Hi all,

In my PLO player pool there is a couple that often plays together at the same table. Several other regs have commented about this with disapproval, and one even said she thought they signal to each other in game (unverified). One once called one the “spotter” and the other the “sniper.” Anyway there are serious collusion concerns in the player pool about them. They also happen to win and they are professional poker players.

I have mentioned my displeasure to them directly on a couple occasions and have called them out so people at the table know they are a team.

I wonder what else can be done in this situation beyond peer pressure. There have been several regular couples who play these PLO games but they never play at the same table or get a table change as soon as possible. Can the floor force them not to play together?

The only trouble is, the collusion is hard to detect and the husband when I challenged them once even said “prove it.”

I find it really repulsive that they try to gain an edge playing together especially as they are winners and play for a living, as do I. (If they were bad/losing players I really wouldn’t care.)

Anyone with ideas, please share.

Thanks,
DT

Talk to the floor about your concerns. The casino absolutely can make them play on separate tables.

Having said that, when you say you suspect collusion what do you mean by that? Do they check it down when heads up? Do they whipsaw people by backraising in weird situations? Do they show up with weird hands after raising other people out of the pot?

Given that you have had issues with casino staff in the past, is there any way you can get others in the player pool thar are on better terms with the floor to speak up about it instead? Casino politics can be tricky so someone saying something who has good rapport with the floor and the player pool might go further than someone who is seen as a “difficult” player saying something. Barring that I would definitely want to come with specific examples of their collusion. You may have already tipped them off that you’re onto them, so they might be “on notice” already and playing on their best behavior. That alone might be enough to solve the problem.

They’re playing together less often now that people have spoken up but not stopped entirely.

I wouldn’t say I’m viewed as difficult. I’d be comfortable expressing my concerns to the floor, and I doubt I’d be the first to say something.

Two married pros shouldn't be allowed to play at the same table, even if you're sure they weren't deliberately colluding. Not only does it look bad, but some plays may be made differently without them even realizing it consciously.

I sort of agree, but what if they don't have a choice? If I am on the waiting list wasting my time looking at my phone and my name is called, I am not going to say "no" because someone who I know very,very well is there.

They always have the choice of one of them not being a poker pro. Or they have the easier choice of playing different games or on different days or different times of day.

It has nothing to do with them knowing each other very well; it has everything to do with them (at least effectively) sharing a bankroll. Poker isn't supposed to be a team sport.

Interesting that 'Prove it' was used .. which (at least on TV) is a fairly good indicator of guilt.

I've stated before that I don't mind 'teams' since you can hopefully figure out a way to get 2x the chips when they try to pull off their 'act'. Table dynamic is just that .. a dynamic that you have to figure out for each table, each session.

There's a HUGE difference between two Players having a 'relationship' and them 'working together' (collusion). Friends, Teacher/Student, Horse/Backer or any other bond between two Players is not allowed at the same table? Not going to cut it in most rooms in today's world.

I think as long as a 'major' relationship is announced at the table then you either deal with it or not. Do they have to make it known? That's their choice .. but I'm also not going to be mad at a Floor that 'highly' suggests that they play at different tables when available.

If you ever borrowed cash from a Player you now have a shared bankroll until it's paid back.

My POV is different than most here .. I just look at it as a challenge that needs to be taken into consideration during this session. MOST certainly, if they are making signals, then it needs to be addressed more severely .. as it would be with any two Players.

So because they are Pros .. and winning .. it's an issue. But if they were rich and dumped 10k a session into the table we'll let them sit next to each other and show their cards to each other. Can't have it both ways .. GL

Of course you can. If someone was colluding but were so bad at it that they lost thousands of dollars then who cares. If they're colluding (even possibly) and winning enough to make it their jobs, that is a big problem.

But if by some crazy circumstance you would have to deal with them both the same way, neither should be allowed.

Nah I don’t agree. If they’re not colluding then it’s not an issue if they play at the same table. At least not for me.

That “if” is doing a lot of work there though. They may have been colluding for a while now and only recently became more brazen about it.

This has happened to me at least 4 times in the past 17 years. The biggest problem as Chillrob said is that they are sharing a bankroll and whether cheating is consciously occurring or not it isn't fair. Subconscious cheating will be happening.

