A little help please...

boxcardboxcard
in Online Poker
OK gang, do I have a case for arguing implicit collusion?

Game #1219246009 (Level I, Game #6) - 5/10 No Limit Texas Hold'em - 2006/01/15-16:56:18.6 (CST)
Table "Cordell" ($20 tournament) -- Seat 7 is the button
Seat  1: originalgman  (910.00 in chips)
Seat  2: MC_Mikey  (1,000.00 in chips)
Seat  3: bobstud  (960.00 in chips)
Seat  4: 69machone  (975.00 in chips)
Seat  5: nr1plyer  (1,395.00 in chips)
Seat  6: RNtrucker  (980.00 in chips)
Seat  7: HngLo  (585.00 in chips)
Seat  8: Chugman  (1,010.00 in chips)
Seat  9: Dummy1212  (1,185.00 in chips)
Seat 10: boxcard  (1,000.00 in chips)
Chugman : Post Small Blind (5)
Dummy1212: Post Big Blind (10)
Dealing...
Dealt to boxcard [ Td ]
Dealt to boxcard [ 9s ]
boxcard : Fold
originalgman: Fold
MC_Mikey: Raise (20)
bobstud : Fold
69machone: Fold
nr1plyer: Call (20)
RNtrucker: Fold
HngLo   : Fold
Chugman : Call (15)
Dummy1212: Call (10)
*** FLOP *** : [ 2c Tc 8d ]
Chugman : Check
Dummy1212: Check
MC_Mikey: Bet (100)
nr1plyer: Call (100)
Chugman : Call (100)
Dummy1212: Fold
*** TURN *** : [ 2c Tc 8d ] [ Qc ]
Chugman : Check
MC_Mikey: Bet (380)
nr1plyer: Fold
Chugman : Call (380)
*** RIVER *** : [ 2c Tc 8d Qc ] [ 6s ]
Chugman : Check
MC_Mikey: Bet (500)
Dummy1212 said, "call"
Dummy1212 said, "no"
Chugman : Fold MC_Mikey: Winner -- doesn't show cards
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: 1,140 | Board: [ 2c  Tc  8d  Qc  6s ]
originalgman didn't bet (folded)
MC_Mikey bet 1,000, collected 1,640, net +640 
bobstud didn't bet (folded)
69machone didn't bet (folded)
nr1plyer lost 120 (folded)
RNtrucker didn't bet (folded)
HngLo didn't bet (folded)
Chugman lost 500 (folded)
Dummy1212 lost 20 (folded)
boxcard didn't bet (folded)  [ Td  9s ]  (a pair of tens)
Game #1219249546 (Level I, Game #7) - 5/10 No Limit Texas Hold'em - 2006/01/15-16:57:54.0 (CST)
Table "Cordell" ($20 tournament) -- Seat 8 is the button
Seat  1: originalgman  (910.00 in chips)
Seat  2: MC_Mikey  (1,640.00 in chips)
Seat  3: bobstud  (960.00 in chips)
Seat  4: 69machone  (975.00 in chips)
Seat  5: nr1plyer  (1,275.00 in chips)
Seat  6: RNtrucker  (980.00 in chips)
Seat  7: HngLo  (585.00 in chips)
Seat  8: Chugman  (510.00 in chips)
Seat  9: Dummy1212  (1,165.00 in chips)
Seat 10: boxcard  (1,000.00 in chips)
Dummy1212: Post Small Blind (5)
boxcard : Post Big Blind (10)
Dealing...
Dealt to boxcard [ 6d ]
Dealt to boxcard [ 6c ]
MC_Mikey said, "lol"
originalgman: Call (10)
Chugman said, "couldnt beat a flush"
MC_Mikey said, "thanks for the support dummy :)"
Dummy1212 said, "sorry man, i just wanted to see"
MC_Mikey: Fold
bobstud : Call (10)
69machone: Call (10)
nr1plyer: Fold
RNtrucker: Fold
HngLo   : Fold
Chugman : Call (10)
Dummy1212: Call (5)
boxcard : Check
*** FLOP *** : [ 5d 6s Ks ]
Dummy1212: Bet (35)
Chugman said, "send me the 20 bucks, and ill call him lol"
boxcard : Raise (105)
originalgman: Fold
bobstud : Fold
Dummy1212 said, "heh"
69machone: Call (105)
Chugman : Fold
Dummy1212: Call (70)
*** TURN *** : [ 5d 6s Ks ] [ 7c ]
Dummy1212: Check
boxcard : Bet (885)
69machone: Call All-in (860)
Chugman said, "call him"
Dummy1212 said, "i think i might"
Dummy1212 said, "i will"
Dummy1212: Call (885)
*** RIVER *** : [ 5d 6s Ks 7c ] [ 9d ]
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: 2,955 | Side pot 1: 50 | Board: [ 5d  6s  Ks  7c  9d ]
originalgman lost 10 (folded)
MC_Mikey didn't bet (folded)
bobstud lost 10 (folded)
69machone lost 975 (showed hand) [ Ts  Kc ]  (a pair of kings)
nr1plyer didn't bet (folded)
RNtrucker didn't bet (folded)
HngLo didn't bet (folded)
Chugman lost 10 (folded)
Dummy1212 bet 1,000, collected 3,005, net +2,005 (showed hand) [ 8s  As ]  (a straight, five to nine)
boxcard lost 1,000 (showed hand) [ 6d  6c ]  (three of a kind, sixes)


Eagerly awaiting your replies.

Comments

  • BBC ZBBC Z
    1) First off, implicit collusion implies no conversation and is perfectly legal as an 'unspoken rule'... So you are asking if this is explicit collusion...

    2) You had the set against a guy with nothing and he called. Whats the problem again?

    If you have a problem with ppl chatting while yer all-in , play at a site that disables chat.
  • Hork42Hork42
    Implicit collusion is something else.

    This wouldn't even be regular collusion.
  • boxcardboxcard
    BBC Z wrote:
    1) First off, implicit collusion implies no conversation and is perfectly legal as an 'unspoken rule'... So you are asking if this is explicit collusion...

    My bad...I didn't know what to call this exactly.
    2) You had the set against a guy with nothing and he called. Whats the problem again?

    If you have a problem with ppl chatting while yer all-in , play at a site that disables chat.

    My problem was their conversation, which I feel influenced his decision to call. You are correct in suggesting that playing at a site that disables chat during all-ins is a good idea. Paradise does so during MTTs, but not during SnGs. I am not sure for the difference.
    Hork42 wrote:
    Implicit collusion is something else.

    This wouldn't even be regular collusion.

    If it is not collusion, then at the very least, I believe it to be very poor etiquette.

    I thank you both for your comments.
  • Hork42Hork42
    boxcard wrote:

    My problem was their conversation, which I feel influenced his decision to call.

    Though he was influenced into making a BAD call. So you should be happy about that. (minus the suckout, you're ok to feel sad about that)

    There's a lot of chatter out there, and yes, some people are influenced by it. As a player, try not to let it be a factor in your own decisions, but understand that other people will. Poor etiquette? Perhaps slightly, but there's a lot worse out there.
Sign In or Register to comment.
HomeDiscussionsToggle Dark Mode