Sitting out or inactives - collusion

A

acemenow

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
May 3, 2008
Total posts
2,793
Awards
2
Chips
205
Often times we windup on table where there are inactives or sitouts players that have not been playing either all game or just decided to stop because they have enough chips to make it to the FT or money

My questions is if you are at a table is it considered collusion if the live players agree in chat to blind out the inactive player by not betting against each other till the inactive is out of the game?
 
Debi

Debi

Forum Admin
Administrator
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Total posts
74,639
Awards
20
Chips
1,331
Good question - but yea it is imo. Good players would never make an agreement like that because some are way better at playing in this situation with others and would not want to give up their edge.
 
Zorba

Zorba

27
Platinum Level
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Total posts
41,800
Awards
15
AQ
Chips
169
Often times we windup on table where there are inactives or sitouts players that have not been playing either all game or just decided to stop because they have enough chips to make it to the FT or money

My questions is if you are at a table is it considered collusion if the live players agree in chat to blind out the inactive player by not betting against each other till the inactive is out of the game?

Yes, that is one description of collusion.

:top:
 
A

acemenow

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
May 3, 2008
Total posts
2,793
Awards
2
Chips
205
Yeah I disagree with it being collusion, in my mind you lose al rights to fair play if you are not sitting at the table. But that is just my thought was curious if there was a rule for it and I assume it would be a site by site rule since you would not see that at a live table
 
Lorpugo

Lorpugo

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Total posts
495
Chips
0
and if you agree and wait and got pocket aces?
 
A

acemenow

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
May 3, 2008
Total posts
2,793
Awards
2
Chips
205
That's a different issue the hands you choose to play after the agreement is made is up to the players and how they want to proceed.

in pre 2006 play used to do this every so often and never had an issue. You have a premium hand you play it and all bets off for that hand, all depends on the players and how they want to proceed. Never seen it discussed in games since I have been playing this past year was just curious about the ruling.

haven not done it in years just curious cause I was on a table today and the person sitting out was short stacked but had 50bbs and was on the bubble. So just a theoretical question.

As soon as he was down to 10BB he woke up and went allin twice and knocked out the person previously in 3rd. I like to see people penalized for sitting out a game that is just my personal opinion, no control over it so I accept what it is.

But it is also a strategy some seem to implement like the player above. I was in a $7000 MTT a couple months ago and the short stack was on the bubble and wound up beating a live player because of a feature on some sites that auto-raise the inactive bb forcing the live player into a hand he should not have been in. He lost with a better premium hand which happens and I am not concerned about that but in cases like that the BB should fold and be forced into a hand with less than the BB for next hand. The fact that the software auto-raises for the bb seems sketchy to me.
 
10058765

10058765

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Total posts
8,607
Awards
8
Chips
112
Yeah I disagree with it being collusion, in my mind you lose al rights to fair play if you are not sitting at the table. But that is just my thought was curious if there was a rule for it and I assume it would be a site by site rule since you would not see that at a live table

This has nothing to do with the rights for the player sitting out.
A spoken out agreement made amongst eachoter at the table about not playing against eachother is collusion.
 
TeUnit

TeUnit

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Total posts
4,734
Awards
14
Chips
77
It just drives me crazy when people limp in at a table with 7 sitters, all they have to do is raise or fold. Then you have what is called implicit collusion, neither player agreed to anything, but they are both operating in their own best interest by getting as many free blinds as possible by simply raising or folding.
 
P

pietpikel

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Total posts
156
Chips
0
Often times we windup on table where there are inactives or sitouts players that have not been playing either all game or just decided to stop because they have enough chips to make it to the FT or money

My questions is if you are at a table is it considered collusion if the live players agree in chat to blind out the inactive player by not betting against each other till the inactive is out of the game?
Its a big advantage to have someone sitting out, especially if they are to your left. You get a double button and can steal their blinds easily.
 
MattRyder

MattRyder

🍏 Tech That Works!
Platinum Level
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Total posts
8,309
Awards
15
Chips
0
Collusion is by definition an agreement made between two (or more) players to cheat. In your original question, the players are agreeing to do something (in that particular case not to play against each other) in order to guarantee a better standing for them both, therefore they are cheating, and by definition, colluding.

Collusion cannot be implicit since collusion requires an overt act of agreement to cheat.
 
tagece

tagece

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Total posts
1,875
Awards
2
BR
Chips
519
I saw a kind of collusion in a CC's freeroll once. I was very short stack in the bubble and opened the table where was another player with three blinds. And I saw the other players of the table using all the time disposable to help him. And talking about it. I never found this kind of behavior anywhere. And it worked, cause he got ITM.
 
A

acemenow

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
May 3, 2008
Total posts
2,793
Awards
2
Chips
205
All good points thanks for the input and rethinking this I see it's clearly collusion by definition, ~ thanks for all the feedback ~
 
Kenzie 96

Kenzie 96

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
May 21, 2005
Total posts
13,666
Awards
9
US
Chips
125
I saw a kind of collusion in a CC's freeroll once. I was very short stack in the bubble and opened the table where was another player with three blinds. And I saw the other players of the table using all the time disposable to help him. And talking about it. I never found this kind of behavior anywhere. And it worked, cause he got ITM.





Had a thread about just this thing a while back & the CC member doing it was really proud of himself for his great big heart. Damn near injured himself pattin himself on the back. :deal:
 
Top