Collusion? Or am I Overreacting? (1 Viewer)

[Trihonda]

Playing a two table tourney last night, and after I busted out (while waiting for the cash game to start) I was interested in the FT play (especially when all-ins were declared (to get cash game players). Anyway, there was a hand last night that had me cringing a bit, and I wasn’t sure if maybe I was reading into it, or if this was an issue I needed to watch closely in the future (since it involved two players that have recently made it onto MY game’s invite list). This is a couple who are engaged, let’s call them Amy and Bob.

Table is 9-handed and Amy (a fairly competent player who usually does well at these events) is sitting with a monster stack. Bob is very short stacked and has survived a couple recent all in moments. They are sitting on opposite ends of the table. Bob is first to act, and jams his 6bb stack. There are several callers who have very large stacks. Amy is in the SB and postures, then shoves her entire stack, she gets called by one person UTG, for less. The rest of the table folds.

Amy rolls over , Bob rolls over and UTG rolls over

Bob wins the main as his AK holds. UTG wins the side, and AMY still has a 20bb stack.

I was scratching my head over the SB squeeze jam, with KJo, as it really looked like she was specifically trying to provide protection to her endangered fiancé who was about to face an entire table of callers. or at the possibility this was a chip dumping scheme, so that at least one of them would have the chips. I didn’t dwell on it, but later found out the host also had the exact same impression, but let it go. I’ve played this “league” game a few times over the years, but I’m kinda new, and don’t know the players all that well.

i the very next hand, Amy was now on the button and was engaged in a conversation about the previous hand with another player (guy who was newer to the game), and I specifically heard her characterize her play as trying to “cover” Bob. That struck me as a blatant admission of providing him protection, which felt icky since they’re a couple.. But again, I’m new and didn’t want to make waves. After the cash game wrapped, I did have a conversation with the host, and asked him his thoughts. He hadn’t heard Amy make the comment about trying to “cover” for Bob.

So asking the hive mind, am I crazy? Am I over reacting? Is shoving here with KJo from the SB seem like a viable strategy that maybe I’m not aware of?

As for what’s next, I am not planing to make this an issue with Amy or Bob. I think I’ll monitor this activity more closely when I’m hosting. The host of this game was a tad concerned as he had not heard the Cover comment, but also thought her play was a bit odd (even suspicious), but was also planning to just watch closely in the future.

Thanks!

 

[detroitdad]

Overreacting

 

[umbkcshah]

I mean it's a little strange, but nothing too crazy without many more examples. However, everyone limping to not isolate makes their ranges seem pretty weak imo for 6BB. Everyone just calling is basically an unexpressed collusion too

So did UTG limp? as that call off is probably the strangest part imo depending on his stack.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Trust your gut, but my personal impression: I don't hate the isolating with KJ. She's got a big stack to spook people out and thinks she's got Bob beat and knows the several callers are most likely in with ATC. If its a pattern of squeezes for eachother its suspicious, but if they didn't know eachother I wouldn't think twice about this.

 

[JMC9389]

I don't think it's outright collusion, but perhaps some kind of way of Amy softplaying to double her significant other up. Yeah, overshoving KJ off is a bit loose, but WTF is A2 suited doing calling here?

 

[ekricket]

Isolating an all in when you have a marginal top ten hand is not an uncommon strategy.

 

[JMC9389]

Isolating an all in when you have a marginal top ten hand is not an uncommon strategy.

This is also true. When someone is shoving with 6 BB's, KJ is ahead quite a fair amount of the time.

Are bounties a consideration here also? Amy probably would have loved to stack her significant other and get the bounty.

 

[Pinball]

KJ is a too dangerous hand to "cover". KJ is ahead of many hands a good 6BB player would shove and coin flipping with many other hands as well. And even they got HU and knew each others hand. KJ has still over 25%. And with call of the UTG player AK has less than 50%.

Personally I like the shove move from the KJ as a good play.

So you are overreacting in my humblest oinion.

 

[Trihonda]

Ya, thanks for the input. I didn’t think much of it, until I heard her comment about covering for him. Then I was like “hmmm”. Also, this was more of a casual conversation with the host, and not an OMG! So I’ll just chalk it up to an over reaction, nothingburger. . I knew I could count on y’all for some sane advice.

