As long as they didn't talk during the hand then it isn't collusion, but when they started bitching, I'd tell them to eat a dick and why would a guy not bet tpgk with that much dead money in the pot. I'd then clown them for at least an hour longer than they went on about it and remind them how stupid they are for suggesting somebody not take that dead money and that is like playing for 2nd. Stupid ****s

I'll add my thoughts on the hand as I was the guy with 500k (sick brag bro), but to correct post #9 I was also UTG and I also made the "mistake" (brag given back).

I do not think you were wrong for speaking up. I do think based on the discussion/berating/blahblahblah that took place after the hand created a dynamic that I think would lead to/pressure, at the very least,soft play if the situation were to happen again at the table. For example, if the two players "AJ" and "the other guy" were to call a short stack, we now know that their intent is to check it down and try and bust the short stack. Is that collusion? Some people will say yes, most people will say its a grey area, others will say no its +ev. The only way to know would be calling the floor to get a ruling based on the evidence available. Or tweet @SavagePoker and get his opinion because he's the best TD LDO

Lesson learned.

What I found most ridiculous about the situation was how oblivious AJ and the other guy were that their argument was basically admitting they were trying to soft play and they continued to bring it up. We should have called the floor after a few minutes of that.

For about a minute after I thought I made a mistake but then I thought about why I bet , 1 I'm here to win the tournament and 2 its a big pot I want to stretch my chip lead (chop leverage) and ohh yeah I have top pair. *You paired the turn, whatever, tap the table move on. *After that I was comfortable admitting to a "mistake" to keep them thinking about the money they should have locked up.

Great example Xander, it's funny how small the big If was. The pay jump wasn't big but it pretty much played out that way.

One of the best responses I've heard in a tournament when someone was berating someone else for how they played was "As soon as you start paying for my buy-in, then you can start telling me how to play my cards."

Yes, there is a definitely theory for short handed playing in a tournament that says you want as may chances to knock someone out as possible. The other side of that is the goal of getting all the chips. Of course, in this case, they were apparently ignoring the side pot (yes, it was small, but it was still there). Why forfeit a chance at it by not beating top pair on the flop?

I will, however, agree that them continuing to bring it up and berate the guy about it for an extended period crossed the line into attempted collusion.

I just want to reiterate that I agree that a great deal of the time, it makes more sense to check it down and it is "the proper play". My only problem is that the way they kept on about it was basically trying to get everyone to agree to check it down in future hands.

I should have called the floor. I think this particular situation is far enough toward "grey" that nothing would have been done outside of just a "keep the talk about collusion down" comment to the whole table. I'm ready to move on


(Oh, and DH, I don't think you had massacred Seat 1 yet when the hand in question happened. I think you may have had a little more than the others, maybe 200K. He was the 500K stack at that point I'm like 85% sure. Either way, nice playin' with you!)

the guy with TP paid it right. There's an unspoken rule of checking down against the shortstack IF you have nothing. In this case, there's a nice pot there and he has TP2K. He should bet at it. If everyone had whiffed, it's generally accepted that you aren't going to bluff at a dry side pot against a shorty. Talking about it so that you can plan for next time is way out of line IMO.

If this is collusive, couldn't any discussion about basic poker strategy be considered "collusive"?

Because people could be saying anything hoping that other players alter their game by heeding what was said. If I have the psychological power to change someone else's game plan by my words, then I will try to use that to my advantage. Is that collusive?

in my opinion, talk, it's only collusive if it's acted on... specially in past tense as in a past hand.

the act of collusion.

Knowing that "unspoken teamwork" is the proper play is understanding proper poker strategy, so in the literal sense, yes. Talking strategy is generally fine. Berating a player for playing trash may make him tighter later on, yes, but talking about planning on teamwork that would not have otherwise occurred is collusion. See the difference?

Kind of collusive in between hands, but I've seen stuff like that happen during a hand and no severe punishment from floor...

Yes, talking about how it should be checked down against short stacks in collusion. Yes, you could have called a floor to issue warnings. No, it wouldn't have changed much.

Betting into side pot with TP2K is fine. Bluffing, not so much.

Yes, big stack keeping short stack around to steal blinds and bully table is great strategy. As it turns out, if I'm big stack, I might bluff at it to keep shorty around.

Not much you can do about it. Poor etiquette players are going to continue to stare as they over-the-top rap the table and loudly say "CHECK". Until the TD begins to issue a penalty for such actions, it won't change.

Also, the donk with aj shoukd have iso-shoved. He played it horrible and deserves to lose. He should not open his stupid mouth about correct play or correct-etiquette or anything for that matter. He is confirmed table moron now.

I guess I get what you're saying.

If the advantage created by table talk is one-sided rather than shared, it is not collusive...If the advantage created by table talk is spread amongst all the players, it is collusive because it creates a "teamwork" atmosphere.


Got it.

Disagree that bluffing into dry side pot is always wrong. Eg you have AQ on a nothing flop like 442 and you put the all in guy on desperation move...