Tonight I was involved in an incident where I accused two other players of collusion. I believe there was very strong evidence of it, although I'd like to hear outside opinions.

This was a 3-way pot in a 1-2NL game. I don't remember all the specifics as far as bet sizes and the exact cards that were in play because I lost track of much of it in the middle of this ruckus. However, the general course of action still tells the story.

Before this specific hand, I already knew these two were friends but I didn't suspect anything. About 20 minutes earlier, one of them busted out and then borrowed money from the other to buy back in. I didn't really think much of it at the time.

Now to the hand. I raise from LP to $12. Everyone folds except for these two who both call. Flop is a total whiff for me. Villain A bets $19, Villain B calls. I fold. Then they check it the rest of the way. Before they turn their cards over, Villain B asks Villain A, "Do you have it?" He replies that he has a straight and turns it over. Villain B had a pair (I think JJ).

This is when it hit me that this was fishy. Villain A bluffed with nothing on the flop, Villain B calls with a pair. Villain A catches a runner-runner straight and there is no further betting. At this point I voiced my opinion that they were playing together. As I'm calling to floor man over to request a table change, a scene erupts because Villain A took offense and started getting loud.

I think I had a legit issue to call them out on. Thoughts?

Insufficient information.

What was the flop, turn and river? What were the stack sizes? What were your cards?

Based on your synopsis, it seems the two friends were soft playing each other.

Is soft playing a form of collusion?

Villain A doesn't seem to think it is.

I think it's a grey area.

How did the floor handle it?

Buzz

Doesn't seem like anything that unusual to me. It might make me pay more attention to their play in the future. However, this doesn't seem any different than what would often happen between two friendly regulars in a room at the 1/2 NL level.

If you changed it that Player B led, you called, Player A re-raised with nothing, Player B calls or re-raises with top set, then they checked it down. I'd be more interested.

This is VERY common in live rooms. Friends/couples whatever soft play each other all the time once they are HU. I don't really like it when they sit next to each other, but have never really ran into blatant 'constant' angling with their bets.

I agree with MediaPA .. it's how they bet to get HU that you need to look at, not that they soft played after they were HU.

When I play with one of my very good buddies I always warn him that he's just 'seat 2' when we are at the table. And although I may increase my c-bet/value bet sizing when we are HU to tell him 'go away' he understands that his chips are fair game.

Unfortunately you don't have much here IMO ... GL

When I talked to him he agreed that it was shady. I wasn't asking for any action to be taken against him, I just wanted to get off the table.

I was just annoyed because I felt in a hand vs the two of them, it's basically two hands vs one. I didn't lose much money on the hand so I wasn't seriously upset. But I was annoyed enough to call them out on it.

This is softplay.

Softplay is minor collusion.

Softplay is super common.

It's your choice whether to use a complaint for this. You will probably get labeled as a complainer if you play regularly and are going to complain about this and everything worse than this.

I don't, FWIW.

Two hands against one is fine; you get twice the money if you win. I'll assume that the flop had an overcard to JJ and that "do you have it" actually referred to top pair, not the straight. Since you're disproportionately likely to have top pair / overpairs, you should welcome the straight up bluff and the weak call.

And obviously rebluff raise next time.

If you play in Los Angeles, mid stakes, this happens all the time. Like all the time.

Like others have said, if Villian led, you called, V2 reraised, you folded, V1 calls, both with nothing, that seems legit collusion.

Honestly, I'd just ask for a table change. I see married couples play like this all the time

You don't know it's softplay without knowing the board. There are tactics that justify this action.

What if A bluffed the flop trying to steal, B called with Jacks and would have folded the turn or river but A gave up the bluff cause he knew B must have something, then A runner runner'd into a straight and checked hoping to induce B to bluff?

not to mention, without knowing the board, the straight may have feared a better hand.

Softplay. It shouldn't be tolerated but almost universally is. If they were really colluding they wouldn't be so obvious about it.

I've seen real, malevolent collusion in live games at least half a dozen times over the years and not once did the cheaters suffer any consequences beyond the floor saying it's not okay. In one instance the two said they'll quit and quickly got up and cashed out.

Answer,

It's kinda crazy to say:

and

When you do this:


Which IMO is a worse degree of collusion than the check it down soft play.

Where I normally play it's well accepted to soft play heads up, especially between us well known regulars.....in fact many times I've seen guys get pissed off because someone bet at them heads up, lol.


I don't care either way. I'll normally check it down with you, unless it's a big pot & there is a draw out there that I dont want you to hit....but in a $10-12 pot I really dont care either way.

I'm not a fan, but recognize that it's common and not enough people seem to care enough to do something.

I do my best to use it to my advantage, thinking of the 2nd reg overcall as some added dead money, and not really a monster trying to trap (although that happens).

meh, it's softplaying. technically collusion but i don't see sufficient evidence to show they're doing anything other than checking it down once heads up.

people bluff flops all the time.

Pretty much my thoughts as well.

Reverse the flop and let's say, instead of it being a total whiff for you, OP, you flopped a set on an extremely dry board, or, you flopped the nut flush. Would you really feel wronged that Villain A bet with total air? And then his buddy smooth called with a pair? Is that the type of collusion you're talking about? It's not as if either one if them knew you weren't going to call...or raise.

So, they don't bet each other heads up. Eh, it's softplay but it happens a lot. Use it to your advantage. Give me players like that any time.

I'd have a problem if they kept it secret that they are friends. Since they made it known that they are friends, you should expect them to play like this and then use it against them.

Checking down is collusion and should and usually will be treated as such when complained about. Pretty sure most rooms will break up the friends or couple if there is a complaint about them playing at the same table. I've never done it but I know people who it has happened to. I don't really see much of a need for it at low stakes, but as the stakes climb I would be more inclined to not allow it.

Also, checking down is for pussies imo; you are there to play, so play. Looks so bad and stupid when a hand gets checked down.

I lost interest before finishing the first sentence in post #1. Anyone who thinks players are colluding in $1-$2 NL suffers from a serious case of paranoia. Also, two players checking it down is indicative of nothing suspicious, and the floor shouldn't be allowed to tell players how to play their hands. Players can choose to play their hands as they wish and they are under no obligation to explain their reasoning behind the decisions they make throughout the course of a hand.

cheats dont check it down if they are playing the same money. one will bet and the other will fold. and they dont pass money across the table as loans.

this is no big deal and i encourage it as it makes for worse play from these people.
as they call badly early on hoping to see the river. as in this hand.

It's nice to see my comments chopped up for convenience .. These are 2 separate cases.

1) I just don't like it when a couple or 2 friends work it out that they are next to each other. I find it less an issue to the table if they are not next to each other as there is no obvious whispering or showing of cards going on. This is an opinion of mine when it comes to dealing with 'other' players who have connections.

2) I make sure to tell my friends that I will not slow play them up front so there are no expectations that it is going to happen.

2A) My choice, without telling the friend, to size my betting in a fashion 'to send a message' is a form of soft/hard (?) play, yes. But at least it's action, not obvious checking down, and only costs me value in the long run and if anyone at the table figures out what I am doing they will wonder why I'm trying 'harder' to felt my friend. I agree this could be taken either way .. to a certain level IMO and have found less issues playing this way than the 'check down' way. That could be because it's harder to spot what 'I' am doing, but I agree it still opens a door up for discussion.

Collusion is a predetermined effort to work together for mutual gain. If players are not working together to get to a point of HU, then I don't really care what they do from that point on ... just get it done and get to the next hand.

If I told my friends that every time I finish a bet with a '9' that means get out of the hand, then you have predetermined actions IMO. I would find it almost humanly impossible to not treat opponents we know different than opponents we don't know. We have history .. one of the key elements in dealing with information and decision making at the table!!


I also think that one of the worst things we can do is make this something bigger than what it is. If poker is bringing in more players that just happen to know each other, then we don't want to discourage it. We 'do' want to be open and let them know that once they are at the same table that there are certain expectations within the rules of the game. But I don't think that's any different than a 'single' rookie coming in and not know when he is first to show. GL