I'm really trying to get behind this opinion, but I can't. I've gone to tables where I had a friend sitting there, and we knew each other's play very well. We proceeded to stay out of each other's way, and carve up the table. Is that collusion?

Obviously, a husband and wife are one thing, but even as such, I've used that as an advantage. I've stayed in hands with H/W combos knowing that I was going to get double the action if I got there. W00t implied odds.

I really hope that you all can understand the difference between a H/W or two buddies playing each other cautious/soft and two players opening up and checking it down after getting isolated. I further hope that you can understand how damaging the foreign languages can be to the overall table action.

Rest assured, if I have the nuts, I'm betting. I don't care if my grandmother is in the pot.

A guy checking the nuts on the river... hmmmm comments?

I should have said this earlier: Checking down only flies if you're willing to check it down HU with everyone else.

If you only do it with you 2, it's a douche move. The problem is very little can really be done about it. Sorry, but it's just not a team game. Sit on the other side of that fence and see how much you like it.

I play my friends hard because I respect them.

b

Slightly off topic... but...

I tried exactly this a few days back at Planet Hollywood since I keep reading folks posting about filling out comment cards. I was just a bit annoyed by something, asked the floor about the policy and was told that's the way it is, too bad. So I asked for a customer comment card. I got laughed at (literally). "A WHAT? No, we don't do those. If you don't like it, write a letter." And he dismissed me.

Soooo... doesn't always work. And it's gonna be a loooong time before I return to PH.

Correct. Just because you don't understand why we played as we did doesn't mean we were cheating. Maybe we're thinking a level or two higher or lower than you, or maybe we suck, or maybe you suck. Regardless, "I woulda played that differently" is not proof of collusion, and that's what most such tales I read here are.

OP's tale would be one of simple soft play if it weren't for the non-english being spoken. So if they'd stuck to english and hadn't said anything about the hand, then yes, it's mildly collusive yet many friends and wives do this. Some do it overtly as in OP's story, and some do it without making it apparent.

I don't like soft playing couples, but I've never seen 'em get separated or asked to leave simply for soft play. I really prefer the overt soft play, myself. That way I know fersure what couple is never going to play each other hard, rather than being left wondering if the 3 times in a row I've seen 'em check down a hand after it was heads-up was just coincidence. In OP's case they even flipped up their cards which showed everyone they each had something of a hand, and made it clear to all they had no intentions of betting at each other.

Only thing that makes OP's tale different than most is the language thing. And yeah, the floor needs to be enforcing english-only. We all know this.

No. You're missing the point about knowledge of your friend as an opponent versus explicit collusion.

Staying "out of each other's way", motivated by your self-interest (i.e., by the belief that you're better off playing pots against weaker players at the table), is not collusion. You didn't agree with your friend to play this way, and you're not doing it for his benefit.

You SHOULD play poker (especially big-bet games like NLHE) to get involved with bad players and avoid good ones. Nothing about your scenario is inherent to playing your friend, versus anyone else you know to be a good player.