OP on cash

[JackSpades]

Here is something to think about, your playing cash sit n go with a well respected op player, your dealt AA he does a small raise you type in fold mate and go all in is this cheating.

[caposilvio]

Yes, it's collusion.

End of.

[CaptainSandy]

It's a no no.
Hopefully if you go all in he'll realise and fold.

[T_B_H]

no difference if OP player or anyone else

[future2112]

Originally Posted by JackSpades

Here is something to think about, your playing cash sit n go with a well respected op player, your dealt AA he does a small raise you type in fold mate and go all in is this cheating.

good question... yes, i could see why its seen as collusion because you're indicating that you have a good hand...ive seen it many times when someone has done exactly what you have said and the other player has called regardless, and gone on to win the pot. And the player who said fold had nothing.

its a grey area in my mind especially when taking into account if some one says 'ooo im holding pockets' when a player before raises big? this always seems to be seen as an ok reponse to a big raise. if, however the other player said someting on the lines of 'im holding AA and im gonna go all-in what you have m8?' then that is defo collusion...but only if they are colluding to gain an advantage over the rest.

I was in real cash game at my local casino and in one hand that was played.. father and son were heads-up against each other.. the flop was dealt and it was a flush flop... the son said grrr im holding AA after his father pushed all-in. the son folded AA as he said he had and the his father had the flush hand. nothing was said by the house. so, im guessing it was seen ok. the difference being no one indicated to the other what action to take. so, again.. im guessing its a grey area.

[caposilvio]

Originally Posted by future2112

the son said grrr im holding AA after his father pushed all-in......

That's legal as it was heads up and the other player had
no
decision left to make, he is all in and can't change his play.
The son may well have been fishing for a tell to help make his decision.
I know if i was playin my father/Mother or the good lord himself....
I Still want the win. Any info is useful info.

What was mentioned in the OP is collusion.
No doubt about it.

[caposilvio]

I ould "rather" take out the non-op66ers aswell,
but tellin' some-one you have AA and to fold is collusion.
I'm not def looking to argue with anyone, was only replying to the thread.
But that's not an opinion, i answered the op with a fact.

It's collusion no matter what way the light shines on it.

[tattmando]

Originally Posted by future2112

good question... yes, i could see why its seen as collusion because you're indicating that you have a good hand...ive seen it many times when someone has done exactly what you have said and the other player has called regardless, and gone on to win the pot. And the player who said fold had nothing.

its a grey area in my mind especially when taking into account if some one says 'ooo im holding pockets' when a player before raises big? this always seems to be seen as an ok reponse to a big raise. if, however the other player said someting on the lines of 'im holding AA and im gonna go all-in what you have m8?' then that is defo collusion...but only if they are colluding to gain an advantage over the rest.

I was in real cash game at my local casino and in one hand that was played.. father and son were heads-up against each other.. the flop was dealt and it was a flush flop... the son said grrr im holding AA after his father pushed all-in. the son folded AA as he said he had and the his father had the flush hand. nothing was said by the house. so, im guessing it was seen ok. the difference being no one indicated to the other what action to take. so, again.. im guessing its a grey area.

good points future. and on the father son issue no collusion there , just a wise son recognizing his bullets got cracked by a bad flop, and he aso has prior knowledge of the fathers poker game.

[caposilvio]

Originally Posted by sa11y69

aha...but he didnt say he told him what he had...he just said 'fold'....?

Okay Sal, my mistake, in that case yes it can be tactics.
Trying to mess with people happens in games all the time.
Sledging/banter, or whatever you want to call it.
Frowned upon but ok as long as you don't cross the line.
(determined by house rules etc)

That wasnt the case though, he was clearly trying to encourage a fold to help a player out.
That IS still collusion. No different than signaling your
intentions to a player in a casino.
You would be strung up for that, why should here be any different?

So again, he never told him he had AA but his intentions were
clearly to help out another player.
Just because it wasnt clear at the time doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Thats why casinos have cameras and floor managers everywhere
and online have all hands saved incase they need checked at a later point.


