Tourney Was this couple colluding? (1 Viewer)

Were they colluding?

  • Definitely

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Probably

    Votes: 16 24.2%
  • Maybe/Hard to tell

    Votes: 22 33.3%
  • Probably not

    Votes: 24 36.4%
  • Definitely not

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    66
She may have been sitting behind the player because she was too nervous/intimidated or whatever to actually play.

My understanding has been that she brings him to games and the casino because he cannot drive (lost license, pretty sure). I gather he has had some issues/convictions.

Now it may be that spectating finally piqued her interest in the game... though she never played for the couple of years before COVID that I played live with the boyfriend. So any such interest is a long time coming.

And she also did not play in this (nightly, active) club all through the pandemic until very recently, though he seldom missed a game.

It’s also possible she’ll become a better player than him...
 
Last edited:
My understanding has been that she brings him to games and the casino because he cannot drive (lost license, pretty sure). I gather he may have had some issues/convictions.

Now it may be that spectating finally piqued her interest in the game... though she never played for the couple of years before COVID that I played live with the boyfriend. So any such interest is a long time coming.

And she also did not play in this (nightly, active) club all through the pandemic until very recently, though he seldom missed a game.

It’s also possible she’ll become a better player than him...
This is my read on it. If she's been watching and coming to games for the past months, it's not hard to pick up, especially if her boyfriend is teaching her a bit.

Flatting with aces with 4 or 5 players to act, only to lay the Smackdown with a 4 bet was such a baller and advanced move. As mentioned, I would have three bet in that situation still in a relatively early position, but I'm also not very good at poker.
 
I don’t see it as “baller” for the reason stated earlier: 9 out of 10 times she misses the chance to make that move by flatting. It only becomes possible if someone 4bets pre, which is a serious rarity in this game.
 
I don’t see it as “baller” for the reason stated earlier: 9 out of 10 times she misses the chance to make that move by flatting. It only becomes possible if someone 4bets pre, which is a serious rarity in this game.
I guess it's one of those cases where a novice makes an incredibly advanced play without realizing it. I see the phenomenon with absolute brand new players. My wife's cousin in the very first game he played slow rolled me with a flopped boat to my set and had the discipline (or knowledge lack thereof) to not raise me on any street in position. I donated my whole stack to him on that hand.
 
The Couple, Part Deux...

CONTEXT: I’ve have been playing in the nightly tourney at the same table as Girlfriend for nearly 3 hours. She has played distinctly tight-passive, fit-or-fold as usual. She’s got a low VPIP; and I have not seen her show down anything but pocket pairs, top pair, one made flush. Not bluffing, or at least not caught bluffing.

In the mid stages of the tourney, Boyfriend gets moved to our table with a modest (~15BB stack). Within an orbit, I knock him down to less than 1BB.

HAND: The very next hand, Boyfriend is in the small blind with his <1BB. If he folds he would have only about 1/2 of a SB left, so he is almost certain to get the rest in no matter what the action... (“Math problem,” as we say.) Girlfriend is the second smallest stack at the table and is UTG. Seven players at the table. Six more at the other table.

ACTION:
* Girlfriend (40BB) limps
* UTG+2 folds
* Bigstack #1 (100BB) limps
* I (62BB) limp
* After a long pause, Boyfriend “shoves” his remaining 1/4 BB in
* Bigstack #2 (110BB) checks
* So now we are five-way to the flop with Boyfriend all in for .75 BB; 5.75 BB in the pot
* Flop is :2d::ts::4d:
* Girlfriend bets roughly pot
* Bigstack #1 calls
* I fold
* [Boyfriend already all in]
* Bigstack #2 calls
* About 11B in the pot
* Turn is :3c:
* Girlfriend again bets, about 10BB into 11 BB
* Bigstack #1 folds
* Bigstack #2 folds

SHOWDOWN:
— Girlfriend has :ah::6c:
— Boyfriend has :kc::4c:

RESULT:
Kind of hilariously, the river is the :6s:, so she winds up knocking him out... but scoops a sweet 21BB pot. Bigstack #2 would have won with two pair if she hadn’t bet him off.

