Originally Posted by dwcheston
Thats what I did. I logged onto Full Tilt today and set up an account. I dont think there is any way to beat four determined people. As a matter of fact its probably pretty profitable. I mean thats 960 dollars between the four of them for about 20 minutes of work. I guess Ill play on a more reputable site.
Instead of 4 on 1, think of it as 1-on-1. That one person has to pay 4 times your entry fee, meaning if you beat the opponent 1 in 5 times you profit (well minus rake) and they must win 4/5 to profit. The one person is then dealt 4 hands and can pick the best one to play. Theoretically using this strategy, assuming equal skill, you would all break even. Think about it, your hand will be best 1 in 5 which is what you need to break even. So if you are better than the colluders at actual poker, you would be better. Now if they are good at colluding, they will execute the squeeze moves we're talking about, but just remember, every squeeze move costs them double chips. ie they are risking the chips of two people to only win one. So say it's a typical situation, one has flopped bottom set, and they execute this move, trying to trap your dead money. When you have a top pair type hand they get some more money than they would have, but when they have a set over set situation, they lose TWICE what they would have (well or at least a good amount more if not twice entirely). So that move doesn't come without costs either. And of course the dead hole cards are unlikely to ever make a difference. How often would you for example fold a flush draw when you know you really only have 7 or 8 outs instead of 9 when you would have called with 9? Is collusion cheating? Certainly, and it does have these slight edges that if exploited by good players can make money. But if they're good, you won't know they're doing it. If you can recognize the collusion, they're probably just bad players that think if they collude they'll win, and they most likely lose.
I doubt any of the people here complaining about it being impossible to beat colluders could do any better colluding than they could playing one hand. Colluding would be all about long-term edges, and if something in the short term is noticable, they're probably doing something that is sub-optimal and we all know that the way we win is when opponents make mistakes.