Heads up agreement?

[TobyG]

[ QUOTE ]
words have many definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they do. There are even a couple types of definitions. I think that ultimately misses the point though. To me, this seems to be a poker corollary to Godwin's Law.
[ QUOTE ]
Finding one definition doesn't preclude others.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't, but it helps to realize where a word comes from when one is going to extrapolate its use to other venues. Collusion has become way overused in poker in senses where it doesn't really apply. The concept of implied collusion has muddied the waters a bit as well.

[TobyG]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is an individual game, not a team sport. The scoring system for poker is money, and oddly enough one of the precepts from macroeconomics can be applied.

Every person will act in his/her own best interests.

When players start a hand with this understanding, and then suddenly two players depart from this understanding, something fundamentally wrong has happened. The original playing conditions have changed. This applies even stronger in a tournament, where not only is the all-in player affected, but every other player in the tournamnent is affected as well.

Lets say Player A flops the nut straight and the players enter an agreement to check it down. Player B, who makes runner runner flush agrees, and player A, who should have been busted, survives. because he does, the next guy busted gets one lower place on the payout. This agreement not only cost the all in player, it also cost a guy at another table, because player A didnt get busted.

There's my .02

[/ QUOTE ]
How is such an offer to check it down any different than any other table talk? Let's say player B when he hits his runner runner suddenly bets out. Can Player A call the floor? What should the penalty be for reneging on the agreement? How is such an agreement much different from chopping agreements when it gets down to a certain number of players in the tournament? Are those not just as fundamentally wrong?

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is an individual game, not a team sport. The scoring system for poker is money, and oddly enough one of the precepts from macroeconomics can be applied.

Every person will act in his/her own best interests.

When players start a hand with this understanding, and then suddenly two players depart from this understanding, something fundamentally wrong has happened. The original playing conditions have changed. This applies even stronger in a tournament, where not only is the all-in player affected, but every other player in the tournamnent is affected as well.

Lets say Player A flops the nut straight and the players enter an agreement to check it down. Player B, who makes runner runner flush agrees, and player A, who should have been busted, survives. because he does, the next guy busted gets one lower place on the payout. This agreement not only cost the all in player, it also cost a guy at another table, because player A didnt get busted.

There's my .02

[/ QUOTE ]

My only quible with this is that this is a microeconomic concpet rather than a macro.

[TobyG]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[...] oddly enough one of the precepts from macroeconomics can be applied.
Every person will act in his/her own best interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only quible with this is that this is a microeconomic concpet rather than a macro.

[/ QUOTE ]
A bigger quibble should be that the invisible hand doesn't apply to poker for most people.