 

[Saoliver]

First of all, it’s JKo. Everyone knows that.

If Amy is a really competent player, it could be a squeeze play that she knew was safe. JKo does have a lot of equity if she can get a lot of dead money in the pot. Or it could be to give her man some protection.

Either way, you are probably overreacting. It’s not really collusion unless he is in on it.

 

[legend672]

The idea is to eliminate players in a tourney Right ? Bunch of calls then check it down for the best chance to eliminate said player

 

[PlaidDragon]

Big stack with KJ calling a 6BB all-in? At first, my reaction was "nothing to see here, move along" given I'd have likely done the same thing.

But after reading this: "and was engaged in a conversation about the previous hand with another player (guy who was newer to the game), and I specifically heard her characterize her play as trying to “cover” Bob. That struck me as a blatant admission of providing him protection, "

...I had second thoughts.

It COULD be a play on words and simple misunderstanding as in "I had him well covered so it was an easy call", or it could be exactly what you're suspecting.

Either way, I wouldn't act on it and instead just keep an eye on them. If the same thing happens again there might be some action required.

 

[Servo]

It COULD be a play on words and simple misunderstanding as in "I had him well covered so it was an easy call"

This was my first thought, too— a different use of the term “cover.”

For what it’s worth, I don’t really understand the presumed motivation for collusion, either. I can understand Bob dumping chips to Amy if he thinks he’s about to be knocked out anyway, but that wouldnt fit here since he moved first, without knowing she’d be in. I don’t understand Amy trying to keep Bob around with such a low stack at the expense of what sounds like her own good chance of actually winning the thing.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

This was my first thought, too— a different use of the term “cover.”

For what it’s worth, I don’t really understand the presumed motivation for collusion, either. I can understand Bob dumping chips to Amy if he thinks he’s about to be knocked out anyway, but that wouldnt fit here since he moved first, without knowing she’d be in. I don’t understand Amy trying to keep Bob around with such a low stack at the expense of what sounds like her own good chance of actually winning the thing.

If 4 or 5 people see the flop, way better odds one of them hits vs her beloved.

 

[Trihonda]

Big stack with KJ calling a 6BB all-in? At first, my reaction was "nothing to see here, move along" given I'd have likely done the same thing.

But after reading this: "and was engaged in a conversation about the previous hand with another player (guy who was newer to the game), and I specifically heard her characterize her play as trying to “cover” Bob. That struck me as a blatant admission of providing him protection, "

...I had second thoughts.

It COULD be a play on words and simple misunderstanding as in "I had him well covered so it was an easy call", or it could be exactly what you're suspecting.

Either way, I wouldn't act on it and instead just keep an eye on them. If the same thing happens again there might be some action required.

it was definitely in the vein of “I was covering FOR Bob”. Not, I had him covered. but whatever. Either way, none of this was earth shattering, none of this was a major story or major allegation of cheating. Just felt weird, even the host noted the play felt odd for the normal game play at the time, and coupled with my hearing the “covered” comment, it raised eyebrows.

ya, and the dude calling for his tourney life with A2, lol.

 

[Taghkanic]

The cover comment pushes your suspicion into more-than-reasonable territory.

 

[Pinball]

if they really wanted to cheat, it wasnt good way to do it

 

[bergs]

At best, she’s isolating to beat the player with AK and putting him on a pocket pair and hoping she has 2 overs and/or everyone else folds.

At worst, it’s probably the same thing.

 

[merkong]

If the couple weren’t a couple I wouldn’t think twice. I’d figure his range is wide and she wanted him all to herself. Since they’re a couple she was clearly thinning hands he’s have to face.

Potentially bad optics for her because she would have clearly had weird intent.

She might have made the call if Joe Blow was all in but because it was her Joe Blow she was likely providing protection.

As hosts we watch for this sort of stuff but are bound by patterns versus isolated episodes.

Let it go but again, as a host and even a player I suppose we watch for this sort of thing.

 

[tentoesdown]

It's a great spot to squeeze here with all the callers of 6bbs, anyone with a strongish hand is not just flatting the 6bbs, they're very likely bumping it up to isolate him/protect their hand, and plus you said she has a monster stack, so it's a nice spot for sure with KJo in the SB.

