Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Urinstein
What you're describing here is actual cheating.
No way. Collusion implies 2 things:
1) We must have premeditated it. This usually involves coming up with a plan beforehand then using signals.
2) We must gain an unfair advantage from it.
Neither of those were the case here:
1) None of it was planned. We didn't signal each other. None of us knew that the other person was going to make a minimum reraise. We just did it impulsively to f**k with each other.
2) I had 53o that hand. How do I gain an unfair advantage from that? I was also drunk and I was constantly triple straddling and playing hands without looking. It should've been crystal clear that I was just playing for fun, rather than playing for an unfair advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher
Yes, it does appear to be cheating. Did you at least offer to give the dude his $11 back?
F**k no. I'd sooner throw $11 in the trash than return it to that c**t.
He also made a really snide comment to my friend and said "have you ever read a book on poker?" Like this is some dumb sh*t reg grinding 2/3 NL with less than a full stack, wearing a pppoker cap to look cool, doing a lot of limp-calling and playing like a typical bad reg that's probably breakeven, and he has the audacity to run his mouth like that.
Do you ever notice it's the pub poker players and the low stakes bad regs that make the most accusations about cheating, collusion, rigged games, etc.?