Separating them is the quick and easy fix for the problem.

And to be clear, the problem for the casino isn't anyone cheating or colluding. That doesn't impact the casino's bottom line. The problem is 20 unhappy customers who aren't going to play with both of them at the same table.

Another issue arose with them last night where they were likely colluding.

He was first to act, she was third. There was a second and a fourth in the hand. He pauses when action is on him and does not do anything. (They have both done this before.) The second to act checks thinking it’s on him, and now it’s on her. The last to act player says it’s on her and asks what her action is. She says check. Last to act then checks behind.

Then she says “wait it’s still on him.” (Her man.) The dealer rediculously allows him to bet without calling the floor, and she predictably folds…!

There's no need to call the floor over for that and it's not an example of colluding. At worst it's taking advantage of random goof ball players who don't follow the action.

Hard disagree. A guy doesn’t protect his action and lets 3 people behind him act and then dealer tries to let him raise, I’m calling the floor. And as floor I’m holding him to a check if not killing his hand, depending. And dealer gets a KITN.

and that’s before taking into consideration that one of them is his wife.

It happens all the time, even if someone after him raises he can change the action and the raiser can take it back. It's really not that unusual but the guy truly doesn't sound like he's at all any good. He was either trying to decide how much to raise (in a simple preflop decision) or he needs that extra angle to try and win off fish. Maybe those two fishregs play every day but chances are they're just slow losers contrary to what hero believes.

I learned today she bought a house with her poker winnings. So no, they’re not losing players. You know it by her chip stacks almost every day. He wins too but he’s not as big a winner as she is.

The fact alone that they have the audacity for her to speak up instead of he doing it himself? That's ridiculous.

If she knows that he hasn't acted she has to say something when everyone thinks action is on her instead of playing along and checking.

No idea how anyone would think that behavior is even remotely OK. 100% call for the floor.

By the book, if he doesn’t speak up and protect his action and lets that many people act behind him he has given up his right to act. So if you call the floor there he is supposed to be held to a check. However many floor people don’t understand this rule and I have seen it ruled that they can bet in too many occasions. But a competent floor person would rule he must check since he didn’t speak up. Certainly a shift manager almost anywhere should know he has to check and make that ruling if called to the table (which doesn’t usually happen). I would have certainly called the floor if I was involved in this hand and maybe even if not if they are repeat anglers.

How did you learn this? Did she brag to you about it?

She's probably referring to paying some of the down payment with her heater money.

Where do they draw the line though? What if they start complaining about 2 winning players who are roommates? Close friends? Poker buddies from the same country? The edge seeking pros like dumbo have incentive to get good players off the best game in the room that everyone wants to play in. All they have to do is band together and accuse 2 players of collusion and then one of them won’t be able to play in the best game in the room anymore

Was the second to act, who was actually the one who acted out of turn, in on this collusion too? Time to get up, they are all colluding against you!

The colluders are also both crushers who have to resort to colluding. Story checks out. Smells more like nit pros complaining about 2 crushers taking up seats in there game

That's a decision for poker room management to make. There's obviously the possibility of the others just wanting to get rid of that couple, same way people get kicked out of private games for winning too much. Again, in the end it's simply a business decision for the poker room and its employees who have incentive to make the situation go away as fast and easy as possible.

The wife knew her husband didn't act and decided to play along instead of speaking up. I have a very hard time understanding how anyone would think that behavior is OK or that having those people at your table is desirable.

He was first to act, she was third. There was a second and a fourth in the hand. He pauses when action is on him and does not do anything. (They have both done this before.) The second to act checks thinking it’s on him, and now it’s on her. The last to act player says it’s on her and asks what her action is. She says check. Last to act then checks behind.

Then she says “wait it’s still on him.” (Her man.) The dealer rediculously allows him to bet without calling the floor, and she predictably folds…!

Dumbo has a history of misrepresenting facts. His story doesn’t even add up. The wife was stupid enough to tell everyone her husband didn’t act after she already checked behind? I’ll bet you the wife didn’t even know her husband got skipped until he spoke up and she backed him up rightfully

Tell me when I have lied on this forum. I have not. Maybe omitted details inadvertently, but never ”misrepresented facts.”

And how does this story not add up? He waited to see what the action after him was to negate his positional disadvantage - as he and she have done before - and then she checked to help him get away with it knowing he had not acted yet. It adds up quite well actually. This was pretty blatant IMO. Like they don’t even care to hide it anymore.

But you just keep trolling … contributing nothing of value here.

Why are you assuming his intention? Maybe he didnt know it was on him? Maybe he was thinking about what to bet? All seem normal to me. The second player acted out of turn which led the wife to act behind.

Well did the husband speak up or not? Or does wifey wears the pants and had to tell everyone hubby hasn’t acted even though she checked behind him ? Your assumptions are quite a stretch bro

I am not the only person here that has pointed out you omit key details in your stories. That is 100% a way to misrepresent facts

I think I might know who they are, are they a white couple with light colored hair and the male a lot taller than the female?

No benefit of the doubt for someone who has done the same thing before - and a pro at that. Not in my book. He intentionally stalled and didn’t protect his own action. He didn’t say a word as action checked through, even while his wife was asked what her action was by the last player. He probably wanted to see what she would do first as well.

No, different.

You got proof he does this intentionally or is it another one of your assumptions?

If there signaling anyway why would he need to see what his wife would do first 🤣

When he’s done it before, as she has as well, I’m much less willing to believe it was a harmless mistake.

They can also start accusing you of angle shooting and colluding every time you don’t act immediately when it’s on you and the person behind you acts out of turn 🤷

Yesterday he transferred off her game soon after they sat down, hopefully that continues. I think they got the message and word got around people were unhappy.

So… they are still playing. Are they playing well?

He went on tilt and got it in with some garbage once last night. I don’t know about her.