People keep saying things like "collusion" and "cheating" and "against the rules" but can you cite the rule? A one-off incident where it's clearly not being hidden, and only 1 party is involved, is none of these things. It's complete nonsense to say this is bannable. Warning at best.

How about you show me a house rule against collusion and I'll explain how it fits.

Collusion is between 2 or more players, in Robert's Rules and any definition I've ever seen. Even you right now don't believe the short stack was in on it. The man wasn't obligated to show a hand, and he played in an unethical way that deserves a warning. Should casinos have simping rules? Maybe. As played, it's soft play, which is a warning in most places in cash games.

Looks more like blatant chip dumping than soft play imo.

It doesn't matter if the other guy is in on it or not.

Do you remember several years ago in some big WSOP tourney when it got down to 3 players the big chip leader actually said he was dumping chips to one of the other guys because he wanted that guy to come in second. The other guy immediately said he wanted no part in it, but most people still thought the chip leader was doing something wrong. Do you agree?

This is worse than that or soft play, because he's dumping other's chips along with his own. Call it whatever you want, everyone knows it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed. I have no idea why you would care to argue this unless it's the kind of thing you like to do yourself.

I'm only arguing that it's not a ban by any reason, or collusion by definition. Also tournament rulings are irrelevant. I think if you look at the situation itself and not the concept in a vacuum, it's drastically different. The woman is all in for 8bb and Mr. white knight shoves and keeps her alive, and probably makes a show of it on purpose. If he were a cheater by trade, he'd have waited untill showdown. Of course that's unethical but it's a tiny situation with little value and it's not tournament, so the guy didn't need to show anyway. If he had held out until showdown and mucked, it wouldn't be a thread.

I just think it's absurd that the knee-jerk reaction is "ban!" when that would likely NEVER happen IRL at low stakes as described--only in hypothetical land here.

Well, I guess I have a different definition of collusion than you do, but I never said he should be banned, and the people who did to said give him a 24 hour ban. I once got a 24 hour ban for saying not nice things to someone who had just deliberately knocked my chip stacks over in a way that some of them could have gotten mixed with his own. A 24 hour time-out is not that terrible of a punishment.

I don't remember that from wsop but was it actually ruled against the rules and what happened?

I also would like to see the actual rule violated quoted for this incident.

Not so sure were going to find an actual Rule here, especially in a cash game. What others have asked for, and what I don't think we have enough of, is what was the behavior of the Player while this was going on. Was it obvious of what was assumed to have happened? If it was, then I think there definitely needs to be a discussion if not taking the rest of the day off.

The thing we are somewhat forgetting is that this Player did put chips in the middle and they were at risk .. is this even a story (No) if he gets called and loses the pot. GL

Yeah with 8bb in the pot I don't think this was the chip-dumping scandal of '24. If the jack*** had just mucked after seeing her hand, he would have saved us all a lot of typing. But then he wouldn't have gotten his white knight simp credits that have no redeemable Pvalue in actuality.