Heads up agreement?

[Magicmanu]

I witnessed an incident recently and would like to hear the opinions from this forum. In a 2/5NL cash game, four palyers at a full table saw the flop. The flop action resulted in two players getting all in, and two players each with a couple of hundred behind. Before the turn, one of the players with money offered to the other player with money to check it down. At that point one of the all in players went ballistic, accusing them of collusion and demanding that their hands be killed.

It seems to me that in a live game for all intents and purposes this was a decision between two heads up players. Moreover, if they really were colluding, they would not want to get to the river.

Any opinions about whether this is permissible or not?

Thanks.

[RR]

This is not acceptable. Of course their hands aren't dead, but with all-in players it is wrong to agree to check it down.

[okietalker]

I play in a "hometown" indian casino and this sort of thing happens all the time.

But, we all know each other very well and have played thousands of hands together.

But, I have done this at Winstar in the 5/10nl game more than once also.

As far as I know it an acceptable practice. Not sure of the actual rules though.

[zunni74]

Does this practice become more acceptable in a tournament play, where 2-3 players check down a hand in an attempt to eliminate another player?

[dizzle98]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this practice become more acceptable in a tournament play, where 2-3 players check down a hand in an attempt to eliminate another player?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's 100% unacceptable in a tournament. assuming as the OP said that they verbally agreed to it.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this practice become more acceptable in a tournament play, where 2-3 players check down a hand in an attempt to eliminate another player?

[/ QUOTE ]

When they just do it (often incorrectly) they are trying to act in their best interest and not making an illegal agreement. If they say "let's check it down to knock this guy out" they are colluding.

[ChuckyB]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this practice become more acceptable in a tournament play, where 2-3 players check down a hand in an attempt to eliminate another player?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's unspoken, it's fine. If someone says anything that indicates "hey, let's check it down and we have a better chance of knocking this guy out" it's wrong.

[LateNiteRush]

I agree that if it's unspoken it's fine. However, talking about it changes everything IMO.

[Magicmanu]

In a tournament, there is often an implicit agreement. I know, however, that to express such an agreement in words in a tournament is absolutely unacceptable.

[Magicmanu]

If instead of getting all in, those two players had folded (after putting in, say, $100), the two remaining players are free -- as heads up live game players -- to check, bet, chop the pot, run the board twice, etcetera.

Assuming the players' good faith, I'm not sure I see the difference or the problem.

And the fact is, colluding players don't want to get to the end; one of the colluders will fold to a river bet in an attampt to keep his hand concealed. (Although I recently played at a riverboat in East Chicago, Indiana, where the rule was that any player, once each dealer shift, could ask to see any hand, no matter when during play the player mucked.)