| Re: Proving Collusion
I see your point beekeeper. Usual tourney theory is that it would be advantageous for one player to amass a lot of chips to become a big stack and hopefully win with a little luck. This would apply, in my opinion, when there are 10-20 players left. Earlier than this and the chips have too little value to combine stacks. But when it gets down to a few players, they have a guaranteed payday if they all survive, cashing in multiple positions/finishes. Interesting.
Actually, when it gets down to 4-5 players, good players have sort of an unwritten agreement to collude. You will often see 2-3 players call a shortstack all-in, then check it down. From a terminology standpoint, this is called a "dry pot". They can't bet and fold the short stack (he/she is all-in), so there is no additional money to win. Also, they have strength in numbers, like a pack of bloodthristy wolves . . . lol. Their best chance to win is to check it down - one of them may catch runner-runner cards and win even if the short stack has a very good pocket pair.  | 
