|
Title: collusion ? Post by: peskie on July 13, 2010, 08:13:14 PM ok so we play a tournament and we are down to the final table bubble, in one particular hand the flop comes down 8c 9d Ts, 3 way pot, the 1st guy bets out the 2nd calls and the 3rd guy folds, the turn is 3s it goes check check, the river is 4h, 1st guy checks 2nd guy chescks and they are on the backs 1st guy has 9-4 off suit, but the 2nd guy ( last to act ) shows j-Q ! the stone cold nuts!!!
Bemused by this , i actually say that if you have the nuts in the casino we played in, and dont bet out , being last to act it is deemed as collusion, ie cheating, to which the 2nd guy says but he is my mate , i dont want to take his chips!!!! now forgive my ignorance, but surely that is black and white and is collusion, disgusted that the dealer doesnt seem to know his right hand from his left, when i get knocked out ( bubbling) i say that i dont like what has happened , and only then do the staff do anything and remove the player for a full spin of the table. What is your take on this , and what shoud happen ? Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: kinboshi on July 13, 2010, 08:18:26 PM Where did this take place?
If the last person to act has the stone-cold nuts on the river then they have to bet. If you want a ruling you should immediately get the floor called over - it's not for the dealer to make the ruling. Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: swinebag22 on July 13, 2010, 09:23:29 PM Had a similar incident at CBMPT Leeds.
board ran out 5 9 9 9 9 or something like that. Guy bets and oppo calls tabling A7 for the SCN. Original bettor had K kicker and lost but kicked off when he saw oppos hand and asked for a ruling insisting that he was not allowed to call. Guy with A7 ran through a load of excuses..... "how can it be soft playing...I've never met you in my life" "I thought it was a split pot so just called" and after prompting from his mates on the rail.... "yes thats right, I just called so I could see your hand" TD was called and felt that nothing wrong had gone on (probably because A7 guy seemed such a dumbass) but original bettor was a bit peeved that he was made to show his hand... This does seem a bit different from the OPs example but wondered what the ruling / penalty was for 1. blatant soft playing 2. collusion 3. not betting the nuts (for whatever reason) 4. combinations of the above 3 Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: peskie on July 13, 2010, 10:45:26 PM the incident took place in Birmingham, but i was just gobsmacked at the reaction of the 2nd guy saying that it was his mate and didn't want his chips!
Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: Moskvich on July 14, 2010, 12:53:42 AM Had a similar incident at CBMPT Leeds. board ran out 5 9 9 9 9 or something like that. Guy bets and oppo calls tabling A7 for the SCN. Original bettor had K kicker and lost but kicked off when he saw oppos hand and asked for a ruling insisting that he was not allowed to call. What did he want him to do...? Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: Cf on July 14, 2010, 01:13:38 AM Had a similar incident at CBMPT Leeds. board ran out 5 9 9 9 9 or something like that. Guy bets and oppo calls tabling A7 for the SCN. Original bettor had K kicker and lost but kicked off when he saw oppos hand and asked for a ruling insisting that he was not allowed to call. What did he want him to do...? Raise? He has the nuts.. Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: Honeybadger on July 14, 2010, 05:14:15 AM The rule that prohibits checking the nuts on the river last to act is a silly and illogical rule. Checking the nuts on the river does not have to be collusion. I explained it in this thread: http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=47604.30
Looking at it from a different angle, I can see why you were annoyed by what happened; especially as you bubbled, and especially as the guy was clearly checking so as not to take chips from his friend. So it was collusion by the letter of the law. However, it's not like it was some master plan by the two of them to fleece the table through their cunning underhand ways. It really was just one mate not wanting to take chips off another mate. Nothing sinister. Now obviously those who take poker real serious will still be outraged by this since it definitely breaks the rules. But the two guys involved in this 'collusion' almost certainly don't take poker too seriously, are just playing for a laugh with the lads, and will be totally confused and bemused if they get into trouble. The question is, would you sooner guys like this continued to come play in your tourney, or would you prefer to drive them away? If you drive them away then everything will be done properly, with no grey areas and the rules rigorously enforced and followed to the letter. But you'll find that your games are not as fun (or profitable) any more since the only players who are left will be those who take poker oh so seriously. And they will all be wearing ipods. 'Serious' poker players would be doing themselves and everyone else a favour if they stopped pulling up beginners/recreational players on technicalities such as string betting, supposed collusion etc. If the offender knows exactly what he is doing and is doing it deliberately to gain an advantage, then fine - call the floor. Otherwise, let it go. Stop driving the recreational players away by being a stickler for the rules! Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: railtard1 on July 14, 2010, 06:14:21 AM agree about pulling up people on technicalites (like i dont wana be pulled up on my spelling on this at 6am), but i think this is more than a small infringement. I think checking the nuts in position is inexcuseable and simply cant be justified! It should be a common rule with a common penalty!
Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: boldie on July 14, 2010, 07:58:32 AM Of course it's collusion..but you should have said something at the time rather than when having just bubbled. If the dealer doesn't act, call over the TD.
Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: GreekStein on July 14, 2010, 11:46:04 AM Once a guy at Gala Notts passed Aces when his mate moved all in on the final table. The dealer saw the mucked hand and the players were ejected from the tournament iirc. That's blatant collusion and cheating.
However, this instance, whilst technically it can be classed as collusion I might act with a bit of leniency as long as these guys aren't regs, which is seems they probably aren't (-prob just new players just don't know any better). The TD should take them aside and warn them of why what they are doing is wrong and then monitor their play but you don't want to be overly harsh and scare new players away from the game. By responding 'I didn't want my mates chips' it seems like the guy genuinely didn't know what he was doing was wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have responded that way! Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: EvilPie on July 14, 2010, 12:26:42 PM Once a guy at Gala Notts passed Aces when his mate moved all in on the final table. The dealer saw the mucked hand and the players were ejected from the tournament iirc. That's blatant collusion and cheating. However, this instance, whilst technically it can be classed as collusion I might act with a bit of leniency as long as these guys aren't regs, which is seems they probably aren't (-prob just new players just don't know any better). The TD should take them aside and warn them of why what they are doing is wrong and then monitor their play but you don't want to be overly harsh and scare new players away from the game. By responding 'I didn't want my mates chips' it seems like the guy genuinely didn't know what he was doing was wrong, otherwise he wouldn't have responded that way! Blimey.... Who switched your brain on this morning? Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: gatso on July 14, 2010, 02:36:20 PM someone needs to give the guy a good talking to and explain how awesome it is winning chips from your mates
then hopefully the next time you see him he'll have gone from calling the river with the nuts to spite calling 23o pf Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: Moskvich on July 14, 2010, 04:11:00 PM Had a similar incident at CBMPT Leeds. board ran out 5 9 9 9 9 or something like that. Guy bets and oppo calls tabling A7 for the SCN. Original bettor had K kicker and lost but kicked off when he saw oppos hand and asked for a ruling insisting that he was not allowed to call. What did he want him to do...? Raise? He has the nuts.. Yes I see that... My point was that K-high guy doesn't really want him to raise here, as that gives him a problem. So the call from the guy with the nuts is the best result for him. He's only saying he wanted him to raise in hindsight, because he's thinking that he might now be able to angle-shoot his way to the pot or get the other guy a penalty. If someone else at the table had complained then they would have much more of a case, since unlike K-high guy they can actually claim to have been disadvantaged by the call with the nuts. Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: Cf on July 14, 2010, 04:16:30 PM Had a similar incident at CBMPT Leeds. board ran out 5 9 9 9 9 or something like that. Guy bets and oppo calls tabling A7 for the SCN. Original bettor had K kicker and lost but kicked off when he saw oppos hand and asked for a ruling insisting that he was not allowed to call. What did he want him to do...? Raise? He has the nuts.. Yes I see that... My point was that K-high guy doesn't really want him to raise here, as that gives him a problem. So the call from the guy with the nuts is the best result for him. He's only saying he wanted him to raise in hindsight, because he's thinking that he might now be able to angle-shoot his way to the pot or get the other guy a penalty. If someone else at the table had complained then they would have much more of a case, since unlike K-high guy they can actually claim to have been disadvantaged by the call with the nuts. Ah, I see what you mean. Guess unless you have a lot of history with villain though that it's an easy fold if you get raised. Is a bit odd that you'd bring this up having lost the pot in this manner. Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: The Dundonian on July 17, 2010, 04:50:17 PM The rule that prohibits checking the nuts on the river last to act is a silly and illogical rule. Checking the nuts on the river does not have to be collusion. I explained it in this thread: http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=47604.30 Looking at it from a different angle, I can see why you were annoyed by what happened; especially as you bubbled, and especially as the guy was clearly checking so as not to take chips from his friend. So it was collusion by the letter of the law. However, it's not like it was some master plan by the two of them to fleece the table through their cunning underhand ways. It really was just one mate not wanting to take chips off another mate. Nothing sinister. Now obviously those who take poker real serious will still be outraged by this since it definitely breaks the rules. But the two guys involved in this 'collusion' almost certainly don't take poker too seriously, are just playing for a laugh with the lads, and will be totally confused and bemused if they get into trouble. The question is, would you sooner guys like this continued to come play in your tourney, or would you prefer to drive them away? If you drive them away then everything will be done properly, with no grey areas and the rules rigorously enforced and followed to the letter. But you'll find that your games are not as fun (or profitable) any more since the only players who are left will be those who take poker oh so seriously. And they will all be wearing ipods. 