playing in a venue that is unfamiliar with poker. When a clock is called on a player a reasonable amount of time has passed and they have had sufficient warning.

What rule would you invoke for taking away their equity in the pot for colluding? DO you feel limited to the pot in question or would you like to take some of their chips also? What if they don't have that many chips? Would you like to check their wallet to see if you can impose a bigger fine?

Taking money form one player and giving it to another is not a solution available for a breach of etiquette. If it rises to the level of illegal collusion gaming or whatever government body regulates the casino will be called and they will make a decision on if citations will be issued or arrests made.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Killing a hand is almost never correct.

I like Rottersod's line on this one: explain to the players that doing this is wrong, and warn them that it won't be tolerated.

If they do it again, no, you don't kill their hands. You tell them to finish the hand, cash in their chips, and GTFO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't B & C have their hands killed? Player A is all-in and involved when B & C openly discuss colluding against him and then agree to do so.

Kill their hands, return any sidepot action to them, ship the main pot to A. Punish the guilty, protect the innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot kill their hands. Poker rooms do not have the power to hand out fines for bad behavior. Killing someone's hand just isn't an option that is available to enforce rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a player has the clock called on him and doesn't act in time, his hand can be killed. Exposing a live hand in a tournament gets the hand killed. Why wouldn't a similar action be available against open collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exposing a live hand in a tourney does not get it killed at most places. It usually gets you a penalty after the hand is over. Not acting before a clock winds down is part of the rules and you were given time to act.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that i think about it my situation might have been a little different. Player b might have raised in utg and i was in bb and last to act with no other callers. Now would it be wrong with only us in the hand to agree to check down.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about as extreme an example as you could give us but since there was no action after UTG and you are last action you can do whatever you want but I'd still wait until after the flop just so the SB doesn't feel like his money was taken. To me it's an etiquette thing. But honestly, why would you call and then want to offer to check it down in that situation?

[PantsOnFire]

I have a different opinion on this than most. If this is a tourney, then no, players can't say this sort of thing.

However, in a cash game, I'm having a hard time being upset if I'm player A. During a game, I may be making this all-in light as a power play but most of the time I will have a really good hand. So I don't mind a third player calling and giving me a chance to triple up. And if he has to ask something like this, then I figure his hand isn't all that great so I'm happy if he comes along. And what they do as far as betting into a sidepot, I really don't care.

[mike1270]

wow

this is a form of cheating! when C ask for B to check it down before calling!!!

i ask this because this kind of thing is likely to happen again as some of the players in the game are in the habit of soft playing each other. i also would like some ideas on how to best handle the situation. i plan on playing the game inspite of this stuff because it is a very good game with many players having no idea how to play PLO. keep in mind that this is a private club situation with many regulars including several guys who either run or deal in other games at the same club on different days

thanks for the input

[djg]

what if player B is intelligent, says yes, then bets the turn?