It took me an hour to calm down !

[Jim R]

It also happened last night in Walsall one player had trips on the flop and his mate had the nut full house it was checked down with the nut full house last to speak, someone must have told the cardroom manager because he came and told all the players should it be seen to be happing again the players would be removed from the game but like you say its very hard to prove.

[tikay]

Did you qualify Jim? (Past winner of this comp, we're not worthy....)

[Decider]

A thought.  Tactically, not knocking out a particular player late on in a tourney could be advantageous.  If you feel there are players at the table that could damage you, it may be worth not knocking out the weak player and giving them a chance to knock out the stronger ones for you.  Giving you a chance to then play heads-up or short-handed against weaker opponents.

In this example it doesn't look anything like this, it looks more like he's trying to sweeten up the ladies, although you never know.

Similar to "The Weakest Link" they always get rid of the weak players at the start to increase the prize money, then near the end they dump the stronger players to get a better chance heads up.

[Royal Flush]

I think we have to be carefull, i was accused of collusion at Bolton. It was last 4 and i made a bet on the river of 3/4 the ss's chips, he moved in and i passed 7 hi.

People on the rail then said we were collouding, funny thing is i had never met or played him before! And infact my friend had just been knocked out!

[RED-DOG]

A thought.  Tactically, not knocking out a particular player late on in a tourney could be advantageous.  If you feel there are players at the table that could damage you, it may be worth not knocking out the weak player and giving them a chance to knock out the stronger ones for you.  Giving you a chance to then play heads-up or short-handed against weaker opponents.

In this example it doesn't look anything like this, it looks more like he's trying to sweeten up the ladies, although you never know.

Similar to "The Weakest Link" they always get rid of the weak players at the start to increase the prize money, then near the end they dump the stronger players to get a better chance heads up.

So you think that by leaving a weaker player in, he could knock out a strong player but he couldn't knock you out?

I wish I had enough ability to to be able to to afford to not to take a player out when I had the chance

I wouldn't do it, I just wish I was that good

[Decider]

Of course it could backfire, and chances are the stronger players would take the player out anyway.  I'm just thinking of possible reasons for not knocking someone out of the game.

[Royal Flush]

i will sometimes keep a player in if taking him out reduces my chance to steal.

If i am last 3 of a MTT say and i have a cl over the 2nd guy and 3rd guy only has a couple of blinds. I do not see the value fo calling the all in. Better to grind down 2nd so when we get hu its a certantity

[RED-DOG]

Of course it could backfire, and chances are the stronger players would take the player out anyway.  I'm just thinking of possible reasons for not knocking someone out of the game.

Yes, and my reply was a bit pedantic, sorry

[12barblues]

Hypothetical situation warning (no resemblance to any situation living or dead in this thread) !

In a bubble situation a big stack may prefer not to knock out a player if it means he can continue to rob blinds / limps with impunity because no-one else is prepared to risk being bubble boy?

[12barblues]

I type too slowly!

[I KNOW IT]

When you are playing for seats(i.e Grand Prix) there are going to be occasions which look like collusion more frequently than a regular tourny where everyone is playing for 1st.
I was watching a qualifier for St Kitts on Bet fair the other night.  3 left with 2 seats available.
1  with 190k
2nd with 50k approx
3rd 45 k approx.

The guy in 1 st position didnt really need to play a hand to get a seat, but he did.
He tried to knock out first the short stack, which doubled up. Then twice the other guy, losing all the coups.
The guy who was a big chip leader was now billy short stack for attempting to KO the 3rd player.
In the end he did manage to claim a seat but it was very doubtful for some time.

I am in no way condoning the specific  incident that ACES found himself in, but in Grand Prix type of qualifing events, the accusation for collusion is not so clear cut forsomeone to call.
If you were in a big chip advantage going into a final,and you had done the hard work on securing your seat, would you want to risk it by continually tackling the short stacks.

Like I said though Im not saying the Southampton guy was right.

[ksollis]

why do some you persist in trying to make  excuses for people who cheat?? the player at walsall last night should have been asked to leave the cardroom for a penalty 15minutes ,i am sure he would think before doing it again..

[I KNOW IT]

why do some you persist in trying to make  excuses for people who cheat?? the player at walsall last night should have been asked to leave the cardroom for a penalty 15minutes ,i am sure he would think before doing it again..

I am in no way makingut if its true whats  excuses for anyone, I wasnt at Walsall last night so I cant comment,
 try re reading my post , what I said was, there isnt always a clear cut case of collusion in these type of events. The whole way you play these type of tournys is different to a regular tourny. That is what im trying to say, not condone cheating.

Or maybe you were not re ferring to me.

[ksollis]

i know,i can,t see your point ..what if it is a clear cut case like last night, what then.

[Dani Versace]

i cant comment on this incident as i wasnt on last night. i have to work though the weekend.

in definate cases of chip passing the players involve should be from the competition, as I KNOW IT said its still very difficult to prove.