Collusion ruling

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is typically what most angles consist of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think of most angles being asking for enforcement of the rules. When I think of angles, I think of betting or checking out of turn, picking up your chips pretending to bet then checking, waiting a long time to bet and looking to your left, hiding your cards or chips, etc. Offhand I can't think of one angle that involves enforcing of the rules, certainly none that I have ever personally encountered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, the vast majority of angles come from SELECTIVELY applying rules in ways that go against the spirit or the best interests of the game.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is typically what most angles consist of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think of most angles being asking for enforcement of the rules. When I think of angles, I think of betting or checking out of turn, picking up your chips pretending to bet then checking, waiting a long time to bet and looking to your left, hiding your cards or chips, etc. Offhand I can't think of one angle that involves enforcing of the rules, certainly none that I have ever personally encountered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well most angles involve doing one of these actions and then attempting to enforce a rule that is favorable to what you want to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP did nothing of this sort to try to encourage a rules violation though. It is the original "angle" that is wrong, not the asking for rule enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting their hands declared dead so he can win the hand uncontested isn't somehow an angle? If the original 'angle' hadn't happened, do you think OP was going to win the pot uncontested? Obviously not. Trying to get their hands killed is an angle, no doubt about it.

[TMTTR]

My 2 cents: I do think that the player that opens his mouth about checking it down should have his hand declared dead (although that is not typically what is done). To those who say that this is harsh and that often the player doesn't know the rule -- when his hand is declared dead, he will have learned the rule.

When one player explicitly suggests that a tournament hand be checked down with one player all-in, there is no way to undo the damage. The player who will be hurt the most by this statement is obviously the all-in player. The player making the statement will still have life in the tournament regardless. If the loud-mouth's hand is declared dead, it will stop him (and others) from saying anything outloud in the future and give the all-in player a small measure of compensation for the misdeed -- one less opponent to worry about.

I don't think making a fuss about a violation of this rule is an angle shot in anyway.

[Warteen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm short stacked in a tournament, go all-in, get multiple callers, then one of the callers mentions to another caller that they should all just check to knock me out. Would I be able to get a rulling that would nullify their hands in any way?

TIA

[/ QUOTE ]


so you like to fight angles with angles? nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment is getting a lot of hate. I thought it was pretty funny and insightful. It seems pretty obvious that OP's reason for wanting his opponents' hands declared dead was his own interest, not a noble upholding of the rules.

That said, the "check it down" thing probably could be considered minor collusion and should be given at least a warning. The hand shouldn't be declared dead, though.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty obvious that OP's reason for wanting his opponents' hands declared dead was his own interest, not a noble upholding of the rules.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because we all want the rules enforsed purely for the sake of the rules (and our own honor and nobility) and not for our own interests...

Give me a break. This has no bearing on whether it is an angle shot or not. Even when we are not in the hand, we want the rules enforced properly so that it does not become an issue when our OWN INTERESTS are at stake.

EDIT: Explicitly asking another player to check it down in a tournament setting to increase the odds of knocking out the all-in player IS improper collusion. The argument is what the appropriate punishment should be. The fact that the hand might get checked down without any prior agreement or anyone saying anything is not collusion.

[jasonfish11]

Since yall know we just got NL cash in Floirda. Well we have a lot of people that play tournys that now play the cash game. I was short ($65) and there was a raise to 20 and I looked at QQ. I shoved one guy thinks and looks at the initial raiser and says "if I call do you want to check it down." Oh my god did I rip into this guy. I lambasted him for about 2 minutes before he decided to call. The floor came over and told me to calm down and told the guy if this ever happens again his hand is dead and he will be asked to leave. Anyways [censored] got what was comming to him he called and the first raiser shoved for $370 (about 20 more than [censored] caller had). [censored] folded and the other guy showed AA. I then left after saying something more to the [censored].

[Al_Capone_Junior]

It's common belief for most players that you should check it down in these situations. It's not actually TRUE, but then most people also believe in nostradamus.

Talking other players into checking it down is even stupid-er. You might lose the pot when you miss a bet because you're trying to knock someone out. But this does affect the all-in player, and isn't cool. If you're going to check it down, it needs to be the silent, implied check down.

About the most you could hope for here is a warning or ten minute penalty. You don't have any other recourse here, nor should you.

Al

[whymelord]

It's not like I would go all-in hoping the other players will collude against me so I can declare their hands dead. It is more about justice for being colluded against.

[nineinchal]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm short stacked in a tournament, go all-in, get multiple callers, then one of the callers mentions to another caller that they should all just check to knock me out. Would I be able to get a rulling that would nullify their hands in any way?

I HATE WHEN THEY DO THAT!!!

I never check it down, that's the way to steal mucho chips.

[chillrob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is typically what most angles consist of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think of most angles being asking for enforcement of the rules. When I think of angles, I think of betting or checking out of turn, picking up your chips pretending to bet then checking, waiting a long time to bet and looking to your left, hiding your cards or chips, etc. Offhand I can't think of one angle that involves enforcing of the rules, certainly none that I have ever personally encountered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, the vast majority of angles come from SELECTIVELY applying rules in ways that go against the spirit or the best interests of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we play in different kinds of games then, because I have never seen this kind of thing happen.

I don't play tournaments at all so I'm not aware of what normally goes on in them, but I think the OP was severly wronged and that it is not an angle for him to want the violator to be punished. Killing the violator's hand would be a much lighter punishment than would be my preference. Ideally, he should be ejected from the tournament, regardless of whether he knew that was the rule or not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.