Confused by your hand breakdown, you said Bob was first to act and jammed 6bbs.

Then you say once Amy rejams, that UTG calls? and it's a 3 way all in?

If Bob is first to act, isn't he UTG?

 

[dp68094]

I'm thinking it's no big deal at all. The callers after Bob, you didn't say how many... 2, 3?, are thinking they're eliminating a hail-Mary shove in tournament play and Amy has a decent hand with a monster stack that could be blocking several others in a multi way hand... She's feeling froggy anyways with her big stack and, best case she has an opportunity to put herself massively out front, and worst case she's still in it. Besides, even with her cover comment, those words out of her mouth, after the hand doesn't mean anything.

 

[upNdown]

I don’t think you’re overreacting, because you’re just noticing and thinking. And FWIW, couples who play tournaments together are 100% subject to all the scrutiny.
It seems to me that if she said what she said and she meant it, then that’s collision.

I think fair follow up questions are, does she know it’s collision, does she know why it’s collusion, and does she know it’s wrong? We can’t presume that everybody knows all the rules, especially home game types. And tournaments can be tricky - maybe she’s witnessed everybody checking it down against Bob to try to get rid of him. If everybody can do that, why can’t she do what she did?
(I know the answer, I’m just making an illustration.)

 

[Mr Winberg]

I think fair follow up questions are, does she know it’s collision, does she know why it’s collusion, and does she know it’s wrong?

This ^

She might thinks she's done nothing wrong. Otherwise she wouldn't have talked about it afterwards.

An old girlfriend of mine did this. I raised all-in from the button, she called from the SB blatantly saying "I have nothing, but it's better if he gets the chips!".

The cover comment pushes your suspicion into more-than-reasonable territory.

I agree that it pushes the intent towards "collusion", but also towards "ignorant collusion" and away from "malicious collusion".

As far as the play, I see nothing suspicious about a chipleader trying to isolate a small stack with some dead money in there. If all fold then the chipleader has +EV regardless of what she's holding. If you get a caller your probably in trouble, though.

I'm a bit confused who UTG is if:

Bob is first to act

 

[BGinGA]

Table is 9-handed
Amy is sitting with a monster stack
Bob is very short stacked
They are sitting on opposite ends of the table.
Bob is first to act, and jams his 6bb stack.
There are several callers
Amy is in the SB and shoves her entire stack
she gets called by one person UTG, for less
The rest of the table folds.

Amy rolls over , Bob rolls over and UTG rolls over

Bob wins the main as his AK holds. UTG wins the side, and AMY still has a 20bb stack.

I question your recollection of the hand.

If Bob is first to act, he must be UTG, and is thus seated two seats away from Amy in the SB (not at opposite ends of the table). And if Bob is UTG, then who called Amy's shove and showed the A2 -- the BB sitting between them?

 

[Taghkanic]

1) Say the collision was ignorant/unconscious. If these are people that the OP plans to play with again, it still needs to be raised so that she learns.

2) aside from the specifics of this hand, I find it interesting how quick many people are to deny, or even belittle claims of cheating, collusion, soft, play, angling, etc.

As both a player and a longtime host, I think there’s a lot more of this still going on in poker than many of us want to admit. It’s rarely spectacular, and can be difficult to prove, but that’s not a reason to stop keeping an eye out.

If I had to guess, I think psychologically a lot of us don’t want to face the possibility that we’ve played in dirty games, or just been exposed to occasional forms of cheating.

That’s a natural emotional defense mechanism, but as long as one doesn’t become paranoid I think watchful skepticism makes sense in a game whose focus is ***taking each other’s money.*** Often via deception.

 

[BEANO52]

Overreacting, KJo is isolation. And if you are worried they are colluding, why in the world would the "monster stack" "dump" chips ??

 

[Taghkanic]

To keep her husband in the tourney? (Presumably their winnings are effectively shared, to the extent that all household money is fungible...)

 

[DrStrange]

"collusion" What does that mean? Are we thinking of "implied collusion"? If the two players had not conspired prior to the hand, can their actions ever really be "breaking the rules "collusion?

