LIVE CASH GAME POKER RULES DISCUSSION => Live Cash Game Rules Questions => Topic started by: markmagic on July 25, 2011, 11:11:30 AM

Title: collusion?
Post by: markmagic on July 25, 2011, 11:11:30 AM
is it collusion if player A bet 50 and player B goes all-in and player C was thinking
then player A says that if player C will call he will fold and if player C fold player A
will call the all-in bet...
Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: Luca P. on July 25, 2011, 11:21:40 AM
I consider it collution because playerA is conditioning the play.
TDA Rules say that if there's a hand going on, nobody can talk in a manner that can influence it.
If this happens, player who acted against this rule will have a warning and also a time out
Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: chet on July 25, 2011, 12:39:48 PM
This is NOT collusion!!  The is merely table talk.  There was something recently, maybe as part of a Tweet during the WSOP that discussed conditional statements not being binding. 

What do you do if player C folds and then player A folds? 

What I would do, is let the hand play out and then give player A a penalty for action out of turn.  The severity of the penalty can be adjusted by how confident you are that these two are in fact colluding.  If you are 100% confident, why not just disqualify player A, I submit you don't need that kind of player in your events anyway.
Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: Luca P. on July 25, 2011, 12:54:33 PM
This is NOT collusion!!  The is merely table talk.
Easy man  ;D
How can you consider this only table talk?
PlayerA is conditioning the hand in action which is not permitted, this is the main reason why we should give him a warning and a penality, then it comes the "out of turn" rule in my opinion

Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: Nick C on July 25, 2011, 01:47:52 PM
Who ever said that you can't talk in a poker game? Who ever said that you can't lie? Too much table talk, give them a penalty. The hand is still live, and action continues. I can't see holding any player to anything he says during a hand that is not offensive. I'm not a fan of....."oh, it's okay, if he's telling the truth!" The next thing you know, the TD's will be looking at player's hands to see if they were telling the truth, or not. Who talked more than Jamie Gold in the 2006 WSOP Main Event?
Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: Luca P. on July 25, 2011, 02:13:54 PM
In our TDA rules, under "poker etiquette" it's stated:
making statements or taking actions that could unfairly influence the course of play
That would be the main reason I would give him a warn and of course, a penality...
Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: Stuart Murray on July 25, 2011, 02:19:31 PM
Hi all,

Ditto Chet's response, It's only table banter and conditional statements arent 'really' binding, although I would issue a penalty after the hand was finished.

Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: DCJ001 on July 25, 2011, 02:31:22 PM
I'm surprised (although I probably should not be) that most of the answers in this thread do not address the true concerns.

This issue has nothing to do with "conditional statements are not binding." When a player is all in, with two or more assertional players in the hand, no one should be saying anything about what any players will or won't do. This is collusion.

Players will often check down a hand, when another player is all in, in an effort to eliminate the all in player. This is fine, as long as there is no discussion about doing so. "Table talk," like this is not allowed.

41. No Disclosure
Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times. Therefore, players, whether in the hand or not, may not:
1. Disclose contents of live or folded hands,
2. Advise or criticize play at any time,
3. Read a hand that hasn't been tabled.
The one-player-to-a-hand rule will be enforced.

43. Ethical Play
Poker is an individual game. Soft play will result in penalties, which may include forfeiture of chips and/or disqualification. Chip dumping and/or all other forms of collusion will result in disqualification.
Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: chet on July 25, 2011, 02:55:38 PM

I differ on a couple of points:

1.  I remember reading somewhere where it is unethical for two players to check down a hand when a 3rd is all in.  What would you do of one of the "checking" players had the absolute NUT hand and failed to bet it.  That player if I remember correctly would be guilty of unethical play and could be penalized.

2.  Where is the violation of Rule 41?  There was no discussion of the content of ANY Hand so sub. 1 doesn't apply.  There was no advice to another player as to how a hand should be player or that a hand was played wrong, so I don't see where sub. 2 could apply.  Finally, no hand was read so sub. 3 doesn't apply.

Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: Stuart Murray on July 25, 2011, 03:07:01 PM
Hi DCJ001,

I would ditto Chet's response, in regard to checking down an all-in player, in Tournament Poker it is a valid form of play providing: neither players suggests or infers that they are going to do so, the decision to check-down an all-in player must be reached independently by both players without any agreement or discussion to do so, otherwise such behaviour would be tantamount to highly unethical play and should result in a harsh penalty or disqualification.  With regard to checking down an all-in player at Cash poker, it is not a valid form of play, as the object is to win the hand, and not the game.

I would disagree with regard to table talk and/or conditional statements being classed as collusion, even more so at Cash poker.

Best Regards
Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: chet on July 25, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
DCJ001:  By the way, I don't have any problem if you have a rule that prevents statements such as in this example.  I just don't think it falls within the definition of collusion. 
Title: Re: collusion?
Post by: Brian Vickers on July 27, 2011, 11:16:04 AM
Yes this is copied-pasted-edited:
"Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading ...or gaining an unfair advantage"

There was no agreement between two players, so I think that we can not label this as "collusion".  (Two players verbally agreeing to check down a pot when a third player is all-in is clearly an agreement which limits competition) 

That being said, I do believe this is unethical, and could result in another player losing money in the pot.  For instance if he talks C out of calling, B might have got that money and if talks C into calling he might win the pot off of B. 
Bottom line is: You shouldn't say anything in a multi-way pot that could influence the outcome of the hand.  It is unethical and unfair to the other players involved and warrants a penalty.  In a tournament I woulnd't warn him, I'd jump right to one round.  In a cash game I would warn him once, then ask him to leave for the day.