Quote:
Originally Posted by madlex
It baffles me how that topic keeps coming up. By definition, collusion involves (at least) two parties in a secret agreement.
If I sit down and tell the table that player 7 is my friend and I am going to softplay him all night and he’s going to do the same, that’s clearly against the rules. But it’s not collusion because everyone at the table knows about it. If I softplay my friend all night without him knowing anything about it, that’s not collusion. If he returns the favor and softplays me too, other players can accuse us of at least implicitly colluding. But again, that requires at least two players who violate the rules.
The Mueller report even made “collusion” mainstream. We all know now that foreign interference in our elections is illegal but to prove collusion, we have to prove that the beneficiary of said interference was in on the plan.
I disagree. If I act against my interests to help another player, that is collusion. Maybe poker needs another term for it, but at current, collusion is the most applicable term. it is assumed that the other player will be acting in their best interests, so by my playing against my interests, I am working with him to improve his position. However yuou want to term it, it should be penalized.
As an aside, the Mueller report specifically did not address the subject of collusion, as this is not a legal term (it is a term that trump used to deflect, since it, being undefined, could be used in any way he wanted). The Mueller report addressed conspiracy and found that certainly the trump team was aware of the interference, and welcomed it, but did not solicit it. It is appropriate to sanction Russia here, but not the trump team. In this analogy, I would penalize the person doing the soft play, but not the beneficiary unless it can be shown that he solicited the help.