An ethical question

[Taso]

I didn't say it wasn't wrong, that I do it, or that I think its ethical, or that I think its allowed. I said I don't think its collusion.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it wasn't wrong, that I do it, or that I think its ethical, or that I think its allowed. I said I don't think its collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it comes down to, can you be in "collusion" if you don't have a partner?

I think there are instances when you could be considered colluding.

[Mark L]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I know that stating what cards you folded during a hand is taboo as it can kill the hand for those left but what about a hand you are in?
Take this scenario, freeroll, ie loose players with everything from beginners to fairly good players. Say 3 limp in and then a 3bb raise which is called by next two. You're next with AA.
You can't just call it and there's a big risk that a 6bb raise (or even more) will get called by half the table. Is it allowed to type in 'AA' and go all-in? This I have tried on a number of occasions with the desired result that most will fold and one or two will call. If everyone folds that is fine too. But is it unethical?
Tel.

[/ QUOTE ]

hello friend. your problem is you are worried too much about what is going to happen after you make your play (chronic fear of aces losing?) and not worried enough with just making the right play and moving on to the next.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it wasn't wrong, that I do it, or that I think its ethical, or that I think its allowed. I said I don't think its collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most players see collusion as two or more teammates using techniques to cheat out other players. However, collusion can also involve two players who don't even know each other. For example, in tournaments when a player is all-in against two other players with chips, they will often check it down. This is known as "implicit collusion". Those two big stacks are intentionally trying to gang up on the all-in player by not pushing each other out of the pot. This type of collusion is legal basically because there's nothing you can do about it.

So let's look at OPs situation again or a similar one. Player A bets. Player B says he has AA and raises. Player C now folds. In this case, Player C had information that Player B did not have and this is virtually the same as Player B secretly signally Player C that he has AA. If Player C did not know what Player B had, he might have called giving Player A odds to call now.

This might be semantics and I don't mean to get into a long discussion about this. I hope I am illustrating how wrong this sort of thing is.

Basically, I see collusion as a situation where a player is disadvantaged because he has less information than another player whether it's intentional or not and whether it will affect the outcome of a hand or not. That information could be the truth like the guy having AA or it could be a lie or it could be speculation. Basically, it's information that should not be made available at a certain time in a hand, regarless of how reliable that information is.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
So let's look at OPs situation again or a similar one. Player A bets. Player B says he has AA and raises. Player C now folds. In this case, Player C had information that Player A did not have and this is virtually the same as Player B secretly signally Player C that he has AA. If Player C did not know what Player B had, he might have called giving Player A odds to call now.


[/ QUOTE ]

You meant player "A" right?

[ QUOTE ]
If Player C did not kn know ow what Player B had, he might have called giving Player A odds to call now.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't know what player B has. He knows what player B claims to have, which is meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, I see collusion as a situation where a player is disadvantaged because he has less information than another player whether it's intentional or not and whether it will affect the outcome of a hand or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

They all have the same information. They all know B claims to have Aces. And just because B claimed it after A intially raised (or called) doesn't mean that A has less information than C. An example that no one can argue is wrong: Player A raises, Player B re-raises. Player C now has more information than player A; he knows B has (or claims to have) a strong enough hand to re-raise A with.

[Taso]

Err^Slight mistake in my bolded portion, it was supposed to be "know" not "knknowow" haha.