I deal third shift, over the past few months a couple has very regularly been coming in many nights a week. I am always on the lookout for collusion, and this couple at first glance may seem to fit the bill. But after dealing to them many times, I feel strongly that they do not collude.

Well today I came into work and there was a note by the floors' computers saying that these two were no longer allowed to play at the same table. I later expressed to one of the floors that I have never witnessed collusion between them and that I don't agree with not allowing them to play together. The floor admitted that while he has also never witnessed collusion between them, that multiple players over the past few months have separately come up to the floors voicing concerns about collusion between the couple. He said that in this business, perception is everything, and that they couldn't just sit by and not do anything. While I agree with that somewhat, I think collusion is a very touchy subject, and there needs to be outright proof of it before you should be able to stick that cheating label on someone. And if you are willing to say "well we think you are colluding, so you are no longer allowed to play at the same table" you are basically saying "we think you are cheaters"... and if you think that, why not just ban them from the room altogether?

They play 1/3 overnight multiple nights a week, and the room usually gets down to one or two tables by ~5am. Early in the night they may or may not be at the same table, but by the time the room starts to die there isn't really much of a choice. They will also seat change to be side by side if a seat opens up. My opinion is that they just enjoy talking to each other, but again from an outsider's view it may appear shady that the couple regularly ends up sitting side by side. The girl is a good player imo, much better than the vast majority of the overnight 1/3 crowd.. the guy, not so much. My take on it is that guys with frail egos can't handle losing to this girl, so they resort to going to the floors and crying "collusion". And while these two aren't exactly model citizens, they somewhat often get into arguments with other players and the floor needs to be called over to play adult daycare, I don't feel that this should factor in to being labeled cheaters. The girl pretty regularly runs up big stacks and completely runs over the table, while the guy is pretty much a bad reg.

I'm curious on thoughts from players and other dealers/floors on the situation.

I can see your side and managements as well. You did what you thought was right and spoke your mind and, more importantly, you were heard and respected. Your line about frail egos might be reading too much into things though - you only see what you see. Plus, like it or not rooms will tend to side with the majority, and it sounds like at least a handful of players are complaining, which, in their mind, outweighs these two (non)colluders.

My thought is that you already went as far as you can because at the end of the day, that decision is none of your business.

If management decides that it’s more important to them to keep other players in the room happy, that’s their call to make and not your job to question that any further than you already did. You voiced your concerns and it sounds like you were heard and received an explanation which is all you can ask for in a workplace. Might not be fair to the couple, but ultimately management will try to make a decision that’s in the best interest of the room aka the bottom line.

In the case of a married couple you are not necessarily calling them cheaters in that sense. People sharing a common bankroll in the game do not need to intend to cheat to be a problem. The fact that they share a common bankroll is enough to impact decision making even if they do not have that intent

So, would you advocate finding out that they are indeed sharing a bankroll (vs married with separate finances), or is this more or less an excuse for rationalizing a decision you've made anyway?

I know you weren't asking me, but I think attempting to request or find some sort of proof of shared or separate finances is getting too far into the weeds for this type of issue.

All that really matters is that the majority of the players in the room feel uncomfortable with these players playing at the same table and management has decided that the majority's concerns outweigh the couple's desire to play at the same table.

I would be fine if management ruled the other way too; I'd just ask to change tables if I didn't enjoy playing with them or I thought there was some sort of cheating going on and I'd let the floor know why I'm requesting the table change.

It's a tricky situation. It's a little like a casino manager backing a player off of blackjack because he's an "advantage" player. They make a debatable call for the best interests of the casino. That's their prerogative. Same here. Suspicion of guilt, plus the casino/poker room being able to basically do whatever they want, lead to this tough but logical decision.

Also, collusion can be at different levels. Are they tag-teaming against other players in a way to make them to be net winners in the aggregate? Or are they just whispering to each other as to what they had when the hand is over? You say the woman wins a lot, and the man is a "losing reg." Well that reminds me of Worm and Mike McDee colluding against the trust fund babies. Overly dramatic for the sake of Hollywood, but maybe not too different from your situation.

I have seen this happen five different times.

In one case I believe that the couple was cheating. They pretended not to care about winning, also pretending to get drunk. They would end up sitting next to each other every night. I can't tell you exactly what they were doing but it was strange. I finally decided not to play in the game if they were in it. Years later I read an article by a famous poker player (I can't remember who) describing what could have been this couple. His claim was that they were exchanging cards under the table and the only "tell" was that their shoulders dipped one after the other while their hands were under the table.

In another case after the hand was over the wife in the 1 seat said to her husband in the 10 seat "If I had known you were in the hand I wouldn't have raised." I spoke to the senior regular in the game and he advised me to say nothing, primarily because they were so bad.

In the other three cases the couples adamantly denied colluding. I can attest that they played very differently when they were in a hand together as opposed to when they weren't. I would also say that this is something that regulars would be much more likely to notice than dealers because dealers are only at the table for 30 minutes at a time.

In the end I don't think it matters whether a couple is intentionally colluding or not. I think it makes sense to disallow couples (who are regulars) to play at the same table together. There are too many situations in which it is in the best interest of the couple to play in a way that would not be in the best interest of one of the individuals.