Baller play? Or pretty transparent collusion to protect Boyfriend? My thoughts to follow...
 
Last edited:
So, my observations:

1) The action preflop is kind of standard in many tourneys when an ultra short stack is all-in. Lots of limps, blinds flatting, and a multiway flop. (Are the players colluding to lessen his chances? Not explicitly, but in spirit, maybe. Legal as long as no one says it out loud, right?) ... 4 out of 5 times this will run out with no further action unless someone catches a monster, but not always.

2) Boyfriend catches a small (middle) pair on the flop (44) with only the barest hope of improvement. His outs are 2 fours + 3 kings = 20% chance of improving. No backdoors. His marginal made hand begs for protection.

3) Girlfriend whiffs the flop—A high with a 6 that I suppose could be viewed as being an “over” to the 2 and 4. She has roughly 6 outs (three As, three 6s = 24% equity). Arguably has a straight backdoor, but some of her six outs may be no good so I’ll stick with 24%.

4) There’s a diamond flush draw on the board. Neither Girlfriend nor Boyfriend has any diamonds.

5) Despite totally whiffing the flop, having no flush draw, and being first to act against three much bigger stacks, she fires a pot sized bet. *** This is entirely out of character with how she has been playing all night ***. I would only expect this move from this specific villain if she had a 10 with a Broadway card, a set, two pair or maaaaybe an A high/K high flush draw. But she only has a naked A.

6) There is a strong chance that Girlfriend is way behind at least one of the callers on the flop, and also a strong chance that Boyfriend’s paired 4 won’t hold up if the field isn’t narrowed (overcard and flush draw on the board, possibility of someone holding a pocket pair bigger than 44).

7) *If* she knows that Boyfriend caught a small pair, and wants to protect him, this seems exactly how a colluder would act IMHO.

8) If she doesn’t know, it is either a terrible move, or an incredible one... especially when she then follows up with another big bet on the turn, which means almost half her stack at the start of the hand is now in the pot, and at risk of one of the two very big stacks snapping her off.

9) The turn bet does bring in a gutshot for her, but that is just another 4 outs—and only 1 card to go. So her rough equity is actually slightly less now than on the flop (~22%).

9) The move works... They fold. But she catches her 6 on the river and takes him out/scoops.
 
Last edited:
P.S. I raised the issue directly with Boyfriend, saying how “interesting” it was that Girlfriend fired two bullets to protect his all-in. Uncharacteristically he did not respond. I also asked her why she fired into bigger stacks unimproved on the flop. Also no response.
 
So, my observations:

1) The action preflop is kind of standard in many tourneys when an ultra short stack is all-in. Lots of limps, blinds flatting, and a multiway flop. (Are the players colluding to lessen his chances? Not explicitly, but in spirit, maybe. Legal as long as no one says it out loud, right?) ... 4 out of 5 times this will run out with no further action unless someone catches a monster, but not always.

2) Boyfriend catches a small (middle) pair on the flop (44) with only the barest hope of improvement. His outs are 2 fours + 3 kings = 20% chance of improving. No backdoors.

3) Girlfriend whiffs the flop—A high with a 6 that I suppose could be viewed as being an “over” to the 2 and 4. She has roughly 6 outs (three As, three 6s = 24% equity). Arguably has a straight backdoor, but some of her six outs may be no good so I’ll stick with 24%.

4) There’s a diamond flush draw on the board. Neither Girlfriend nor Boyfriend has any diamonds.

5) Despite totally whiffing the flop, having no flush draw, and being first to act against three much bigger stacks, she fires a pot sized bet. *** This is entirely out of character with how she has been playing all night ***

6) There is a strong chance that Girlfriend is way behind at least one of the callers on the flop, and also a strong chance that Boyfriend’s paired 4 won’t hold up if the field isn’t narrowed (overcard and flush draw on the board, possibility of someone holding a pocket pair bigger than 44).