Again, not having a go. Just making what i think are valid points.

[CaptainSandy]

Sal, if you read the original post you'll realise Capo is correct.

[CaptainSandy]

nice try, lol.

[bakdoorbetty]

i think this reads as collusion from jacks point of view only as it is apparent that he is trying to help a fellow OP by encouraging him to fold. imo it stops short of collusion because jack hasn't told the other player his hand. from the other players seat it would appear a tactic. to an observer it isn't conclusive.
much better to fold the winning hand if there's just the two of you in it and you want to give the other OPer a chance to get back in the game, it doesn't look like collusion to the other player or an observer

so reading the first post....i don't think it IS collusion, end of.....more to it methinks

[roo27]

if all you have said is "FOLD" then no i would not see this as cheating ....... but if you had said "SORRY M8 I HAVE AA SO I'M ALL IN" that would be a difrent story

[CaptainSandy]

Turning it around.
If I were playing two players who were telling each other to fold when they had a good hand I would certainly consider it cheating.

[stevo_58]

You can say "You should fold" or "You won't beat me" or anything similar to that and it's within the rules. However it is against the rules to say what two cards you actually have. If you have AA and say "I have KK" that's legal, but you can't say "I have AA" if you have AA. Also I believe in most live games if you say what you are going to do, i.e. "I'm going all in" or "I raise" then your stated action is the action you have to take.

[MRCOOL1]

Originally Posted by stevo_58

You can say "You should fold" or "You won't beat me" or anything similar to that and it's within the rules. However it is against the rules to say what two cards you actually have. If you have AA and say "I have KK" that's legal, but you can't say "I have AA" if you have AA. Also I believe in most live games if you say what you are going to do, i.e. "I'm going all in" or "I raise" then your stated action is the action you have to take.

absolutely correct, stevo.

a point that i think has been overlooked here, however, is that we are talking about this situation on the cash sit n gos.

this means that not everyone at the table can see the message that u send to your fellow op-er. ( because of the 'chat ban' between networks )

sharing of information between selected individuals ( as opposed to the entire table ) is by definition collusion, regardless of whether or not you tell your actual hand.

the inter-network chat ban encourages collusion... actually CREATES it, if you ask me...

you cant tell me that you've sat in these games and not wondered with the play sometimes whether or not you're on the foul side of similar tactics from non-op-ers...?...

[caposilvio]

Originally Posted by bakdoorbetty

from the other players seat it would appear a tactic. to an observer it isn't conclusive.


so reading the first post....i don't think it IS collusion, end of.....more to it methinks

It may not APPEAR obvious at the time, that's why these things
can be checked retrospectively, as covered in my previous post.
I know Jack was only helping out a fellow op66er and is
not a cheat. That goes without sayin'.
But for the sake of this discussion, helping another player out
is collusion. Wether it's spotted at the time or at a later point
is irrelevant.


I think this is the 1st semi-serious discussion where some-one
did't get flamed for a response....oh well, there's still time

[bakdoorbetty]

Collusion - A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose

but but but please explain how it could be collusion if, for example, Jack types 'fold' and raises big. in the dictionary definition of collusion, copied above, there must be an agreement between 2 or more players for collusion to occur. the other OP player, i'm assuming, hasn't asked Jack for any kinda warning and must decide himself on what action to take following Jack's move.

[CaptainSandy]

Bacause it's a cash sit and go the other players cannot see him tell his OP66 mate to fold. He is giving his mate an unfair advantage. He is guilty, whether he realises it or not.

[roo27]

i think this would have to be the main point "A secret agreement" if no prveus discution has taken place then it would have to be considered table talk leaving the distions as to wether to enter the pot ... on a personal note if i was on a table with anyone i know and thay said to fold this would have no afact on wether i was to fold or not no matter how mush i respeced the player i would still make my distion on my hold cards the price of the rase and my position