Players Going All-In Blind by Agreement

[pokerxanadu]

There's nothing like a good rule to prevent unethical behavior. I guess we'll have to see if this behavior becomes more prevalent before the TDA finds it worthwhile to  address the issue directly. I suspect that will happen.

[Tristan]

I like this definition:

Collusion

Collusion is two or more players acting with a secret, common strategy. Some common forms of collusion are: soft play, that is, failing to bet or raise in a situation that would normally merit it, to avoid costing one's partner or friend money; whipsawing, where partners raise and re-raise each other to trap players in between; dumping, where a cheater will deliberately lose to a partner; and signalling, or trading information between partners via signals of some sort, like arranging their chips in a certain manner.
In a poker tournament, when one player is all in and two other players are active in the pot, it is common for the two players with chips left to "check it down", or check on each round of betting through the end of the hand. Unless they explicitly communicate an agreement about checking it down, this is not collusion.[1]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_collusion

I do view making an agreement between about what to do in a hand prior to play a form of collusion.  It is also a borderline violation of one player per hand. 

Unless they are 1st and second to act, they would also be acting out of turn.

I would probably give one warning, then would give escalating penalties...probably starting with an orbit.

[pokerxanadu]

I think this is a bit better:

"Collusion is two or more players acting with a common agreed-upon strategy, usually in secret, to gain an advantage over one or more other players."

Otherwise, for instance, if two players were to verbally agree out loud to check it down against another all-in player, it would still not be collusion per the definition you quoted.

A warning for first instance would do nothing to stop the behavior of agreeing to move all-in blind in the case of these re-entry tournaments. It is, by nature, something that happens just the one time during the tournament. Keep in mind:

Re-entry is on the next Day 1 of the tournament.
Players do not have to have zero chips left to re-enter. In most cases, they abandon their chipstack to play the next Day 1. In some cases, whichever Day 1 chipstack is largest advances to Day 2.

Only a severe penalty, such as disqualification, or a penalty that removes any incentive from the action, such as removing all chips won in the hand as I propose, will deter the behavior.

There are other types of pre-agreed action for which a warning and then escalating penalties are appropriate. Current rules already cover this sufficiently. It is only this special situation which needs the more severe treatment of a specialized penalty. Current common penalties, such as sitting out one orbit, won't do anything to stop it - it's worth it for the pot winner and doesn't make a difference to the pot losers. Disqualification of the players might work, but there is little chance of implementation or enforcement by poker rooms, since that cuts into their house fees (the players can't re-enter).

[Tristan]

"Collusion is two or more players acting with a common agreed-upon strategy, usually in secret, to gain an advantage over one or more other players."

Otherwise, for instance, if two players were to verbally agree out loud to check it down against another all-in player, it would still not be collusion per the definition you quoted.

Great point!  Otherwise Player A telling Player B "Let's check it down since Player C is all-in" and Player B saying "Ok, sounds good!" would technically not be collusion because it wasn't in secret!