Collusion in poker games

Posts: 647 · Posted: 30.03.2006, 05:29

Here's an expanded definition of "collusion" in poker games:

from http://www.homepokertourney.com/cheating.htm

Collusion

Collusion is extremely difficult to prove and caution must be used when dealing with the issue. In a public cardroom, or someone else's house, it is best to simply walk away from the game when you suspect collusion. Unfortunately, walking away is not an option when you are in your own house hosting 20 guys for a night of poker!

Some common forms of collusion are:

* Dumping chips: Deliberately losing to a partner (perhaps someone you are backing financially or with whom you have traded a percentage stake).
* Hand-mucking: Switching or altering hands. Two people sitting next to each other might try to switch hands or alter them in some way.
* Hot-seat: A new player is invited to a game, only to play against a team of players all secretly working together.
* Signaling: Trading information between partners. Signals can take many forms, from the placement of the chips on the cards, to coughing, to Morse code tappings on the table. The key ingredient in all signaling systems is the ability to be repeated without being noticed. In a game where people (hopefully) are always watching each other, this can prove problematic. When a cheater is signaling the value of his hand to his partner(s), he is also signaling the value of his hand to everybody else at the table.
* Soft play: Failing to bet or raise in a situation that would normally merit it because of your opponent. In home poker games it is common to be playing against someone you know well but the best advice is to leave friendship outside the door, especially in tournament poker. Soft playing a friend is cheating all of the other players at the game who would prefer to see you bust out your friend, getting them closer to the prize money.
* Whipsawing: Partners raise and reraise each other to trap players in between.

Implicit Collusion

Let's say there are three players left in the pot and one of those players goes all-in. There is now a good chance that the remaining two players will "check it down", meaning that they will both check, rather than bet or raise, until the showdown. This is known as "implicit collusion" because the two players are now, in effect, teaming up against the all-in player. There are several legitimate reasons why implicit collusion is somewhat tolerated:

* The chance of a successful bluff is much lower since there is a guaranteed card showdown with the all-in player.
* Eliminating players is an important objective in a tournament and both players have a vested interest in seeing the all-in player eliminated. Two hands have a better chance of beating the all-in player than one.
* Players not in the pot also have a vested interest in seeing the all-in player eliminated.

For these reasons, don't be surprised to see many checked-down hands in these situations. It is not considered to be cheating unless done by verbal agreement.

Posts: 129 · Posted: 05.04.2006, 07:14

ok... i have a serious question...

concerning "collusion"...

well two actually...

1st: during a freeroll tournament... people who fail to show up for a game they have registered to play in... are automatically "sit out"/s. Inevitably, they will be blinded to zero, before teh end of the game. As far as I can tell at every site I've played at... sit outs only post the blind that they are forced to post automatically, but fold to every raise, and the small blind sitout folds to the BB. Now basically nearly every player in the tournaments, unless they are new, knows this. And someone only has to call the sit out BB to make them fold. If you are at a table w/ a lot of sit outs... and the LIVE players... w/o specifically saying this... choose to "alternately" raise the sit out BB posters... while the other LIVE players "alternately" fold... mind you, no one outright says... 'we are going to do "this..." '... basically, to speed up the process of eliminating the sit outs being forced out of play... is this considered collusion... when the sit outs would have been forced out of play before the end of game anyway... no one is conspiring to defraud the poker site... it's impossible to defraud absent players who will not win... but... there is the teensy detail that the LIVE players, are acting in combination... so is this collusion???

2nd: In a team sport... the team members, their captain , etc... hold "huddles" to discuss play stratedgies... they have signals... etc etc... all this being done in an effort to win a game... so... in team poker... where teams are playing against other teams... the places are awarded w/ points that are combined of team members to make an overall team score... sometimes in non cash games, sometimes freerolls, sometimes buy ins... what is the extent that team mates can communicate w/ each other... to win as a team???

look foward to what I'm sure will be mixed replies to this...