7) *If* she knows that Boyfriend caught a small pair, and wants to protect him, this seems exactly how a colluder would act IMHO.

8) If she doesn’t know, it is either a terrible move, or an incredible one... especially when she then follows up with another big bet on the turn, which means almost half her stack at the start of the hand is now in the pot, and at risk of one of the two very big stacks snapping her off or reshaping.

9) The turn bet does bring in a gutshot for her, but that is just another 4 outs—and only 1 card to go. So her rough equity is actually slightly less now than on the flop (~22%).

9) The move works... They fold. But she catches her 6 on the river and takes him out/scoops.
So if the move doesn’t work against the multiple players left he is out and she is crippled. That’s some smooth collusion there, even if the boyfriend wins he is still crippled.
You’ve made your decision, just act on it and quit stringing us on with cherry picked spots.
 
OMG, maybe you are about to say this @Taghkanic , but now I am starting to suspect "girlfriend" isn't really playing. Boyfriend is operating both accounts.

This would be my theory. He is playing "Girlfriends" game squeaky tight and then knows he can have "girlfriend" dump the chips when he's in need.

9) The move works... They fold. But she catches her 6 on the river and takes him out/scoops.

It's kind of funny at a glance that the deck didn't cooperate, but if he is in control of both accounts, it really doesn't matter.

This is also a possible explanation of the sudden limp reraise of AA in the other hand.

I am going to upgrade my vote if allowed, but this is probably something to monitor, or you probably should just step aside.
 
P.P.S. I also reached out to the host saying that I did not want to make trouble, and want to believe the best of people, but gave him essentially a shorter version of the two hands as posted here. He agreed that both raise eyebrows, and said that he too has been keeping an eye on their play. He is not prepared to take action yet but said he’ll keep monitoring it, and asked me to keep reporting any action I thought was unusual. He said that he knows I’m one of the few in the game really paying attention to how everyone plays.
 
P.P.S. I also reached out to the host saying that I did not want to make trouble, and want to believe the best of people, but gave him essentially a shorter version of the two hands as posted here. He agreed that both raise eyebrows, and said that he too has been keeping an eye on their play. He is not prepared to take action yet but said he’ll keep monitoring it, and asked me to keep reporting any action I thought was unusual. He said that he knows I’m one of the few in the game really paying attention to how everyone plays.

Personally, I don't think you owe this game another buy in. It's wrong for the host to expect you to gamble in a situation where you know there is a higher likelihood of an issue.
 
I guess the one flaw in my theory is that "girlfriend" cannot dump all the chips to boyfriend at once since boyfriend can really only quadruple up at < 1BB. But still, if he is in control of both accounts, he can attempt to manipulate the stacks either direction to maximize advantage.
 
So if the move doesn’t work against the multiple players left he is out and she is crippled. That’s some smooth collusion there, even if the boyfriend wins he is still crippled.
You’ve made your decision, just act on it and quit stringing us on with cherry picked spots.

I try to pay close attention to all action in every hand regardless of whether I am in it... That’s just good poker.

If I had noticed a hand where they went after each other in a standard way, or in some other way ran against my suspicion, I’d post it. What I’ve noticed (especially in the previous session where I was at the same table as both for a long time) is mostly them avoiding getting into big hands with each other. So these rare hands where one or both is making aggressive and unlikely moves jump out.

I’ve reported two hands I thought were quite unusual based in terms of both standard gameplay and the specific, observed habits/tendencies of players in this particular game. Both suspicious hands involved “the couple.” The game host shares my concerns.

I’d also add that this game has been running nightly since March... Since it is online, it is of course possible that other players are texting/Skyping/communicating info to each other. Always a risk in online poker. But despite that, and despite having a host’s habit of always being on the lookout for such stuff even in other people’s games, I have had no such concerns about this group until now. All of us have played together live a long time.
 