'Serious' poker players would be doing themselves and everyone else a favour if they stopped pulling up beginners/recreational players on technicalities such as string betting, supposed collusion etc. If the offender knows exactly what he is doing and is doing it deliberately to gain an advantage, then fine - call the floor. Otherwise, let it go. Stop driving the recreational players away by being a stickler for the rules! What a fantastic post!! Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: geordieneil on July 18, 2010, 11:57:11 AM The rule that prohibits checking the nuts on the river last to act is a silly and illogical rule. Checking the nuts on the river does not have to be collusion. I explained it in this thread: http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=47604.30 Looking at it from a different angle, I can see why you were annoyed by what happened; especially as you bubbled, and especially as the guy was clearly checking so as not to take chips from his friend. So it was collusion by the letter of the law. However, it's not like it was some master plan by the two of them to fleece the table through their cunning underhand ways. It really was just one mate not wanting to take chips off another mate. Nothing sinister. Now obviously those who take poker real serious will still be outraged by this since it definitely breaks the rules. But the two guys involved in this 'collusion' almost certainly don't take poker too seriously, are just playing for a laugh with the lads, and will be totally confused and bemused if they get into trouble. The question is, would you sooner guys like this continued to come play in your tourney, or would you prefer to drive them away? If you drive them away then everything will be done properly, with no grey areas and the rules rigorously enforced and followed to the letter. But you'll find that your games are not as fun (or profitable) any more since the only players who are left will be those who take poker oh so seriously. And they will all be wearing ipods. 'Serious' poker players would be doing themselves and everyone else a favour if they stopped pulling up beginners/recreational players on technicalities such as string betting, supposed collusion etc. If the offender knows exactly what he is doing and is doing it deliberately to gain an advantage, then fine - call the floor. Otherwise, let it go. Stop driving the recreational players away by being a stickler for the rules! poker/ipods seriously, should not be allowed in the same sentence. these are the ones i don't take seriously, ipod with sunglasses if he's got a hoodie and a full tilt cap too, bingo the full set and i found my fish ;) Title: Re: collusion ? Post by: pleno1 on July 18, 2010, 03:46:09 PM The rule that prohibits checking the nuts on the river last to act is a silly and illogical rule. Checking the nuts on the river does not have to be collusion. I explained it in this thread: http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=47604.30 Looking at it from a different angle, I can see why you were annoyed by what happened; especially as you bubbled, and especially as the guy was clearly checking so as not to take chips from his friend. So it was collusion by the letter of the law. However, it's not like it was some master plan by the two of them to fleece the table through their cunning underhand ways. It really was just one mate not wanting to take chips off another mate. Nothing sinister. Now obviously those who take poker real serious will still be outraged by this since it definitely breaks the rules. But the two guys involved in this 'collusion' almost certainly don't take poker too seriously, are just playing for a laugh with the lads, and will be totally confused and bemused if they get into trouble. The question is, would you sooner guys like this continued to come play in your tourney, or would you prefer to drive them away? If you drive them away then everything will be done properly, with no grey areas and the rules rigorously enforced and followed to the letter. But you'll find that your games are not as fun (or profitable) any more since the only players who are left will be those who take poker oh so seriously. And they will all be wearing ipods. 'Serious' poker players would be doing themselves and everyone else a favour if they stopped pulling up beginners/recreational players on technicalities such as string betting, supposed collusion etc. If the offender knows exactly what he is doing and is doing it deliberately to gain an advantage, then fine - call the floor. Otherwise, let it go. Stop driving the recreational players away by being a stickler for the rules! poker/ipods seriously, should not be allowed in the same sentence. these are the ones i don't take seriously, ipod with sunglasses if he's got a hoodie and a full tilt cap too, bingo the full set and i found my fish ;) I'd take 4 lads in full tilt hoodies over any 4 people over 50 in a tournament. |