If there are no other tables running then I think you have to allow them to play together as long as there are no overt signs of cheating. But as soon as another game starts, one of them must get moved.

This was my point (except I would probably replace "majority" with "nonzero number" ).

It actually doesn't matter if they're married or living together or friends with benefits or just two random people who want to play next to each other or a dude who takes his hooker out gambling as foreplay.

Or, specifically, it can't matter, because you can't differentiate between any of those scenarios.

All that matters is that people have complained.

And that's the actual can of worms that people haven't begun discussing. Let's say I think two people are colluding. Does it matter what their marital status is? Does the casino need to subpoena their financial records? Absolutely not. So, then, on what basis are they going to make a judgement? I don't have a good answer.

Let's make it even more complicated - if I figured out this casino had a rule, do you think I could get enough people to accuse all the good players of colluding to limit the number of good players at our table? Ugh.

I don't think you could.

And if you did then the card room has an even bigger collusion problem (in that most of the losing players would seem to be willing to collude).

In practice I have almost never seen actual colluding accusations being made. Mostly its just a feeling of discomfort because people who are playing from the same bankroll look like they are playing differently when in hands together or do better when they are at the same table than when they aren't.

But every time I have seen this happen, its a husband and wife that are the targets of the complaint. I think it is far more difficult to see and assume collusion among regulars who aren't married or living together. And I think most regs in a game know each other well enough to know if people are playing from the same bankroll.

I'm pretty ok with the assumption that a married couple is financially connected in a way that makes them have a joint Interest. While some couples may purport to have "separate" finances their is rarely such an actual separation that makes their decision making truly free from that concern.

I acknowledge there are some number who may be truly independent but they are also likely not in the kind of relationship that has them regularly playing poker with each other.

FTR I played with a married couple in a 10/20 LHE game for over a year and it was crystal clear that they played as if they weren't sharing a bankroll. I never once felt uncomfortable playing them both at a table.

The one hand that I remember distinctly: I flopped a set and turned a full house vs both of them and the husband had flopped a straight flush. His wife in the hand until the river, never raised. I almost didn't pay off his 4-bet on the river...

I'm not saying they all collude. I'm saying that a joint bankroll can influence decision-making. Not that every decision with be made based on that.

BTW your example could actually reflect team play. Suppose she knew that he had flopped the straight flush and wanted to help get your money into the pot..... Raising might chase you off (she doesn't know you have a boat and aren't going anywhere) so she calls hoping to give you odds to call his bets.....

Her money goes in with zero risk but it could be intended to get you to come along.

Not all collusion is whipsawing .... In fact whipsawing is probably the least effective and easiest to spot

Any two people who routinely go to the poker room together, and always try to sit beside each other, should be forced to play at different tables.

If they sit beside each other, they are bad at colluding.

i'd want proof to outright ban them but if enough people are complaining i could understand separating them.

This thread is way too long. All it needs to say is:

poker players love to find a reason to complain. If they find one, it cannot be passed up.

Management's job is to try to keep these complainers happy. Whether the complaints have merit or not, has little bearing on this.

A couple wanting to sit together so they can talk is obviously suspicious. Any couple that has been a couple for any length of time cherishes the "apart time" that going out to play something allows. As an old golfing buddy of my dad once said," the biggest mistake of my life was teaching my wife to golf. Now she always wants to play together ".

Couples often get so in tune with each other that they can fully understand a barely audible whisper from the other one in a loud room. Close friends get this way sometimes too. Maybe they're just talking about dinner plans but you see them doing this when one or both is in a hand and you're going to be suspicious. It's similar to disallowing foreign languages at the table. Two people can hear what the other is saying but nobody else can.

I have switched tables after seeing two friends whisper to each other from across the table before.

Some couples LOVE going after each other. I enjoy playing against those types. The only collusion you have to worry about is one of them betting you out of the pot so they can have their partner's money for themselves.

1) Is one of them always 'on the right' of the other to create a betting pattern?
2) Were any of the Dealers, apparently not the OP, asked about their behavior at the table?
3) Does either of them bust out and end up waiting for the other to finish playing?
4) Have they been warned about anything before the hammer fell?

We've all seen this spot before. The fact that this one is regular and includes a winning Player (vehicle) gives it more exposure than the 'two buddies from high school' or whatever that want to be close at the table.

I'm not a hammer guy, and certainly not one without proof. This very easily could've been handled in stages. And if the 'stages' were met with resistance then it makes it much easier to lay down a 'policy'.

Although it's a fine line to walk when it comes to treating one 'couple' differently than another. GL

Pretty standard solution IMO. Tell them what's going on and ask that they play at separate tables until the end of the night when it can't be avoided. Then they can play together. I have had to do this all of once in my career. The couple was perfectly fine with it and continued to come back.

So is their golfing together "obviously suspicious"?

If not, how is poker together different?

I think you missed the sarcasm emoji at the end.

I'm sorry YTF you post to much here .... We all know you understand the difference between poker and golf.

You mention that they aim to sit next to each other. Does the better player (the girl in this case) typically sit with the weaker player to her left?