Last edited:
P.P.P.S. I am sort of loathe to mention this, as I am pro-legalization and think our society wrongly demonizes drugs and drug users, but Boyfriend does have a history of arrests for dealing/using, with at least one known felony plea on his record, plus one reported probation violation. I like the guy—he’s pretty funny—and have been glad to see him trying to get his life back in order. But some would say that is another red flag. Probably not worth considering, but FWIW I’ll give that full disclosure/context. It’s more relevant in terms of economic motives, if they are struggling, and maybe an openness toward rule-breaking. I don’t know much about Girlfriend... She seems like the wholesome, chipper, supportive partner who has helped her man get back on his feet.
 
I voted probably after the first hand, and if allowed I’d change it to definitely. A newer person might flat aces multi way (big mistake) because they can be way too passive, but they’re never then 5 bet shoving. In fact nobody does that unless they know the 4 bet is coming ahead of time.
as far as the second hand, it’s a pretty clear indicator. It’s one thing if there are bounties, but for someone normally so passive to suddenly play so aggressive I think it’s almost a certainty that bf is instructing gf what to do.
 
I voted probably after the first hand, and if allowed I’d change it to definitely.
I am on desktop, there is a button called "change vote" on the first post in the thread.

but for someone normally so passive to suddenly play so aggressive I think it’s almost a certainty that bf is instructing gf what to do.
I personally think it's simpler, "boyfriend" is in control of both accounts. Unless there is some kind of video chat on the side where you can see everyone's faces, "girlfriend" may not even be involved.
 
P.P.P.S. I am sort of loathe to mention this, as I am pro-legalization and think our society wrongly demonizes drugs and drug users, but Boyfriend does have a history of arrests for dealing/using, with at least one known felony plea on his record, plus one reported probation violation.

This played into my thinking as well sadly. But in the end, if he is cheating, he is making that choice, even if society has been unfair to him in the past.
 
3) Girlfriend whiffs the flop—A high with a 6 that I suppose could be viewed as being an “over” to the 2 and 4. She has roughly 6 outs (three As, three 6s = 24% equity). Arguably has a straight backdoor, but some of her six outs may be no good so I’ll stick with 24%.

I will offer this one criticism of this evaluation. In a dry flop like this, unless limping ranges are unusually strong (only better aces and pairs for example), A-hi is going to be the best hand at least a hunk of the time as well on a board this dry, meaning the bettor has more equity than the outs needed to improve. But again, with the short stack all in, there is not a lot to be won in the side pot by limiting the field by betting the flop and still having to win a showdown, so I am with you the action raises suspicion, especially being uncharacteristic.

If a moderately to very aggressive player decided to bet this flop to try and isolate the all-in for the main pot, it wouldn't immediately strike me as collusion, even though the "common knowledge" is always check it down. (And at the risk of revealing some of my strategy, the earlier it is in the tournament, the more important acquisition of chips is compared to eliminating players. The importance of these things switch the closer it is to the money.)

Now that the bettor has been called in two spots, I would expect a slow down, but perhaps now that there is something in the side pot to be won, it is worth bluffing at, and the main pot is inconsequential.

So my point is, I don't accept the strategy is proof in itself. It is the drastic change in the approach that I think feeds the theory. Boyfriend is playing a passive game with "girlfriends" account until it's to boyfriend's advantage to use girlfriend's account to apply pressure/dump chips.

If boyfriend is playing both accounts in the AA hand, boyfriend knew it was unlikely to move the chips to his own hand, but with you caught in the middle, in all likelihood he can bank those chips in girlfriends stack being the prohibitive favorite in that hand for later use by using the flat-reraise.
 
^^^ +1. If they were both in the same household during the tourney, there was a zero percent chance he was unaware of her hand. (And that is at best...at worst, he was playing both screens simultaneously.) Thus, collusion. I have amended my vote accordingly.
The game itself is suspect for allowing 2 users in the same location, but the same game is suspect if 2 users have each other's phone numbers. Thus, all online games are suspect.