The first time was in Aruba at a 20/40 LHE game. By the third time I played with the couple I knew they were cheating. The problem was that there was only one 20/40 LHE table running so there was no way to stop it. I believe this couple later on became known for their cheating when I read an article on them that said beware when they sit next to each other and dip their shoulders they are likely exchanging cards. In Aruba they would start out apart but end up next to each other. The third day I played with them I said "No footsie allowed!" and the husband started screaming threats at me. And that was that. I talked to the owner and he told me he knew something was screwy about them but couldn't do anything. They had actually offered to buy half his interest and become partners (he declined the offer).

At Foxwoods (FW) in their 20/40 LHE game a married couple started playing together after she had played 10/20 LHE for years. They always sat at the same table and they always played differently when they were in hands together. The most obvious was they wouldn't chop unless they were playing against each other. A number of us complained to the floors and they were banned from playing at the same table unless there was only one table (which was rare at FW). When they played together they had made tons of money. At different tables they lost a lot and then they stopped coming to FW.

Also at FW a couple (not married) would overtly cheat at 1/2 NL. I have no idea if they were banned from playing together or not. But I pointed out how obvious it was to them and a Floor and they abruptly left the game. I had played with them about 3 times and it wasn't obvious that they were a couple in that they never talked to each other at the table. I knew who they were because he had played 20/40 LHE at one point and she had watched him on occasion.

Also at FW there was a married couple who had played years together in the 20/40 LHE game. One day early after I had moved up to 20/40, He was sitting in Seat 10, she was in Seat 1 and I was in Seat 2. We were three way after pre-flop. On the turn she bet and I raised. Her husband slammed his calling chips down and said "Never bet when I am in the hand, you know that!". It was especially incredible because he was still in the hand and he said it in front of everybody including the dealer. I sought out the "Mayor" of FW who had been a regular in the 20/40 LHE since FW opened and he told me to do nothing because they were both really bad and were good for the game. So I did nothing. I will point out that the Dealer did nothing as well.

Ultimately when people are playing at the same table with the same bankroll they will always be looking at the best way to make money. Sometimes they bet less. Sometimes they bet more. In NL or PLO it can be extremely effective to get people to fold and/or to double up.

When my son came to Prague and came with me to play in a tournament I went up to the Floor and let them know so they could always keep us separated until the final table. Had we ended up together I would have made sure to let the whole table know. And I would have done my best to play like we were not related but I have no idea how that would have gone.

Sounds like OP is more concerned with 2 good players hurting his winrate than the integrity of the game, as is often the case.

I would suggest banding together with other players who are tired of the winning-reg-couple (there won’t be a shortage of them: losing players who want to blame it on cheating, regs who want to boost their own winrate, and people who actually care about the integrity of the game) and pester the floor with cheating allegations. The constant complaints from multiple players will likely lead to action, when banning the couple from playing together becomes less work for the floor than dealing with constant complaints. Dirty? Yes. But highly effective in my experience.

Of course. I've never seen a situation where someone complained when the clueless spouse of another player sat down to play, too.

FWIW, once you play higher stakes (private) games there's always a very good chance at least two players at the table play share a bankroll or at least action. Without being married.

That's bad for the game too, IMO, but if you're in a private game I guess you go along with it.

+1. It’s pretty much unavoidable and most people just roll with it unless there is blatant collusion

First of all, I should note that I am using "poker pro" in the general sense of a long term winning player.

Also, in many, if not most places in the USA, if you are playing at the highest stakes in the casino, you have very little choice of tables. There may only be one table, even if there are more tables, changes take time and players do not have complete control over when it happens.

I am more in the camp of deal with the table conditions as they are. As long as players are not blatently cheating (sharing cards or signaling) I think it behooves a player to understand the dynamic between other players (possibly using that to your advantage).

It doesn't have to be married players. There are plenty of non-married players who share bankrolls or have some sort of relationships. Everyone who has played even a little bit of poker has seen a table with two regs who softplay each other. Also as others have mentioned, if one player loans another player money they are effectively playing from the same bankroll.

It is not uncommon for two friends to go to a casino and one give the other money for a buy in.

It can even get more grey.

