Collusion ruling

[Bicycles_Biatch]

[ 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 ]

For the most part I usually respect TT's opinion... but I feel you're a little out of line here.

I frequently see mods, posters, and trolls alike flip-flop on their opinions regarding rules. I would like to know if posters in this forum are more interested in seeing the rules upheld to the T (no pun intended)... or they are more interested with the "spirit" of the rule and in promoting an over-all fair game.

Either way, I think this guy has a legit complaint.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
...more interested in seeing the rules upheld to the T (no pun intended)... or they are more interested with the "spirit" of the rule and in promoting an over-all fair game.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there's a reason Robert makes it the #1 rule in the decision-making section. Zero tolerance is for brainless zombies incapable of engaging the more developed portions of their brains (school principals, republican presidents... you know the types).

[chillrob]

[ 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.

[RR]

[ 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.

[Bicycles_Biatch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...more interested in seeing the rules upheld to the T (no pun intended)... or they are more interested with the "spirit" of the rule and in promoting an over-all fair game.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there's a reason Robert makes it the #1 rule in the decision-making section. Zero tolerance is for brainless zombies incapable of engaging the more developed portions of their brains (school principals, republican presidents... you know the types).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why... oh why does everything have to go back to bashing Repbulicans...

WE (I mean republicans) get it... Bush isn't our favorite either... but Jesus christ... do we have to work it into every aspect of our daily conversation? There is a politics forum right down the row... or have you liberals still not figured out how to look past the end of your nose yet?

BTW- Sorry for the high-jack rant... back to the OP.

This happen to me once at a large event at the Bike...

I move all in for about 5 times the blind with A-4 and get call by both blinds.

flop comes out A 10 2....

SB is about to bet out with the BB says "hey bro, let's just check it down... I can probably eliminate this guy with my hand"... SB, who was kind of a newbie, says "OK".

I go balistic... floor man comes over and gives both of them a "warning" and tells the dealer to deal it out.

turn is a 7 and the river is 4...

SB says check again, and just as I'm about to turn over what I think is the winning hand... the BB bets a mountain of money.

The SB looks all dumb-founded, he looks up at the TD and says "we were checking it down, what gives".

TD... "there is no rule about checking it down... anyone with chips left can bet".

SB literally throws his chips in the middle and says [censored] you to the BB...

BB shows a set of 4s and knocks me out of the tournament and cripples the SB.

Now, this is a series of angles and broken rules, but it all begins with the initial (inappropriate) request to check it down.

Had his hand been killed (or only eliglbe to win the existing pot)... the result may have been drastically different. Either I win with my lucky two pair when 44 folds to a flop bet; and/or he doesn't get a chance to shoot an angle at the SB and take most of his chips with a lucky 1 outer (sadly, the SB went broke shortly there after).

[fraserbrown]

There is nothing wrong with checking down a hand where on player is all-in, the problem arises when Player A says to Player B that this is what they should do, if it is checked down with no verbal agreement between players its fine

[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 ]

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.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider enforcing the rules to be an angle.
If the tourney has a rule about explicit "check it down" collusion, then I think suggesting it should not only get the cheater's hand killed, but get him removed from the tournament with no refund.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I am of the opinion that this offense should be immediate disqualification. While other offenses may warrant a warning, I see no way in which a player can accidentally ask others to check it down, and I see no way that a player could possibly be acting in good faith when he does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this because there are a lot of social players that don't know what they are doing is wrong. To people that have put thought into this stuff this is clearly cheating, but a lot of players have put no thought into poker ethics etc.

If you seek out people that aren't so bright to play with you shouldn't expect them to understand things that are clear to the thinking population.

[/ QUOTE ]

While there are some offenses where i might agree with your thought here this isn't one of them. o me this offense is so self evident that any player who violates it can't claim that they thought it was allowed. To me it is impossible to not understand this. I know players who claim to believe it is legal, or claim they didn't know it was illegal, but I don't believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta disagree with you here. Some people just don't know. They see Norman Chad on TV saying "they are just going to check it down to knock the player out" and think it's something that can be agreed upon. Had this happen in a game I was in, went all in, 2 players called and one asked the other if they could just check it down. After the hand (which I won) I made a comment, something like "would appreciate no collusion next time guys." and they were geniunely suprised, "that's not collusion, I see it all the time on TV" - it is confusing the way the WSOP shows portray it. I explained to them that "you never see two players agree to check down on TV, they just do it. Talking about what you are going to do in a hand, to work against another player is collusion." Hasn't been done since in my game.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I think the hands should be killed, but it can be an honest mistake.

[Monolith]

well, you SHOULD get a collusion ruling here, but, as evidenced by all of the posts about terrible floor personnel, you may not get the ruling...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

DO you EVER have a decent (notice I didn't say nice) answer for somone new?

[/ QUOTE ]

As an impartial observer (I don't know TT from Adam) who reads B&M quite a bit, I'd say like 95% of his posts (this one included) are useful and on target.