Mrs Zombie and I have been playing a heads-up series. It's a serious battle for real money from our personal spending caches. We have completed 24 of the 27 scheduled events for the title of "Master of Poker".

This means we have literally spent hundreds of hours playing against each other. That doesn't count over 100 home games we hosted, other games we have travelled to, or casino we have played in together. All together we probably have over 100 hours together at the table.

We don't play online for basically this reason. If we are playing at our best, we have extremely good ideas what each other has.

It's not cheating. It's not collusion. It's a gut feeling. I fold more to Mrs Zombie while holding a "good" hand than I would against others, because if she were to check and I bet, and she reraised... yeah, I know she's got 75% of my starting hands beat. If she's re-popping from an early position, She's got AA-QQ, maybe AK. No way in hell I'm calling that, because it's not slowing down on any flop - and at best I'm hoping for a chop.

Sure, she's new but that isn't to say they haven't also discussed hundreds of hands of poker. That's all Mrs Zombie and I do following a game, and long before she took her first 2 cards. We sit and discuss "why would you have done" situations. It hones our games, but it also tells us exactly how the other one plays.

Could they have colluded? Sure. But in a collusion scenario, I think it would have been more prudent for him to just chip-dump to her, pricing in other possible callers to give her a massive chip lead.

I just hate it when players are suspect just because they are married/living together. Sure, you keep an eye open, but it's nearly impossible to tell a read vs actual collusion when the players share a life together.

In the end, you're best off not playing online.
 
I think you have to be careful when you build a narrative based on how you think somebody is playing (without knowing hole cards) and then use that narrative as proof of anything.
But this hand is poop. She’s got the worst Ace in the worst position against multiple stacks that have her comfortably covered, and she’s picking THAT moment to aggressively go after a pot.
Nope. It would actually be difficult to construct a narrative where that hand makes sense.
I call bullshit and I would t feel comfortable putting another dollar into an online game that they’re both in.
 
The game itself is suspect for allowing 2 users in the same location, but the same game is suspect if 2 users have each other's phone numbers. Thus, all online games are suspect.

Mrs Zombie and I have been playing a heads-up series. It's a serious battle for real money from our personal spending caches. We have completed 24 of the 27 scheduled events for the title of "Master of Poker".

This means we have literally spent hundreds of hours playing against each other. That doesn't count over 100 home games we hosted, other games we have travelled to, or casino we have played in together. All together we probably have over 100 hours together at the table.

We don't play online for basically this reason. If we are playing at our best, we have extremely good ideas what each other has.

It's not cheating. It's not collusion. It's a gut feeling. I fold more to Mrs Zombie while holding a "good" hand than I would against others, because if she were to check and I bet, and she reraised... yeah, I know she's got 75% of my starting hands beat. If she's re-popping from an early position, She's got AA-QQ, maybe AK. No way in hell I'm calling that, because it's not slowing down on any flop - and at best I'm hoping for a chop.

Sure, she's new but that isn't to say they haven't also discussed hundreds of hands of poker. That's all Mrs Zombie and I do following a game, and long before she took her first 2 cards. We sit and discuss "why would you have done" situations. It hones our games, but it also tells us exactly how the other one plays.

Could they have colluded? Sure. But in a collusion scenario, I think it would have been more prudent for him to just chip-dump to her, pricing in other possible callers to give her a massive chip lead.

I just hate it when players are suspect just because they are married/living together. Sure, you keep an eye open, but it's nearly impossible to tell a read vs actual collusion when the players share a life together.

In the end, you're best off not playing online.
I believe you two are the exception, not the rule. In either case, it seems like your poker experience is so different from this couple’s experience that we’re talking about apples and oranges.
 
Mrs Zombie and I have been playing a heads-up series. It's a serious battle for real money from our personal spending caches. We have completed 24 of the 27 scheduled events for the title of "Master of Poker".

Why don't we have a 12 page thread on this? Way better than Negranu v Polk.

I just hate it when players are suspect just because they are married/living together. Sure, you keep an eye open, but it's nearly impossible to tell a read vs actual collusion when the players share a life together.