Many, many, many years ago my best friend and I would regularly play poker together. We were both winning recs (hence the caveat above). We would have to drive an hour to the casino and there was usually only one $2/$5 table, sometimes two, but rare. We always had an agreement among the two of us that whoever won the most (lost the least) would have to buy dinner the next time and also pay for gas on the way home. Basically we had a mild financial interest in each other's results. We never cheated and I never consciously slow played him, but it is an absolute given you are going to play differently against someone who you deeply discuss hands with.

I think understanding the relationships among the other players at the game is just part of the game (outside of blatent cheating obviously).

Well, I discussed my and others’ concerns with the shift supervisor tonight and he said he would warn them not to collude, or else, but would not go so far as to prevent them from playing at the same table. The husband has threatened me a couple times and was banned over a year ago for assaulting a player so I mentioned that too.

Thanks for the input.

Did you see the shift manager actually warn the couple? He most likely won’t…

Did the husband threaten you with physical violence? That could be grounds for him getting rebanned.

He actually talked to them in his office, I saw them all walk in and out together.

The husband said we could take it outside or something to that effect.

If other regs agree with you, when they sit you can mass quit and explain to management why (or sit out and force them to invoke third man walking rule) . Effecting the rake gets their attention.

We have a couple that I won't play with because they collude. We also have a h&w team that sit at same table but very rarely play the same hands so sitting w them doesn't bother me.

this

Someone assaulted another player in the room a year ago, and he's still playing there? That's insane, I can't imagine this not being a lifetime ban. This must be the worst run casino in the country.

A winning player is not the same as a pro, but even if they're not pros, I still don't think they should be allowed to play together.

Giving someone a loan or even paying for their buy in is not the same as being a couple with shared money and expenses.
Obviously a winner buying dinner isn't even similar.

I have never really understood what it meant for two players to share a bankroll. Is it just like an emergency fund they can borrow from, or does all their money go into that and they don't even keep track of individual wins or losses?

If it's the first, that's really just the same as being friends and is not important. If it's the second, I really don't think they should be allowed to play together either, but if no one knows then you couldn't really do anything about it.

Any finger banging under the table?

One thing I didn't mention was I played against a married couple at Foxwoods in 10/20 LHE for about a year. There was never anything they did that made me feel awkward and I liked both of them.

One time I had AK and we went 3-ways to the flop. The flop was AKT flop. I bet he raised and his wife called I called. Turn was A. I checked he bet his wife called I raised he 3-bet his wife called I capped it he called she called. River was like 6. I bet he raised his wife folded I 3-bet he 4-bet and amazingly I just called. He of course had a royal flush. But his wife could have capped the flop when he had the nuts. She could have folded the turn so he could 5 bet but she didn't. At no point did I think they were colluding on that hand or ever really. I never asked what she had but it seemed clear it was AQ/AJ

Let's simplify this. We are talking about relationships. Relationships can range from two people agreeing to pay for gas and a dinner to two people playing off the same bankroll to two people living together to two people being legally married. There is a huge range here.

Given that the spectrum is large and wide, and the range gradually changes, where do you draw the line?

I see many situations where two players might live together. They have regular (crappy) jobs that just pay the bills and their poker earnings are for the luxuries. They are not a couple, but their finances are clearly intertwined just through happiness. Should they be allowed to play together?

How about two best friends who are wealthy and play together and regularly try very hard (to their detriment) to take each other's money just for bragging rights?

How about two players who regularly play together and have started seriously dating? They are still financially independent, but clearly have interest in each other's affairs.

How about two older family members playing together (adult brothers)? No overt financial ties, but clearly a strong relationship.

Where I am going with all of this is that there is a large grey area that consists of many factors (financial, heart, blood, friendship, etc.). You are trying to use a grey marker to draw a line through this grey area. Furthermore, as you already recognize, this is near impossible for anyone to enforce because they do not know all of the details.

Instead I think it is better to draw a clear line at overt cheating (signaling, trading cards, etc.) as a definite no-no and instead leave it up to other players to try and understand how they play and deal with it.

Note, I say this mostly about cash games where there are not any ICM concerns which will multiply collusion (including softplay) concerns.

I will also note that it has been my experience that whenever two opposing players have a meaningful relationship (friends, lovers, financial, whatever) that it is generally to my advantage more often that not as it affects their play significantly in ways they do not realize.