They announce three hands to go. Now we are on the final hand. The table next to me has several playable stacks for day 2 in the 25-35k range. Day two starts at 300-600 75.

One player suggests that they will go allin blind if others agree. After some discussion, three players (2 of which are bracelet winners) agree to go allin blind.

The hand is dealt. Two of the players go allin blind, the third eventually goes allin, despite having only 2-3 off.

I've actually seen this sort of thing occur several times. Usually among two players.

In this scenario the hands were 10-8 off 2-3 off and kx. The kx played and has over 100k to start day 2.

Imagine if every table did this.

Should this even be allowed. Is this considered collusion? Is there any way the floor can prevent this?

The players paid their entry fee and are free to bet their chips as they want was the response I got from one borgata floor I questioned.

I would think that players discussing and executing a play in a tournament is collusion.

This is nonsense if the action is a result of a rule violation.

The play is -ev for everyone who agrees to do this (due to icm), why would anyone possibly want to prevent this?

It's technically collusion, but it's a net +EV outcome for everyone else in the tournament.

I understand why some people think its odd or unfair, but I wouldn't mind them torching $.

This may have or may have not been a collusion, but it is a +EV situation for every player at other tables, so why do you want to prevent it?

You are now 2 spots closer to mincash, what is problem?

Actually not any closer to mincash. All are reentering regardless of outcome.

I thought most tournaments explicitly forbid this type of thing?

Regardless of whether this an advantage or disadvantage to the 3 players or any other players in the tourney, when 3 players agree on playing a hand a certain way then we have collusion.
Pretty simple.

Is there any live coverage or updates for that tourney? A coworker is playing and I was hoping to keep up with the action.

Sorry for the off topic post but I didn't see any and I did a quick search here on 2p2 and didn't find anything either.

Sounds right to me. I'm no expert on tourney rules, but it would seem to me that this is the only ruling possible.

Clearly this, facepalm to a couple of people in this thread that should obviously know better

This is 100% collusion and against TDA rules. But, as stated,very much -EV for those players, thus making it slightly +EV for everyone else

How can people not see a problem with this? 3 friends get sat at a table and decide that at the end of the day one of them will triple up for day 2. Seems fair

Google search? I think Pokernews has wpt updates, not sure though

Yet another reason that reentry tournaments are terrible.

its collusion, bag all the their chips and show them the door.

wtf why would anyone ever want to prevent this it disadvantages all 3 players and everyone else at the table has a freeroll on waking up with a hand to call the jam with and quadruple up

this isn't collusion at all as there is no advantage being gained from the play and none of the other players were deceived they're all free to call the jam (as at least one player should since if you're folding AT or whatever here vs 3 random hands you're burning money)

What? Why? You hate free money?

I would quite happily have all of my opponents at the table jam all-in every hand blind even if I have a single bullet in a tournament...

if guys are as profitable as I think in this field this blind shove is profitable for all 3

regardless of that fact discussing allin blind shouldnt be allowed staff messed should do some penalty to the players

If you are dumb enough to collude badly it is still collusion.

I agree with this. Re-entries are bad for the game and this is just another example why.

Yep

It is absolutely collusion to discuss with other player and make agreements as to how you will play a hand prior to the hand being played. You can't be deciding on a case-by-case basis whether or not they should be let off the hook just because they agreed to play the hand badly. Moreover, if these players were intending to abandon their stacks in favor of a reentry, I don't see how this play is -EV for them.
The response from the floor is inexcusable.

Sad day in poker when this is even a question of collusion. On another note, this is why you never wear headphones at a table.