You are the TD

[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'?

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.

Tikay, your post is almost all nonsence. Obviously something has to be done but you simply cannot think it will be fine to punish innocent people on a hunch.
A word in the ear, or announcement, in any such instance should be a starting point.

[kinboshi]

Move the short stack to the car park.

[Claw75]

Obviously something has to be done but you simply cannot think it will be fine to punish innocent people on a hunch.
A word in the ear, or announcement, in any such instance should be a starting point.

Agree as far as the BB is concerned here - if I got punished for playing the hand as played I'd not be happy.  Certainly enough evidence to give the button a warning though imo.

[scotty2hatty]

Certainly enough evidence to give the button a warning though imo.

I really don't think there is nearly enough evidence to merit a warning in the example provided.

[Snatiramas]

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'?

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.

Tikay, your post is almost all nonsence. Obviously something has to be done but you simply cannot think it will be fine to punish innocent people on a hunch.
A word in the ear, or announcement, in any such instance should be a starting point.

Sorry I find myself agreeing with Attilla the Tikay on this one. The only way to stamp it out is to punish both. If the big blind hasn't tried to steal he should be shot anyway for a lack of spine. I have on occassion checked three times to get induce the bluff on the river.....does that make me guilty. If they were colluding why would they both show. The guy with the kings would show and the other guy would throw their hand in the muck

[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'?

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.

Tikay, your post is almost all nonsence. Obviously something has to be done but you simply cannot think it will be fine to punish innocent people on a hunch.
A word in the ear, or announcement, in any such instance should be a starting point.

Sorry I find myself agreeing with Attilla the Tikay on this one. The only way to stamp it out is to punish both. If the big blind hasn't tried to steal he should be shot anyway for a lack of spine. I have on occassion checked three times to get induce the bluff on the river.....does that make me guilty. If they were colluding why would they both show. The guy with the kings would show and the other guy would throw their hand in the muck

Am I missing something or have you agreed with both sides in your post?

[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'?

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.

Tikay, your post is almost all nonsence. Obviously something has to be done but you simply cannot think it will be fine to punish innocent people on a hunch.
A word in the ear, or announcement, in any such instance should be a starting point.

Well, it may be nonsense in your opinion, but I'm not sure that just because we think different makes my view "nonsense".

As I already said, in reply to the noble Lord Andrew, yes, a word in their ear for starters is fine.

But the fact that it's a difficult thing to prove has been the excuse behind which poker has hidden for far too long, & it's become almost accepted now. We may live in a wet society, but if we don't tackle this firmly, now, this cancer on Tourney Poker will come to be part of the game. The players who were (allegedly, reportedly) doing it in Reading last weekend never even knew it was wrong.....!

If a few innocents along the way get a slap round the chops in curing this, well too bad. It may be nonsense in your opinion, fine, but I see this happening almost every night. It's a bad bad thing, & it has to be tackled.

Irrespective of your views on how this hand was played, (always a subjective thing) how would you deal with the rampant collusion that is polluting the Live Game these days?

[Snatiramas]

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'?

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.

Tikay, your post is almost all nonsence. Obviously something has to be done but you simply cannot think it will be fine to punish innocent people on a hunch.
A word in the ear, or announcement, in any such instance should be a starting point.

Sorry I find myself agreeing with Attilla the Tikay on this one. The only way to stamp it out is to punish both. If the big blind hasn't tried to steal he should be shot anyway for a lack of spine. I have on occassion checked three times to get induce the bluff on the river.....does that make me guilty. If they were colluding why would they both show. The guy with the kings would show and the other guy would throw their hand in the muck

Am I missing something or have you agreed with both sides in your post?

A career in politics awaits

[scotty2hatty]

Well, it may be nonsense in your opinion, but I'm not sure that just because we think different makes my view "nonsense".

As I already said, in reply to the noble Lord Andrew, yes, a word in their ear for starters is fine.

But the fact that it's a difficult thing to prove has been the excuse behind which poker has hidden for far too long, & it's become almost accepted now. We may live in a wet society, but if we don't tackle this firmly, now, this cancer on Tourney Poker will come to be part of the game. The players who were (allegedly, reportedly) doing it in Reading last weekend never even knew it was wrong.....!

