Should this be classed as collusion?

[EvilPie]

I won't bother giving the full hand because all that matters is the river action and the board.

On a board of 

Player A checks to player B who fires 2k.

Player A does a flat call.

Player B turns his cards over 

Player A turns over  for the stone cold nut low.

So if a player checking back the nuts is collusion should calling with the nut low be classed the same?

[thetank]

no

[gatso]

no

[EvilPie]

no

Thanks

[EvilPie]

no

Thanks

[Cf]

I think it much more likely that Player A is just a moron who hasn't realised his pair has been counterfeited. The fact he's shown his hand rather than just mucking suggests he's prob not really with it.

I'd treat this the same as any other potential form of collusion if someone brought it up. (which is a different topic entirely)

[gatso]

no

Thanks

no problem

[Longy]

As Cf said most likely that player A just hasn't read the board correctly.

Technically they are chopping with another 33 and 32, so they don't have the only possible nut low.

[kinboshi]

Matt, you are a tool of the highest order.

[outragous76]

I played live at the empire on Friday

I had KQ

board came A94 A 9

I v' bet the river with K high he called with 2 4

he kept pushing up his hand (well the 4) to identify he was to scoop the pot

ty sir nice call - dealer had to explain why he hadnt won

[NoflopsHomer]

I saw Karl Mahrenholz once bluff at a double paired board (think it was 88774) or sometihng similar with jack high at a GUKPT in Blackpool. Dave Clarke (who won a GUKPT) made the call with 2's or 3's having completely misread his hand.

[George2Loose]

I saw Karl Mahrenholz once bluff at a double paired board (think it was 88774) or sometihng similar with jack high at a GUKPT in Blackpool. Dave Clarke (who won a GUKPT) made the call with 2's or 3's having completely misread his hand.

How can you misread 2's? Surely he mis read the board?