There are all sorts of meta game considerations late in tournaments. We often gang up on short stacks trying to knock them out. The biggest stacks can act to keep the bubble lasting as long as possible. Maybe I want to focus on harming the points leader rather than winning the hand or even the event. Maybe I want to stick it to my buddy just for fun?

How do we draw the line? Can we even define the line between against the rules and other sorts of shenanigans?

Now let's say host decides to confront the couple. I am betting he/she is going to have a really hard time rendering in words what was wrong and what was acceptable. Explaining why it was ok for everyone to gang up on one of them with garbage cards but not ok for the big stack to punish the pack of implied colluders sounds pretty hard to me.

It seems almost inevitable that the host is going to end up with some version of "it's my game and those are the rules" I wonder if the host can even write the house rules covering unacceptable collusion down in clear English if requested. Would the situation be different if the players weren't a couple? How about if they were co-workers? Neighbors? Are the rules different for different players depending on their relationship?

"I know it when I see it" is a tough sort of collusion rule to have or enforce. This thread is proof enough of how vague this sort of situation is.

The host or nosy table captain is headed towards thin ice. I encourage folks to take a chill pill and move on -=- DrStrange

 

[JustinInMN]

Table is 9-handed and Amy (a fairly competent player who usually does well at these events) is sitting with a monster stack. Bob is very short stacked and has survived a couple recent all in moments. They are sitting on opposite ends of the table. Bob is first to act, and jams his 6bb stack. There are several callers who have very large stacks. Amy is in the SB and postures, then shoves her entire stack, she gets called by one person UTG, for less. The rest of the table folds.

I do agree with @BGinGA, there seems to be a contradiction here. UTG would have had to have limped before Bob moves in, so Bob could not have been first to act.

I was scratching my head over the SB squeeze jam, with KJo, as it really looked like she was specifically trying to provide protection to her endangered fiancé who was about to face an entire table of callers. or at the possibility this was a chip dumping scheme, so that at least one of them would have the chips. I didn’t dwell on it, but later found out the host also had the exact same impression, but let it go. I’ve played this “league” game a few times over the years, but I’m kinda new, and don’t know the players all that well.

i the very next hand, Amy was now on the button and was engaged in a conversation about the previous hand with another player (guy who was newer to the game), and I specifically heard her characterize her play as trying to “cover” Bob. That struck me as a blatant admission of providing him protection, which felt icky since they’re a couple.. But again, I’m new and didn’t want to make waves. After the cash game wrapped, I did have a conversation with the host, and asked him his thoughts. He hadn’t heard Amy make the comment about trying to “cover” for Bob.

I don't hate the play with KJo to get heads up with someone moving in wide for 6BB and possibly knock out the BB and UTG limper. She can get it as bad as a 3-2 dog here and the play shows profit. Specifically AK, AJ, AA, or KK are the only hands that are really bad news here. And as others have said, if they weren't a couple, I wouldn't give this a second thought.

That said, I am with you the comment gives me pause as this was a thin the field strategy to benefit another player. If she's doing this with 83o, it's obvious chip dumping, couple or not. (Why all in hands are generally tabled in tournaments.)

You've alerted the host to an issue, that's all you can do, really. That comment is probably enough to keep me out of that particular game though.

 

[Mandos]

I find it interesting how quick many people are to deny, or even belittle claims of cheating, collusion, soft, play, angling, etc.

There are all sorts of meta game considerations late in tournaments. We often gang up on short stacks trying to knock them out. The biggest stacks can act to keep the bubble lasting as long as possible. Maybe I want to focus on harming the points leader rather than winning the hand or even the event. Maybe I want to stick it to my buddy just for fun?

I think I agree with both of these in part, but I'm not really sure a clear line can be drawn and a workable rule made. When playing tournaments (especially in casual environments where there are a lot of off-the-table friendships) I think a lot of things happen like this whether subconsciously or not. If I'm a short stack in a league tournament but I'm leading the league in points for the year, is it collusion for me to prefer that I get taken out by the guy who hasn't won yet this year and make him the big stack, as opposed to the other guy who is sitting in second place and would pass me if he wins this tournament? Not saying I've been in that exact situation, and of course I would prefer to win myself, but we're deceiving ourselves if we pretend that stuff like this doesn't happen frequently on a less blatant scale. And I'm not sure one can or even should try to ban that.