Collusion in poker - can it actually acomplish anything?

[SplawnDarts]

I've noticed a continual gripe of internet players is the possibility of collusion. I've also heard occasional gripes about it in B&M joints.

However, I've never heard anyone propose a poker scenario where collusion is particularly +EV to the net bankroll of those doing it when compared to the oportunity cost of forgoing other legal (and usually simpler) strategies that could be applied in the same scenario. Anyone got any concrete examples?

The best I can think of is two colluding players with a victim between them repeatedly re-raising eachother when one of them signals they have the draw-proof (or nearly so) nuts. You might get a bet a session on average that way???

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed a continual gripe of internet players is the possibility of collusion. I've also heard occasional gripes about it in B&M joints.

However, I've never heard anyone propose a poker scenario where collusion is particularly +EV to the net bankroll of those doing it when compared to the oportunity cost of forgoing other legal (and usually simpler) strategies that could be applied in the same scenario. Anyone got any concrete examples?

The best I can think of is two colluding players with a victim between them repeatedly re-raising eachother when one of them signals they have the draw-proof (or nearly so) nuts. You might get a bet a session on average that way???

[/ QUOTE ]

It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]


It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, are you responding to the right post? I didn't ask if there existed a game such that collusion (either explicit or implicit) was possible. I will glady stipulate such a game might exist. I can also provide examples of hypothetical games where collusion of any kind is 100% impossible. The question is which catagory poker falls in.

It would seem to me that the only way to prove it is in the "collusion possible" camp would be to provide a clear example.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It does not require any communication. The following situation is possible. It is possible that two players B and C have never met each other, and don't act in concert in any way, but simply play their own strategies, with it having the effect that no matter how well player A plays, he is in a negative EV situation, even if player A is fully aware the strategies of players B and C, and is a perfect game theorist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, are you responding to the right post? I didn't ask if there existed a game such that collusion (either explicit or implicit) was possible. I will glady stipulate such a game might exist. I can also provide examples of hypothetical games where collusion of any kind is 100% impossible. The question is which catagory poker falls in.

It would seem to me that the only way to prove it is in the "collusion possible" camp would be to provide a clear example.

[/ QUOTE ]

See The Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman for an example, though examples have been known for a long time.

[Gullanian]

If you know 2 more cards out of the deck, then you can know if your chances of making a hand are reduced or increased.

Say you have 2Q's, and you buddy has 2Q's, and it flops AKx then you wont want to hang on waiting for your next Q.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
If you know 2 more cards out of the deck, then you can know if your chances of making a hand are reduced or increased.

Say you have 2Q's, and you buddy has 2Q's, and it flops AKx then you wont want to hang on waiting for your next Q.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I can see that giving you a tiny but real edge. I would be very surprised if it turned a losing player into a winner though.

Perhaps I should re-focus this discussion: I play a lot of live heads-up NL against donks, but have the problem that my action dries up too easily after a couple of games. One proposition I use to try to get more action is that I'll play them 3-handed, with them controlling 2 of the hands, and free to look at both hands before taking any action. Almost inevitably I find they play WORSE in that situation than they would if they just cloned their donk self and played both hands independently. In fact, the only guy to make use of the proposition to his advantage played his regular "A" game except he folded out dominated hands preflop. Which I suppose is actually a good use of collusion, now that I think about it.

But anways, if I offered you that proposition (ignoring the implied criticism of your game), what changes would you adopt to your single-handed "A" game to beat me senseless?

[lsaw2]

can you choose which of the two hands you play or do you play both?

I often play HU with my mates, deal 2 hands to each of us, you each fold 1 hand face up. Gets interesting when he folds something strong because he could be bluffing or could have 2 awesome hands!

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
can you choose which of the two hands you play or do you play both?

I often play HU with my mates, deal 2 hands to each of us, you each fold 1 hand face up. Gets interesting when he folds something strong because he could be bluffing or could have 2 awesome hands!

[/ QUOTE ]

I should be a little more clear - it's exactly like 3-handed freezout NLTH (ie. seperate stacks and the other guy buys in for twice what I do) and he simply plays boths seats. The only oddity is that he can looks at both sets of cards before having to make any decisions for either of them. In other words, he's free to "collude" with himself.

I use this because many donks think collusion is a very strong advantage, and so are willing to take it even after a bad beating in regular heads-up.

[ChipFerFree]

Ok this one is was not online but it surely was true and allegedly semi-unintentional.

Player A and B agreed beforehand to split winnings should either win -- that in and of itself is probably cheating in my opinion

30 person tourny
200 buyin
payout to 4
5 people left


Player A chip dumps to Player B because he is 'tired' -- clearly a despicable and collusive act.

Since Player A and B were not short stacked in this situation -- Player B is now a monster and wins the entire tourny...

That's cheating and I'll bet you it has happened many many times.

Now online -- you can't really pull this off as easily since the sites are actively looking for similar IP address originations and the same players landing in the same games repeatedly -- but again I bet it has and does happen...

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok this one is was not online but it surely was true and allegedly semi-unintentional.

Player A and B agreed beforehand to split winnings should either win -- that in and of itself is probably cheating in my opinion

30 person tourny
200 buyin
payout to 4
5 people left


Player A chip dumps to Player B because he is 'tired' -- clearly a despicable and collusive act.

Since Player A and B were not short stacked in this situation -- Player B is now a monster and wins the entire tourny...

That's cheating and I'll bet you it has happened many many times.

Now online -- you can't really pull this off as easily since the sites are actively looking for similar IP address originations and the same players landing in the same games repeatedly -- but again I bet it has and does happen...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now hold on - it's not at all clear that one player with 2x chips has a higher tourney EV than 2 players with 1x chips. In fact, the conventional valuation of chips in a tournament says that the exact opposite is true (ie. chips on the bottom of the stack are more valuable than those on top). It strikes me that perhaps you're complaining about results rather than expectations.