Originally Posted by TookURCookie
No bc in your scenario the 2players are splitting their total prizes. No matter where they finish the total amount cashed is split down the middle. In my scenario, the two short stacks are agreeing that the next player of the 2 shorties to bust gets half of 3rd money and half of 2nd money. He doesn't get half of 1st money if the surviving short stack goes on to win it. So if the payout are 10k, 6k, 4k. The short stack to bust out first is playing knowing he is at least winning 5K instead of 4K. With the possibility of winning 9K.
OK, in this case my scenario creates MORE incentive for collusion by tying your fate even more closely to that of another player, regardless of where the twomof you finish. Under my scenario, the disincentive for coming in 3rd is reduced even more (because even if you come in third, you have a chance to win half the 1st place prize, plus you dont get to keep the whole 1st place prize if you win it)...but even more troubling, you have the particular incentive to dump your chips to one player rather than the other.
Yet it sounds like you are saying my scenario is OK but your scenario is inherently collusion.