So I was playing at my local B&M and this hand comes up. I'm on the BTN with AK and have about $70 to my stack (have to run to the ATM to reload essentially so can't buy back in full). MP3 Bets $22, CO Calls $22 and I shove for my final $70. MP3 calls as does the CO. As soon as CO calls my $70 and the money is in the middle, MP3 looks at CO and asks, "do you want to check it down?" CO acknowledges, shakes his head and says OK.

I immediately point this out and say and have the floor come over. Once the situation is explained MP3 is pleading that he wasn't trying to do anything wrong and that he didn't have any bad intent, so on so forth. I ask the floor if this kills MP3's hand at all? The floor rules that that it doesn't and the hand continues as so far played. MP3 got offended that I asked if his hand gets killed but he had suggested checking it down which could influence the action and affect the outcome of the hand and CO agreed to it. So even if he did not have bad intent to collude this was still vebalized and was understood despite any malleable intentions to directly collude. I didn't like this because it was still understood between CO and MP3 to check it down regardless of MP3's intent.

I ended up loosing the hand but later on MP3 was saying I was being rude to him about it, insinuating I was a bad sport, that sort of thing. I don't care what his intent was but he inadvertently influenced the outcome of the hand irregardless of what his intentions were. He didn't understand this? Did the floor rule correctly? Should I be mad at MP3 for the way he acted over this? Were my actions and request to kill their hands in any way over the top and not justified? It still seemed like a very inappropriate partnership even if nobody was blatantly trying to cheat or collude.

The likelihood that the hand would've played out the same way is pretty high, fwiw. Even without any kind of verbal declaration, it seems common to my experience that people in that situation check it down unless they pick up some kind of decent hand. There's no point in getting riled up unless you came in second in the hand and think there was a possibility that the guy who won would've folded to a bet.

I'd say it's pretty unlikely, though, since the other guy with the weaker hand than yours will know that a fold from the winner doesn't actually help him, since he still has to beat you on showdown (unless all three of you had a legitimate chance to win the hand with your holdings...i.e. top pair beaten by two pair beaten by a straight)

Note: my response has nothing to do with the rules here...offhand, I don't know what the rule would say.

Killing villains hand is bad here. In generally, killing hands is bad.

I can definitely see villain receiving a warning as their action could been deemed soft-playing with villain 2 and/or possible collusion. At worst villain get a penalty and has to sit out an orbit or two.

But no, villains hand should not be killed. They should be warned to play their hands regardless of the all-in player and, while checking it down when there is an allin player is common (and -ev generally), verbalizing your intention to check it down, or asking the other player to check it down, is unacceptable.

Right ruling.

Asking to kill their hands was over the top. Never going to happen.

This.

Asking to check it down was every bit as wrong as asking to kill the players hand, IMO.

Alright. Thanks for the clarification. I just felt like since it was proposed to be checked down and then acknowledged by CO, the hand could therefore play differently even if collusion wasn't intentional in this instance. I thought the influence of this agreement might still jeopardize the outcome of the hand and I may be less likely to win had the hand played naturally with no acknowledgments after my money went in. I guess I should have not asked if this would kill MP3's hand who originally suggested checking it down. I ended up loosing with my AKo to CO's KT on a A-T-T-4-K board. MP3 had A4.

The hand should not be killled. But I consider this a very serious matter. While many people think a warning is sufficient .... my feeling is that when the player says this and that he didn't know it was against the rules what he is saying is I think its within the rules for two players to enter into an agreement to act in concert to win the money of a third player. I find that argument so unpersuasive that I believe players should be immediately thrown out of the card room for this.

That being said I don't expect that to happen.

I wouldn't mind if that happened, but I suppose what I would do if I ran a cardroom is make the players sit out an orbit and lecture them about why, unlike in a home game, you can't do this in a casino.

What are the blinds ? If its a 2 5 game and you are there with 70 bucks I don't blame them for wanting to check it down and hoping you lose. Nothing more annoying than pots like this for the other players.

MP3 is ignorant, or an *******, or both. He should have humbly listened to the floor and learned why his action was wrong.

However, I can't really think of a reasonable punishment in this situation. Killing his hand for a first offense is probably too harsh, and not doing anything is not fair to you. Still, probably a warning is probably best if he seems sincere and hasn't shot any angles. But continuing to whine and refusing to understand the rules means that I'd slap him sternly with any subsequent infractions.

This situation reminds me of one of the most memorable hands I have ever played. SS shoves pre, one call and I overcalled with 88. The first caller asked me if I wanted to check it down and I agreed. The SS was obviously upset when I took it down on a Axx8x board. Had there been no agreement I would have folded the flop and the SS would have won with AK vs. AJ. It was my first time in a casino and I wish the SS would have made a big deal about it like you did so I would have understood why he was so upset and I could have learned a valuable lesson my first time playing live.

I also agree with everyone that there is no way anyone is getting their hand killed. These players should receive a stern warning with harsher punishment if it ever happens again. Hopefully they learned why their actions are wrong and they won't do it again.

OP is welcome to ask for his opponent's hand to be killed. OP is welcome to ask the casino to give him the pot right then and there. OP is welcome to ask for a Porsche. He won't get these things, but he can ask.

The ruling was fine. But it sounds like the floor just said "play on" and disappeared. That's not enough. He needs to explain how that arrangement to check it down is collusive. And he could even go further, and hover over the table and tell these two that if they do check it down, both hands will be shown and if one has obviously slow played that player will be sent packing. (The problem with that is defining what "slow play" means; is it slow play to check top pair, or an over pair, or two pair...where's the line?)

It's OK to root for someone to lose, but not OK to actively collude to make it happen, even if the annoying player's sin is as horrible as not leaving when he's almost out of money.

OP, did the floor come before or after the board was shown? Did the player in position not bet his full house after speaking to the floor?

Whether or not the hand will be killed is one question.
Whether the hand should be killed is another.

No to the first. Yes to the second.

I agree with the ruling, but I think you were right to call the floor.