it's obviously a -EV situation for the 2p2'er you refer to, but part of live poker is keeping the game fun and the atmosphere ripe for gambling. i think anyone who plays live poker, will frequently find people who have an unspoken "check it down" policy. most of those players are just recreational fish, obv, but you will find some players who take the game seriously doing that too sometimes.

you ask "is it ok for a serious poker player to softplay?" i think it is not great for the game in general, but is an accepted practice in live poker. not sure why you have a bee in your bonnet over this situation....

Collusion is collusion.

This isn't a tournament, so you'll have to be clear how this is collusion. If they play normally before it is HU, how is it?

Collusion is two or more players acting with a secret, common strategy. Some common forms of collusion are: soft play, that is, failing to bet or raise in a situation that would normally merit it...

The signs are easy to read. If you see 2 players at the same table constantly and never see them bump heads in a hand, or lose money or chips to one another, this is one big sign to watch for

Even if the arrange is to play normal until HU, it cheats the other eight on the table because they do not know the arrangement and might have called otherwise. Played at a cash table where JJ and AA got heads up preflop, then agreed to check it down. Both got a warning for collusion.

And if it is known that they won't play hard against each other heads up? This subject has come up many times, often for husbands and wives in the same games. To start, would you prefer they played "normal" against each other and chopped up the differences from their HU hands in the parting lot later?

I actually agree that this isn't a good policy in general. OTOH, Jeff_B nailed it in the first reply. Poker is a social game. It doesn't require that everyone try as hard as they can. You can play cards to have fun.
The fish doesn't play for the same reasons you do. You have to wonder about your own entitlement issues that you must A) be a favorite to win B) everyone there must play exactly like you want them to and C) they all must realize you're the best/strongest/smartest. Some people come to play cards to have a good time, and some of those people can buy all of the rest of us out of their petty cash drawer.

Cheating is bad. If these guys have a cheating agreement, it is horrible. However, all the "must be a serious player" stuff is garbage. The games would suck if every single person in the room played to maximize profit. Your OP would be much more effective if you started with "these guys cheat in my game and here's how" rather than distract the issue claiming to be some sort of poker samurai.

A and B and you are in a pot.

You know that when A and B are in a pot together, A widens his betting range a lot and B widens his calling range a lot.

They are both deviating significantly from optimal strategy.

This is a problem?

Limon talked about this stuff in his Deuce Plays segments with Bart. He said it way better than I can, and you can find the Limon episodes on iTunes.

I'd prefer people were playing straight up. It does change the game and you have to adjust. However, this is way better than people you don't know are in it together. If everyone knows A & B are playing this way, we all get to adjust if we are skilled enough to do so. My 0.02 and I could be wrong, if you and a buddy sneak into the game in secret and softplay, you're cheating. If these two guys always check down HU, it is slightly bad but it isn't cheating. The good player is dropping tons of EV, potentially for the good of the overall game.

It is part of the reality of live poker. Again, the whole reason I posted was because our OP was throwing a fit, and I think he's more wrong than the guy he's complaining about.

Sure.


And are a million other variance reducing tactics that live players employ, including cross-booking, selling pieces of themselves, staking agreements, running the board multiple times, selling insurance, etc.


It's part of the game.


I sleep better at night simply accepting it.

Where did I say anything about Players A and B checking it down?

If the pot is 3 ways, and one of the softplayers bets the flop,
the other 'buddy' softplayer can call, and mitigate his risk on the turn and river, and know he won't have to call any more bets if it gets HU. therefore he can more easily recover his equity out of the pot, when, in the same situation you are forced to abandon it, because they will keep betting into you, but not each other. they are in fact co-operating (knowingly or otherwise) in order to lend e.o. an unfair advantage.
you don't have the luxury of having your risk later in the hand get mitigated, even though you may have the same hand as them (ie. weak draw, middle pair hands), you can't just call the flop, and have a fixed price to be guaranteed a showdown.
would'nt you call that an unfair advantage??
even of they don't intend to gain an unfair advantage, the end result is the same.
what do you call gaining an unfair advantage again??

confirmed.

Again, refer to my scenario above. Are you saying that A and B have an advantage?

Because if they do, then any two loose players have an advantage over you.

If the second player calls with too wide a range (for whatever reason), how can that not be to your advantage?

Perhaps I picked the wrong quote.

I was simply adding to the "liveplayaments, lol - get used to it" side of things.

It may be - EV in poker, but possibly + EV in life.

Is the millionaire backing the player? This would make sense why he never plays pots with the guy and why he is cagey about the reasons for this.