You are the TD

[Claw75]

I don't think this can be ruled as outright collusion - hard to pin anything on the BB when he hasn't hit, and is out of position.  I'd go with B here.

Sad to hear this sort of stuff is still apparently happening on the women's tour.  I got into a right hoo ha last year when rumours were flying round about similar stuff happening then - seemed like no one was interested in doing anything about it.  A lot of the dealers at Reading seemed to be fairly new to dealing poker, and we had to help them out a bit at times.

[byronkincaid]

The BB appears to be the one soft-playing, so he'd be the one getting a penalty here - hard to pin anything on the button for 'raising more than the table standard'.

i think the exact opposite

[scotty2hatty]

d

[TightEnd]

The BB appears to be the one soft-playing, so he'd be the one getting a penalty here - hard to pin anything on the button for 'raising more than the table standard'.

i think the exact opposite

I did too actually

I saw far more blame with the button than the bb

though really all-in pre was what I would have expected.

[Claw75]

The BB appears to be the one soft-playing, so he'd be the one getting a penalty here - hard to pin anything on the button for 'raising more than the table standard'.

i think the exact opposite

I did too actually

I saw far more blame with the button than the bb

though really all-in pre was what I would have expected.

You are both right of course.  I misread it as the Button having AQ and the BB having KK.  KK guy is the soft player.  I'll edit my post accordingly! 

[ripple11]

OK most of us would push in the AQ....but (in order to try and ladder up and not go out), calling the raise to hit and then checking to see all 5 cards isn't that unusual !!

The button is clearly soft playing and should be punished.....c)

[Claw75]

OK most of us would push in the AQ....but (in order to try and ladder up and not go out), calling the raise to hit and then checking to see all 5 cards isn't that unusual !!

The button is clearly soft playing and should be punished.....c)

I agree - I'd probably have played AQ the same (I know, I know)

[Colchester Kev]

I would take both players into the car park and beat a confession out of them

[AndrewT]

Surely the button could just say 'I thought he was trapping with a 5' - end of discussion.

It's not up to the dealer or TD to tell a player how to play his hand.

Only if it becomes a pattern could you use circumstancial evidence to punish the players - as a one-off you can't, otherwise you leave yourself open to ruling on every hand where two players who knew each other got involved. If one bets the turn and the other folds, are you going to ask to see every hand 'just in case they're colluding'?

[Suited_Jock]

I vote g)

/endthread

[scotty2hatty]

Surely the button could just say 'I thought he was trapping with a 5' - end of discussion.

It's not up to the dealer or TD to tell a player how to play his hand.

Only if it becomes a pattern could you use circumstancial evidence to punish the players - as a one-off you can't, otherwise you leave yourself open to ruling on every hand where two players who knew each other got involved. If one bets the turn and the other folds, are you going to ask to see every hand 'just in case they're colluding'?

I wanted to say something along these lines but couldn't be bothered. Punishing anyone here is wrong imo.

[tikay]

Surely the button could just say 'I thought he was trapping with a 5' - end of discussion.

It's not up to the dealer or TD to tell a player how to play his hand.

Only if it becomes a pattern could you use circumstancial evidence to punish the players - as a one-off you can't, otherwise you leave yourself open to ruling on every hand where two players who knew each other got involved. If one bets the turn and the other folds, are you going to ask to see every hand 'just in case they're colluding'?

The circumstantial evidence is there. It's never, or rarely, going to be proveable (as in a Court of Law) as such.

And if a few innocent players should get pernalised, or just given a "strike one - warning" well no great harm will have been done, & the message will get out. It's becoming endemic, & something has to be done, but it's almost never 100% prove-able. Too bad, shoot a few innocent ones, life will go on. Try to avoid those with theatrical tendancies though.

[AndrewT]

Surely the button could just say 'I thought he was trapping with a 5' - end of discussion.

It's not up to the dealer or TD to tell a player how to play his hand.

Only if it becomes a pattern could you use circumstancial evidence to punish the players - as a one-off you can't, otherwise you leave yourself open to ruling on every hand where two players who knew each other got involved. If one bets the turn and the other folds, are you going to ask to see every hand 'just in case they're colluding'?

The circumstantial evidence is there. It's never, or rarely, going to be proveable (as in a Court of Law) as such.

And if a few innocent players should get pernalised, or just given a "strike one - warning" well no great harm will have been done, & the message will get out. It's becoming endemic, & something has to be done, but it's almost never 100% prove-able. Too bad, shoot a few innocent ones, life will go on. Try to avoid those with theatrical tendancies though.

All that's needed here is a semi-jokey comment from the TD - 'I hope you two aren't always going to check down an overpair, ha ha'. Gets the message across that if there was anything dodgy, and it happens again, it will be noticed.

[tikay]

Surely the button could just say 'I thought he was trapping with a 5' - end of discussion.

It's not up to the dealer or TD to tell a player how to play his hand.

Only if it becomes a pattern could you use circumstancial evidence to punish the players - as a one-off you can't, otherwise you leave yourself open to ruling on every hand where two players who knew each other got involved. If one bets the turn and the other folds, are you going to ask to see every hand 'just in case they're colluding'?

The circumstantial evidence is there. It's never, or rarely, going to be proveable (as in a Court of Law) as such.

And if a few innocent players should get pernalised, or just given a "strike one - warning" well no great harm will have been done, & the message will get out. It's becoming endemic, & something has to be done, but it's almost never 100% prove-able. Too bad, shoot a few innocent ones, life will go on. Try to avoid those with theatrical tendancies though.

All that's needed here is a semi-jokey comment from the TD - 'I hope you two aren't always going to check down an overpair, ha ha'. Gets the message across that if there was anything dodgy, and it happens again, it will be noticed.

Well that would be a good place to start I suppose. Then can we have them shot?

[TheChipPrince]

If they were colluding wouldnt they before the start have agreed  ''any over-raises = fold''?