Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortyTheFish
More than you will ever know...
I'm just saying, if I invest some money into a pot, fold it, then see a guy take it down with a strong hand but talks his opponent into folding when he should be trying to extract some value out of his big hand, it's a bit eyebrow-raising.
But both players had playable hands, they showed them down, if they were colluding, why not play it out and not LOOK like they were colluding? People who collude do not care which of them wins the pots, they're splitting it up later anyway.
Was it a -EV move, probably but he explained why he did it and with the hands that were shown down, VOLUNTARILY, how can anyone think they were colluding? If they were colluding, they would not have raised before it got to the player who folded.
It would have been OP check, MP bet, LP call, OP raise, MP re-raise and then LP probably folds. That is when the late position player might have a case for collusion. That way they would have gotten some more money into the pot before they forced him out. Once he folded, one player would have made a bet, the other would have folded and NO ONE would have shown down a hand.
But they raised on the flop, they made it too expensive for that player to stay BEFORE he put more money in the pot. And they did so because they both had very playable hands.
Then they SHOWED their hands.
Unless you want to talk the OP out of taking down small pots intead of stacking you when he takes down a big pot. If that is what you want to do, go for it.