The actions by the two other players in the hand are collusion, no ifs ands or buts about it. What is debatable is whether the collusion is intentional or not. In a 1/2 game it's highly likely the players involved had no clue how their behavior is wrong and collusion. You had every right to call the floor over.

If I were the floor I would have given you the option of taking your bet back and letting the two other players play the hand. Killing the hand their doesn't make sense.

MP3 was def out of line to verbalize checking it down intent. Good for you actually, though, to raise cain about it. Even though you didn't get his hand killed (and rightfully so, imo), he'll think long an hard about your collusion accusation and will hopefully refrain from this in the future.

After losing your your case, though, you might turn to CO and say "Look, only weak drawing hands look for a check-down, are you going to let him draw for free?" OPTAH violation of course, but it might stir CO to make a bet, just so it doesn't look like he's colluding.

Its just a reflection of how little the average $1-2 player understands about the game. Ive had this happen a couple times at my game, and its always just between casual players. It isnt malicious, its just $1-2 players being clueless.

Anyway Tyler, havent seen you in ages but I think you still get my texts. The games here have been ridiculous of late... there was an 5 way all in preflop a couple weeks ago where the best hand going in was K high, in a $700 pot. Couple of sick action players just set the game on fire.

Hope you run better man, dont let the clueless donks tilt you :-)

Player(s) receive warning. Repeat offenses would cause player to be asked to leave for the day. Hand never dead.

I called the floor almost immediately after MP3 suggested checking it down and CO acknowledged to him that it was ok. I asked if the statements killed anyone's hands and the floor said no and the hand played out as it would as if nothing had been stated at all. The board cam out A-T-T on the flop. And there was no betting at all. The turn came a 4, again no betting. Then the river came a King. And MP3 checked and CO bet all-in. Obviously I lost.

I did have more money for whatever it is worth but not on the table and not in my pocket. I won this trip and wanted to book a win so I had deposited most of it and was playing with the rest I was willing to loose. Therefore my last 70 bucks to play with was on the table. Otherwise I may have had a full stack.

This is plain old 1/2 NLHE.

First such an agreement (while clearly cheating) is much worse before they call than it is after. In other words I'm much more worried about V2 saying to V1 "If I call will you check it down" or even worse V1 & V2 agreeing before they come to the table that if the situation arises they'll call and check it down. The likelihood that V2 is going to raise V1 out of the pot while V1 has a hand that beats you but V2 does not is remote at best.

Second the fact that they'd come right out and say this at the table indicates to me that they don't think this is cheating. The floor NEEDS to inform them of how wrong they are. Unless they're regs who really should know better or they've been warned before I'd go with something like "It is completely unacceptable to make or offer a deal to check it down with any other players chips in the pot and if I hear it again you're done for the night". If they are regs or have been warned in the past then "You know you cannot make a deal to check it down with other players chips in the pot. Please ignore that statement and play out the hand." and of course at the conclusion of the hand "Rack up your chips, you're done for the night".

And really please remove "kill a hand" from your vocabulary. 99% of the situations where someone suggests that a hand should be killed it never will be. In fact I can't off the top of my head think of a situation where I'd kill one hand and certainly have never seen a spot where I think a hand should have been killed.

I get that they don't think its cheating. But that is willful ignorance. It is so self-evidently cheating that I can't allow them to get the benefit of the doubt on this.

Maybe it's a stretch, but maybe they had done it (check down) in a tourney a few times where it is more common (not usually spoken openly though) and did not realize that ring games consider that collusion and especially if you discuss it. LOL Stern warning and action if it is repeated for sure.

I think calling the floor is horrible in this situation in a 1/2 game.

If you are asking for a hand to be killed you better know the room rules and be right about it.

As expected floor doesn't kill the hand and you have pissed off fish. In general that's bad for the game.

It's 1/2 so the intent to collude wasn't there, but yes, it is collusion.

You absolutely should say something though. Telling the players that checking it down is not OK is fine, as well as asking the dealer if it is OK. (Obviously he will say no but this way you aren't the bad guy.)

Trying to trip up fish with rules they don't know and understand makes them feel like someone's trying to pull one over on them and next thing you know they are throwing away their money at a BJ table and not a poker table.

You have to go with the lesser of two evils here and not call the floor IMO.

Oh what was their intent?

IMO their intent was to play within their perceived idea of what the norm is. I assume they mainly play home game tourneys where it's considered rude to NOT check it down.

Of course that is not ok in a cash game.

Much like if you are at an airport and an old guy mistakenly tries to take your bag from baggage claim because it's identical to his. You should treat him differently than a kid in a hoodie who snatches your laptop from your passenger's seat when you are at a red light.

Of course you correct the old man for his mistake and don't let him take your suitcase, but you don't punch him in the throat either.

Vocally asking to check it down so everyone hears it is far from raising and re-raising light in order to chase others out of the pot and check it down so they can split OPs money.

This, especially the bolded part.

That said obv the check down isn't right and don't blame you calling the floor, but if you think them agreeing to check it down is going to affect your equity that much I think you're over-estimating it.

First .... I hope you realize that what they did is not acceptable in a tourney. You may think well they play in home game tourneys where it is allowed so that makes it believeable that this is accpetable but that actually supports my position.

Why do players in tournaments believe that they should check it down against an all-in opponent? Because they believe this increases the chances of beating the all-in opponent (and in a tournament knocking a player out is a goal).

So when an opponent is all-in in the cash game and they decide to check it down ..... why do they do this ...... IT INCREASES THE CHANCES OF THE ALL-IN PLAYER BEING BEATEN (even though it may decrease your individual chances of winning the pot or decreases the size of the pot you might win) as a result i can not assume an innocent mental state here .... they must understand that they are acting as a team to beat another player.

We are in complete agreement that this behavior is not acceptable.

Asking to have the hand killed was what I think was a bad idea because, in that situation, I don't think any floor would actually kill the hand.

My point is you can let them know that checking it down is against the rules without taking a hostile approach and spooking the fish.