[links_slayer]

Is there any possible way to actually prove collusion? A guy I work with and I were talking yesterday about a game he played in over the weekend. He was almost positive 3 guys in the tourney were working together. I've never suspected anyone of this but then again I'm pretty naive and think everyone's honest all the time. Thoughts?

[JHickle]

Without knowing/seeing each players hole cards, I think it would be very difficult to prove.

[ipgyst]

Does your friend have security-cam and hole-cam recordings to review? That's the easy way.

Statistics is the other way. The hard way. Something like "What are the odds that these 3 players would never play against each other in a pot in this tournament?" Let's say an uber stat geek comes up with a probability of the event as .01 (getting this number is the hard part). That means the event will happen 1 time in 100. Not a big deal. If the same event happens again in the next tournament though, that's odds of 1 in 10000, which makes a high probability of being collusion. Or the stat geek might get a probability of the initial event as .000001, or 1 in a million. That's very likely collusion as well.

[hachkc]

Short of hard evidence (overheard conversation,video evidence,etc), I can't think of easy way to do it. As somone mentioned, you could try an keep stats of how they play to give you an indication of it but that's difficult to do and doesn't mean much with a small sample. If you are gonna accuse someone of it, you better have a damn good reason and some backup especially if you suspect multiple people of it. Best thing to do, don't invite them back or find a new game.

Also, they may have been softplaying each other which I define as slightly different then collusion. I'd define collusion as a planned and active cooperation against other players (raising against each other to force players out, chip dumping, etc) while soft playing is more of an unspoken agreement to not get involved in hands against each other (checking hands down instead of betting/raising). Neither are good but one is worse than the other.

[Clipper]

The last post is way off. Cheaters (I have, I am sad to say, done it before) want to play in the same pot. The jist of it is for one guy to have a monster hand, and his partner help him either get more money in the pot and possibly shut out opponents by re-raising (say if there was a draw on the board). Say you raise with AA in EP and get 2 callers. The partner would reraise, keeping the betting/raising alive. It is more difficult than people think; especially in NL games. You have to have some very well thought out signals. And the partner has to be fairly intelligent. Two dumb guys would not do very well cheating - that is why I don't worry too much about it, most players would be incapable of effective team play. Also, you can shoot yourself in the foot. What happens if an opponent flops a set. Then both cheaters lose big. Ultimately, the partner with the rag hand would fold to a bet/raise by the AA hand. That is why you can't catch it. One of them will always muck.

Chip dumping is where in a tourney one guy loses all of his chips to another player. This has marginal benefits, so don't lose any sleep over it. It would be equivalent to one player paying 2x buyin and doubling his/her chip stack.

[Clipper]

Was not referring to the prior post, I meant the one before that.

[beekeeper]

Originally Posted by Clipper

Chip dumping is where in a tourney one guy loses all of his chips to another player. This has marginal benefits, so don't lose any sleep over it. It would be equivalent to one player paying 2x buyin and doubling his/her chip stack.

Clipper,

Would you also consider it a form of collusion if, when the game gets down to 5-6 players, 3 players avoid playing pots against one another? By this I mean, if one shows strength, the others fold, or they fold to each other's big blind, or don't bet against one another when in the same pot (with no other players). When the blinds are very high, such as 1/8th or more of the average stack, this would allow the players playing this way to survive and possibly move up in real money.


Linkslayer,

My friends used to play at a bar tournament where the payout for first averaged between $500-$650. They quit after a few months because they suspected 3 guys were colluding. I think they suspected a mixture of chip dumping and soft playing.

If it's not your tournament, I think your only option is to avoid a game where you suspect collusion. I've never run a tournament with more than 20 players--and I've never run a tournament with people who weren't also my friends--so I've never had to deal with your issue. I think that if it were my tournament, and I suspected collusion, I would make sure than none of the 3 played at the same table (if possible) initially. If possible, don't invite them back.

[Clipper]

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.

[beekeeper]

Originally Posted by Clipper

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.

Yes. I wouldn't think of this as collusion--just good strategy. I've played against a lot of couples who, if they make it to the final 3-5, I think unconsciously avoid one another. I also don't think of this as collusion, but from observation, it seems to give them an advantage--not to win the tournament so much as to move up in real money. I was just interested in your imput because the "collusion" my poker buddies suspected in that other game, as they described it, sounded like soft play to me. I had always thought of collusion in a b&m game as, as you describe, chip dumping.

Interesting input--thanks.

[Clipper]

A tip for avoiding cheaters, if you want to play a little higher: Invite people who may know each other, but who don't know each other very well. Also, avoid inviting very good players (that is a nobrainer). And if you run a 1-table game, rotate the invites so the same crew is not over every time. Of course you always want to invite the fish who dumps a few hundred every time.

I realize this sounds very rigid, and unsociable. It is. I play to win people's money. But I realize there is nothing wrong with inviting all of your buddies and just having a good time. But if the stakes increase and you are trying to build a bankroll, you have to at least be aware of cheating and how to avoid it in your game.