how can this NOT be collusion? - Page 2

Josh. · #11 04-02-2006, 06:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Has UB been notified?? Maybe don't out them until there's a response from UB. It'd suck if they read this thread and cashed out before they got busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

i did

TStoneMBD · #12 04-02-2006, 07:14 AM

well that could be collusion too assuming A B and C are the same players... but the hand looks very legit as a player should fold his flush on that river.

Josh. · #13 04-02-2006, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
well that could be collusion too assuming A B and C are the same players... but the hand looks very legit as a player should fold his flush on that river.

[/ QUOTE ]

C was different. C is a seemingly very good player who plays all the time

UB wrote back saying they'd investigate it

DeezNutz3 · #14 04-02-2006, 10:01 AM

I was watching when this hand happened...did seem very odd...

stoxtrader · #15 04-02-2006, 01:31 PM

I am VERY interested in any reports of collusion in this specific game. I have heard that it happens and I think it might be true to some extent.

I think UB needs to take a serious look into any such allegations, especially because this is the crown-jewel for high limit fize limit ring games on the net in my opinion.

PokerBot123 · #16 04-02-2006, 02:29 PM

That is not how you cheat a LAG out of his money.

disjunction · #17 04-02-2006, 03:38 PM

I can't answer -- The hand certainly does look strange. If they were colluding and C knew they were colluding, he might have considered staying at the table because their "collusion" sure looks like spew if he player right.

Theoretical question for anyone who wants to guess -- how much is collusion worth in BB/100 in this situation if the victim knows you're doing it? If you consider this to be only a 2-player game, where one player holds two hands, that player has these advantages (1) The double bet (2) Knowledge of 2 additional cards (3) Ability to trap . Are there more? Is this really worth more than .5 BB/100? As the above hand shows, you can give your opponent on some tough decisions, but I didn't see a theoretical advantage. Now factor in that you can't be too overt. I don't get it, I just don't see the incentive to collude at limit hold'em for the risk.

captZEEbo · #18 04-02-2006, 04:16 PM

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but since B's hand is so strong, wouldn't it make more sense from a collusion standpoint for C to fold river and get A to call? This makes me think it's just a tilted bluff or something along those lines.

edit: this is RE: hand 1

soah · #19 04-02-2006, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but since B's hand is so strong, wouldn't it make more sense from a collusion standpoint for C to fold river and get A to call? This makes me think it's just a tilted bluff or something along those lines.

edit: this is RE: hand 1

[/ QUOTE ]

B has jack high, and C is the victim.... what are you talking about??

captZEEbo · #20 04-02-2006, 04:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but since B's hand is so strong, wouldn't it make more sense from a collusion standpoint for C to fold river and get A to call? This makes me think it's just a tilted bluff or something along those lines.

edit: this is RE: hand 1

[/ QUOTE ]

B has jack high, and C is the victim.... what are you talking about??

[/ QUOTE ]misread river action oops