If it comes out that two players have a shared bankroll or a deal where they pay each other back if they lose a big hand against the other, should the poker room do anything about it? This is in a room where there is usually only one game at the stakes they play.

are they using this deal to deceptively show a play style that isn't in line with how they typically play with others?

i.e. suicide bluffs or extremely aggressive/loose play

Most rooms won't do anything about it. Even when it's blatantly obvious the bankroll is shared, e.g. married couples sitting nest to each other, most rooms won't do squat.

They're both fairly nitty most of the time but will occasionally throw out big multi barrel bluffs. I just found out about the deal and never paid attention to when they chose to do it. I'm also just wondering in general about this sort of thing because I've seen it before.

It's fine to play on the same bankroll so long as they don't play at the same table.

A while back my room had 3 guys playing a shared bankroll. They were seen in the parking lot splitting money up. Some guys complained and they admitted that they played a shared roll. The room said only 2 could play at the same table. Personally, I think that's the worst solution. If the room is admitting there is a problem with it at all, then none of them should be allowed to play at the same table.

Ive played several times with 2 of them at the same table and never saw anything out of the ordinary or anything that would make me hesitate to play with them.

Not really the same thing. Husband and wife team are the biggest fish demographic there is. They never stand up with chips once they sit down.

But this is just insanity. It’s one thing to hear the rumors or sit with your buddy for a few sessions while they are visiting but this has be against gaming regulations if management approaches them and they admitted it.

I seriously doubt this is against regs for the players. They have no explicit agreement with gaming. Lots of folks partially share rolls. Some don’t even realize it.

There's been two schools of thought about this in poker for many years. Doyle Brunson openly wrote that he, Amarillo Slim and Sailor Roberts shared a bankroll. It was clear he didn't consider it cheating at all. Mike Caro has written about how offended he was when he found out in his Gardena game that every regular in that biggest game had significant pieces of each other except for him.

I think a good analogy is that it is like speeding in a car. It is against the law. If you're less than 5 mph over the limit, just let it slide. If you're 50 mph over the limit, you need to be stopped.

A 'shared' bankroll 'hopefully' is different than working together at the table. As indicated if the Players are protecting each other (which includes soft play) then it might be something that you could try to address with the room staff. Unfortunately with this probably being a higher stake game and the only table that size in this room that may be harder to pull off.

As a Player this is just one more variable that you may need to consider during a hand. I've actually figured out when two Players tried to us a betting pattern against the table for profit and successfully trapped them in a few pots by changing my standard plays. Nothing better than the two of them giving each other the 'wtf' eyes after you take slices out of both stacks!! GL

Do you really think gaming is concerned with shared bankrolls? Sounds ridiculous.

FWIW, good luck finding a single 5/10+ game in a card room in the US without at least 2 players swapping pieces.

I dont have any problem with people swapping action or sharing a bankroll, as long as they aren't colluding during the game.

I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever of the guys I mentioned colluding at the table when they play together. The only people who complained were some old rich whales who dont understand how any of this stuff works.

They may or may not be willing to play more aggressively with draws and things like that knowing that their bankroll is double what it otherwise would be, but I dont see how that's any of anyone else's business....any more than its none of my business of one of the rich whales wants to play super aggro because he has more money than me. If they aren't colluding during hands, its fine.

Surely we can all concede that it is wrong to make a deal to check it down when there is a third player all in. But that is what this rebate deal does, because any betting on the side would be simply for show.

The problem is that this incentivizes collusion. They might not even be colluding on purpose, but here's an example of what can happen. Buddy #1 opens CO, BU calls, and buddy #2 is sitting in the SB with T7s. Normally he would fold this, but deep down he knows that he really only needs to get BU to fold to make money, so he 3-bets. This is actually an extremely profitable 3-bet when CO and SB are sharing a bankroll, because BU is capped and folds often. SB isn't even necessarily trying to collude, he's just trying to make the most +EV play.

If he would normally 3 bet in that spot with T7s then its fine. If hes only doing it "because he knows he only needs the button to fold to make money" then its collusion. I think we can all agree on that.

The good players will catch on to things like that fairly quickly if there is collusion. With the players I'm talking about, I haven't seen them in hands against each other often enough to think there's any way anything fishy is going on. They are both overly tight.

I'm not sure if you got my point or if you did and simply disagree, but it is sort of like betting against your own team in a sporting event. Even if you're a super solid guy who would never cheat it's a problem that you are incentivizing yourself to do something unethical. Incentivizing unethical behavior is itself unethical. Players sharing a bankroll are incentivized to play differently than they normally would, and they are only acting in their own best interests to do so. They don't even need a pre-arranged agreement to get an advantage over others. 3-betting T7s is the objectively best play if we know we can't lose money to our friend, but it is likely pretty bad against an unknown.

No, I got your point and I agree with you. What Im saying is that I havent seen these particular guys do anything that looks strange or that they are trying to play differently when their friend is in a hand. Nothing like you are describing. Anything is possible of course.