If a few innocents along the way get a slap round the chops in curing this, well too bad. It may be nonsense in your opinion, fine, but I see this happening almost every night. It's a bad bad thing, & it has to be tackled.

Irrespective of your views on how this hand was played, (always a subjective thing) how would you deal with the rampant collusion that is polluting the Live Game these days?

My apologies, the use of the word "nonsense" was wrong here.

I don't play a massive amount of live poker, perhaps 3 or 4 times a month, and tbh I'm not totally sure of the course of action that should be taken. I've not noticed this type of collusion in my local cardroom but if I ever spot collusion I point it out sharpish.

I don't suppose announcements at the start of the tournaments with warnings (as well as asking other players to be vigilant) would suffice really?

[tikay]

Well, it may be nonsense in your opinion, but I'm not sure that just because we think different makes my view "nonsense".

As I already said, in reply to the noble Lord Andrew, yes, a word in their ear for starters is fine.

But the fact that it's a difficult thing to prove has been the excuse behind which poker has hidden for far too long, & it's become almost accepted now. We may live in a wet society, but if we don't tackle this firmly, now, this cancer on Tourney Poker will come to be part of the game. The players who were (allegedly, reportedly) doing it in Reading last weekend never even knew it was wrong.....!

If a few innocents along the way get a slap round the chops in curing this, well too bad. It may be nonsense in your opinion, fine, but I see this happening almost every night. It's a bad bad thing, & it has to be tackled.

Irrespective of your views on how this hand was played, (always a subjective thing) how would you deal with the rampant collusion that is polluting the Live Game these days?

My apologies, the use of the word "nonsense" was wrong here.

I don't play a massive amount of live poker, perhaps 3 or 4 times a month, and tbh I'm not totally sure of the course of action that should be taken. I've not noticed this type of collusion in my local cardroom but if I ever spot collusion I point it out sharpish.

I don't suppose announcements at the start of the tournaments with warnings (as well as asking other players to be vigilant) would suffice really?

Thanks fella, we are just chewing the cud here

I quite like your final sentence.

I play a good deal of Live Poker, & I see a lot of soft play / same viillage / collusion / cheating. We have to stop it.

[phatomch]

i may have read op wrong and  i have'nt read the restof thread but beetween these 2 players they have half the chips in play, they both then put %25 of there stack on the line (the loser will then be under avrg) then slow play..

If they are colluding why would they call each other in the first place, and why would you ship %25 of your stack to someone and then slow play it, I put this down to just cagey play nothing else.

[tikay]

i may have read op wrong and  i have'nt read the restof thread but beetween these 2 players they have half the chips in play, they both then put %25 of there stack on the line (the loser will then be under avrg) then slow play..

If they are colluding why would they call each other in the first place, and why would you ship %25 of your stack to someone and then slow play it, I put this down to just cagey play nothing else.

And what exactly do you know about being a TD?

Oops - just remembered who you are. Or were......

[tikay]

i may have read op wrong and  i have'nt read the restof thread but beetween these 2 players they have half the chips in play, they both then put %25 of there stack on the line (the loser will then be under avrg) then slow play..

If they are colluding why would they call each other in the first place, and why would you ship %25 of your stack to someone and then slow play it, I put this down to just cagey play nothing else.

I hear you, but it's soft play. Someone has to go broke on this hand, or at least make a play at it down the streets.

I can't imagine any reason why some sort of Flop Bet was not made, if not by A-Q man, then certainly by K-K man, & that assumes the pre-flop play was "correct".

[Claw75]

I can't imagine any reason why some sort of Flop Bet was not made, if not by A-Q man, then certainly by K-K man, & that assumes the pre-flop play was "correct".

but now we're getting in to the realms of punishing people for not playing a hand 'well'.  We all play hands badly from time to time.......

[Jon MW]

I can't imagine any reason why some sort of Flop Bet was not made, if not by A-Q man, then certainly by K-K man, & that assumes the pre-flop play was "correct".

but now we're getting in to the realms of punishing people for not playing a hand 'well'.  We all play hands badly from time to time.......

I agree, I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest they're working together, so option (b) would be the most appropriate and having done that you certainly would expect not see the problem again between them.