I dunno, is it that big of a deal? Evidence suggests it was a big enough deal for you to come here and make a post asking if you should have been angry, because you were.

You shouldn't do it.

If you do it anyway, don't be mad when it doesn't work out for you. Or do, we don't really care whether you get mad at your friend.

Fair enough. I'm not used to having actual friends at the same poker table as me, so it seemed to make sense at the time. There certainly will be no more agreements in the future.

That's the spirit. Next time try to take as much of your friends' money as you can. It really is sweeter.

I really don't like it though! That's why I don't normally have any real poker friends.

When I play with my friends getting their money is even better than getting strangers money.

There is also a difference between you steering clear of a friend and you and your friend agreeing to steer clear of each other.

This isn't soft play. You had a prior agreement. Any agreement to do X when Y comes up is collusive.

Well there was no actual agreement to do x when y came up, only that we weren't going to get into with each other, which obv meant different things to each of us.

These posts are correct. Whenever I go to a casino with buddies and we're going to play together, we usually are playing the lowest-stakes game available and we hope to have some fun stories to tell each other about big pots at the end of the night.

Don't collude. It's scummy pos behavior. If you're in a three way pot with your friend and a random knowing that if it goes heads up between you and your friend the pot gets checked down, that's a bs disadvantage for the random guy.

Poker is cutthroat. Every man for himself. Everyone at the table is an enemy while at the table. Doesn't matter what your relationship with them is off the table. It was never meant to involve any team play.

If you don't want to take your friend's money don't sit at the table with him.

There is a sunstantial difference, in my mind, between choosing to not go after friends, and actually verbally agreeing before hand to a collusive arrangement (whether it was very explicit or more general does not matter).

And then actually being pissed because he did not honor your agreement to cheat together is showing a stunning lack of awareness.

Yes, people softplay friends all the time, but it is less common that they actually discuss before hand that they will do it. That is cheating, plain and simple.

So a husband and wife come in together over the weekend like they normally do. It's around 11:15am. The wife plays NL, the husband is there to play a limit game that's to start at noon. The rest of the wife's table is trying to get the husband to sit and play 1-2. He turns down the offer, saying....

So good.

You should be grateful for the lesson. As any lawyer will tell you, next time spell out the agreement in writing. It's not perfect but hopefully you think to deal with the edge cases beforehand. Does he have to slowplay you even with top set or is that an exception? If he shoves for > 2x pot, is he allowed to do it on a bluff or is he telling you to get out because he has the goods? Are turn semibluffs OK with nine outs, or does it have to be 13?

See, if it's in writing, you can pull it out at the table and the other players will probably take your side. At the quality rooms the dealer will probably help adjudicate--written words are binding anywhere in the poker world, after all--but sadly some of the newer rooms don't really understand poker and balk at enforcing written contracts unless drafted by one of their house lawyers, who always charge too much.

10/10 troll game

Not so much trolling as sarcastic mocking.

well played regardless

Thanks. I felt a little guilty writing it. cardsharkk04, just having some fun.... no personal slam intended. But I think it's clear why we don't think collusion is a good idea.

true. It's just that trolling has a negative connotation, while some well written, well placed sarcasm is a thing of beauty.

Playing 1/3. A few players limp. CO makes it 20. In the SB I raise to 71. Folded back to the CO who tanks. He eventually folds and out of the corner of my eye I see his cards flip over. I can only make two spades before the dealer turns his hand face down into the muck.

I ask what was exposed. The dealer explains that the CO's cards were accidentally exposed because they hit the dealer's hand. I asked what they were because other players must have seen them clearly. CO becomes indignant that I want to know what his cards were.

Dealer waves over a nearby floor. Floor says the cards were mucked and promptly walks away.

Uhh... does her ruling have any merit?

On a merit scale of 1 to 10, I would give it a 9.9

On what basis do I not to get to know what his cards were when they flipped face up and other players saw them. If I waited 1 second longer to grab a $1 chip to put on top of my cards before passing them to the dealer then I would have seen them clearly.

At least three players saw his cards. Why isn't this public information at that point? What rule would you cite?

You should have been given the information. But once the cards are mucked how do you propose they be shown to you?

So, Bob, who was looking at his iPad when this happened, is entitled to the information?

George, who was coming back from a bathroom break, is entitled to the information?

Well I assume that since he was coming from the bathroom he wasn't still in the hand.