Crazy collusion/rule breaking hand at TI, your ruling??? - Page 2 - Mortar and Brick -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Steve00007 · 04-20-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parlarry

That's not how team poker works.

Why not? BTN and MP1 don't want to take each others money. It looks like they agreed that they were going to go after the other players in the game, but they wouldn't go after each other. Just look at what happened on the flop. MP1 started talking about his hand after the SB went all-in, and the BTN hadn't decided whether to call the bet from the SB yet. The BTN shouldn't have access to that kind of information.

Muck_Faster · 04-20-2012, 08:22 PM

I think a lot of you are missing exactly what is happening here, which is easy because I didn't figure it out until after it happened myself.

SB shoves, MP is telling BUT what his hand is, the pot is NOT heads up even though the action for one of the players is dead and there are only two that can act from here on out.

The main/initial infractions are taking place on the flop but NO ONE says anything until after the 8s hits the turn and both other players called SB's shove since MP had a made hand (two pr or set) and told this to BUT who had a flush draw. Now that the flush hits and more talking happens and a hand (the flush) is shown to deter MP from losing any more money, SB figures out that it is obvious collusion and speaks up - doesn't matter what he has or what he wants to happen.

I spoke with the floor for a while to ask what could have been done in this situation and will tell the ruling and what I was told soon.

Muck_Faster · 04-20-2012, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragon Ash

SB has already shoved and already been called; MP1 and Button are playing for a side pot. If SB has the nut flush whether MP1 calls or not is irrelevant; SB can't win any more money.

Not quite sure what SB is doing here. To maximize his odds of winning the main pot you'd think he would want MP1 to *fold*, not call, although I don't think it matters. If he was on a flush draw and made his flush, he wins if his flush is better than Button, or loses if Button's flush is better - MP1 calling doesn't matter. If he wasn't on a flush draw then he loses to Button's flush anyway.

So why is he suddenly spazzing out? If he was such a stickler for the rules, why didn't he pipe up on the flop when MP1 was going on and on about his hand?

Anyway - hand plays out, MP1 can call or fold (and should probably fold if he can't beat the flush), dealer gets a KITN for not controling the table talk, and the floor gives both players a warning about talking about their hand in multi-way pots....

Shouldn't matter if SB has flush or not as he is obviously being teamed up against here.

As to the promo influence, I know BUT is a tightish Reg who grinds hours and have a feeling that MP is as well. SB is a semi-newish reg guy who I've seen play at TI a bit but not for long hours.

Muck_Faster · 04-20-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionmaw

Weird hand but I don't think there is anything they can do about it.

Once SB shoves all in the action is heads up, and at most rooms the heads up players can do/say/show whatever they want between themselves.

Maybe it's different at TI, but at every other vegas poker room I've played at once the pot is heads up they players can say whatever they want, show their cards, etc.

If SB had a problem he could've thrown a fit about MP talking on the flop, but worst case scenario they tell MP to be quiet and the outcome is still the same.

Once SB shoves the action is still between three players and not heads up.

The MP and BUT player used this argument afterwards saying that they were heads up and can say whatever they want, but at every other vegas poker room I've played at, including TI, the rule that you can say whatever you want is for HEADS UP POTS WHERE ONLY TWO PLAYERS STILL HAVE CARDS.

Muck_Faster · 04-20-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ractar

So, hero is SB. I get it. However, SB has lost all of the money anyway, so having BTN win more from MP1 doesn't really matter. The hand is all but over. SB can't win anything more than what was already in the pot, and BTN hung himself.

In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. The outcome of the hand for the SB is in no way impacted, other than if SB and MP1 are drawing to full houses, in which case SB should be glad to get another possible boat out of the hand.

MP1 isn't injured by action because he now has more information to work with. BTN may have injured himself, but no one else.

Other than being a rule nit, who the fark cares?

If the outcome of the hand is in no way impacted for SB then I should quit poker forever.

No matter what SB has here, his odds improve to win vs one player instead of two, so them sharing exactly what they have (if by saying OTF or showing OTT, influences the chances of SB winning) hurts SB almost always. SB could have a set or two pair and be drawing to a boat or have a lower or higher flush and the other players could have outs for a boat, three handed here this collusion directly affects the equity of SB.

bpb · 04-26-2012, 01:47 PM

If this doesn't qualify as collusion, then I don't know what does.

It's nice of them to do it so openly. It would be a bitch to detect if they were using code words or chip placement to convey hand strength to each other. But it's collusion nonetheless.

poker_triad · 05-29-2012, 04:39 AM

Greatest collusion story from TI in my opinion:

A husband and wife used to play in the room all the time and neither of them speak any English. They constantly speak to each other during hands in their native language, but as everyone is so used to it the regs never complain. Two players limp preflop into a pot, husband raises from middle position, wife calls from the button and two limpers fold. The flop comes out, the husband grabs chips to c-bet then realizes that his wife is the only one who called. He shakes his head laughing, says something to her in their language then open mucks.

At this point seat 8, who was not involved in the hand, loses it and calls for the floor. The floor comes over and tells seat 8, "He's first to act. He can check, bet or fold; he chose to fold." This explanation did not seem to assuage him as he continued on in his anger to the point that the floor had to ban him from the room. I love poker.

ETBrooD · 05-30-2012, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muck_Faster

If the outcome of the hand is in no way impacted for SB then I should quit poker forever.

No matter what SB has here, his odds improve to win vs one player instead of two, so them sharing exactly what they have (if by saying OTF or showing OTT, influences the chances of SB winning) hurts SB almost always. SB could have a set or two pair and be drawing to a boat or have a lower or higher flush and the other players could have outs for a boat, three handed here this collusion directly affects the equity of SB.

EQ doesn't get affected at all.
What might get affected are the odds.
If more players stay in the hand then you get better odds with a set, two pair or something like the nut flush draw. If they're out then you have the same odds every time.
Trust me, EQ doesn't change. It just seems so because we humans often misinterpret math.

edit: Lets see if I can explain that a little further.
EQ doesn't change because all starting hands remain the same. Whether they stay in the hand or not doesn't change your EQ because they were in already. Also their EQ defines your EQ, so neither their EQ changes nor does yours, of course.
What can change are the odds because they will have to put more money in the pot if they stay.

bluechip49 · 05-30-2012, 04:59 PM

It's been over a month now ... how did the TI rule on this?

phaze112 · 05-30-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muck_Faster

If the outcome of the hand is in no way impacted for SB then I should quit poker forever.

No matter what SB has here, his odds improve to win vs one player instead of two, so them sharing exactly what they have (if by saying OTF or showing OTT, influences the chances of SB winning) hurts SB almost always. SB could have a set or two pair and be drawing to a boat or have a lower or higher flush and the other players could have outs for a boat, three handed here this collusion directly affects the equity of SB.

who cares? you can't look at one particular hand and make decisions, what is the floor going to do, walk around and look at all 3 peoples hands, go to his notepad and make equity calculation and decide of what was done affected the outcome? um, no, you fool.

floor makes decisions based on rules and both hands should be killed, the fact that you are making a case based on this one particular outcome shows you clearly do not understand poker, at all.