I do agree, and FWIW, I do occasional play in an online "home" game (cash) with a couple that I know lives together in Vegas. (Used to live here.) I don't suspect them for a second because they are both rather nitty players and I can't think of a pot where they were in together of any significance, let alone one where they would attempt to squeeze any in-betweeners. (The girlfriend in this case is really tight, top 10 hands type of player, so I am making many of the same laydowns to her as I would against my own wife, or like you describe with Mrs Z.)
 
The game itself is suspect for allowing 2 users in the same location, but the same game is suspect if 2 users have each other's phone numbers. Thus, all online games are suspect.

Mrs Zombie and I have been playing a heads-up series. It's a serious battle for real money from our personal spending caches. We have completed 24 of the 27 scheduled events for the title of "Master of Poker".

This means we have literally spent hundreds of hours playing against each other. That doesn't count over 100 home games we hosted, other games we have travelled to, or casino we have played in together. All together we probably have over 100 hours together at the table.

We don't play online for basically this reason. If we are playing at our best, we have extremely good ideas what each other has.

It's not cheating. It's not collusion. It's a gut feeling. I fold more to Mrs Zombie while holding a "good" hand than I would against others, because if she were to check and I bet, and she reraised... yeah, I know she's got 75% of my starting hands beat. If she's re-popping from an early position, She's got AA-QQ, maybe AK. No way in hell I'm calling that, because it's not slowing down on any flop - and at best I'm hoping for a chop.

Sure, she's new but that isn't to say they haven't also discussed hundreds of hands of poker. That's all Mrs Zombie and I do following a game, and long before she took her first 2 cards. We sit and discuss "why would you have done" situations. It hones our games, but it also tells us exactly how the other one plays.

Could they have colluded? Sure. But in a collusion scenario, I think it would have been more prudent for him to just chip-dump to her, pricing in other possible callers to give her a massive chip lead.

I just hate it when players are suspect just because they are married/living together. Sure, you keep an eye open, but it's nearly impossible to tell a read vs actual collusion when the players share a life together.

In the end, you're best off not playing online.
Good analysis, but my response is to the second paragraph only:

I suspect that when all is said and done, she'll be referring to the series winner as "Mistress of Poker". :D
 
1) @Poker Zombie When Boyfriend is in the SB with almost nothing left, no one can get a read on his hand when he puts that last .25BB in pre. Including Girlfriend.

So sure: You can read your wife’s moves like a book and vice-versa, and you guys may pay it totally straight. But this situation is different. He’d be wrong to fold even 72o in that spot. He’s getting something like 24-1 odds on his last few hundred chips, which would be almost impossible to build back into a useable stack if he folds instead.

It’s meaningless for opponents to guess at his range. It’s the whole deck minus your own holdings.

2) It is of course quite possible that both hands represent Girlfriend just being a protective Mama Hen toward Boyfriend, without any actual sharing of hands between them.

In Hand #1, she may have started out trying to trap me (the initial raiser) by flatting with aces; but then when he re-raised she panicked and felt she needed to signal to him with a 5bet: “No! Don’t put any more chips in this pot!”

In Hand #2, she likewise may have just independently decided to get him back to ~6BB (I forgot there were antes) by flatting with a plan to reraise any preflop steal attempts or else to bomb the flop/turn. Which again, is uncharacteristic aggression from this player especially considering the stacks she’s facing.

These are less malicious than outright collusion but still problematic.

3) A good point is made by @upNdown that Girlfriend’s A6o is one of the worst aces in the deck on the flop. It loses to every other A except A3 and A5, and some of those combos have draws. On the turn A3 pulls ahead and A5 is the nut straight. AdXd also has her in additional danger. So it’s really iffy to double barrel bluff there. Either it’s terrible play, or an epic baller move from a tight passive newbie, or just being protective of BF.
 
Last edited:
My initial thoughts are just two couples playing poker. No colluding here. Boyfriend knows his woman’s vibe and made the correct lay down.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom