Actually it is the same thing, to differing degrees. From a pure game theory perspective, if you wouldn't have a problem with someone buying into a tourney and open-shoving every hand, you shouldn't have a problem with people blind-raising/re-raising UTG and UTG+1. If you don't understand why, you probably don't deserve your own wikipedia article.

I already said it has nothing to do with the effectivenss of the strategy. There are dummies out there who collude badly.

I dont necessarily disagree with this given the definition of collusion. Collusion as defined often includes an advantage.

But in this situaton theory becomes involved and there is no certainty as to the advantage or disadvantage given to Henson Eslami etc.. and it is debatable from a strategic point of view. It could possibly be collusion and should therefore not be allowed.

The problem with this arguement is that what one person sees as an advantage another might see as a disadvantage. Therefore it becomes an arguement of whether the determining test should be subjective or objective - a route that you dont want to take.

Banning all collusion solves these problems and is better for the game.

this has been in the public arena for a while. doubt that they see it as douchebag move or they wouldve been more discreet about it.

source: Dan Fleyshman's twitter a couple days ago

^ please stop using the term collusion to describe a situation where none is exhibited

This. It's hilarious that anyone would want to report others for adopting a practice which effectively reduces skill edge for all players on that table by shallowing stacks, (meaning potential for worse players to run deep is higher - giving everone else an easier shot at a deep run) AND at the same time positively impacts everyone else's chances of moving up who are not at that table due to ICM. If anything, encourage it & don't try and get it banned IMO

Too late.

What do you call it when two or more people agree to act in a certain way prior to a hand being dealt and this agreement may possibly affect the outcome of themselves or others players in a poker tournament?

I agree that as a rule-of-thumb for policy sake that we shouldn't allow any form of collusion, but that's just a convenience. Things happen all the time at the tables that could be argued as collusion, but nobody bats an eyelid because they're the kind of things that don't present an opportunity for advantage.

So for this thread to have any relevance really it should be about whether this does give them an advantage.. I seriously doubt it does, but happy to listen to actual theory if anybody disagrees..

Although you are probably right from a strategy point of view, it does not make this ok. Cmon man you can't ignore **** that makes poker look bad just because it improves your chances at winning.

And think of this:

Not everyone is versed enough to determine that this play is likely not a great strat. Many will think it gives these guys an advantage. You do not want these players who do not understand this leaving the game as a result of the perception that something fishy **** is constantly going on. Keep the game clean and it looks after itself.

While there are obvious differences, this is kinda similar to the issue a few years back where some players had made a habit of openly agreeing to open shove in rebuy tourneys to build their stacks. I can't remember the details and not gonna search, but Annette 15 was one of them.

IIRC, after much debate and arguing, this was deemed as collusion by the sites (at least one of them) and outlawed? Rebuy vs. freezeout obviously makes this two very different cases when it comes to the effectiveness and advantage of such a strategy, but the general rule for whether or not openly agreeing to doing stuff like this is considered collusion, should be comparable, no?

Disagree - it shouldn't be about an advantage. It should be about whether their actions constitute collusion.

If I softplay the nuts against a friend I am not getting an advantage, I am getting a disadvantage. So I can't be punished, right?

This is good for your equity due as Zizek points out if skill edge is equal/somewhat close to equal, but the fact that good players will be playing higher blind pots vs. bad players will negatively affect this a bit. I'm undecided as to if this is good or bad for your equity, it really depends on the skill edge of the players involved, I'm leaning towards this almost definitely being a good thing for your equity.

They aren't forcing anyone to do this, and if you are a good player located at these tables I would suggest you don't participate in this and take advantage of the retards who do.

You're right of course - any kind of pre-conceived willful deviation from tourney format/rules by two or more players shouldn't be allowed but it's amusing how people illustrate their frustrations and the logic they use to come to those conclusions

Jesus this is terrible