Defining Collusion and the Ethics of Info Sharing

The word “collusion” gets used by a lot of forumites in different ways, some of which I don’t personally agree with. For example, at least one member of the forum refers to all information sharing as “collusion.” I list below several situations in which information is shared or collaboration occurs, and ask the forum: Which of these do you consider to be “Collusion”? Are some cases “Unethical but something other than collusion?” In which cases are the player’s actions ethical and “fair game”?

1. Online poker, Texas Hold’em. A husband and wife sit at the same online table and share information about their 2-card poker hands whenever one of them folds and the other stays in – either by being physically in the same room or by Skyping (or doing the equivalent.) They don’t coordinate their betting so as to drive other players out of a hand - just share info on the cards in their hands.

2. End stage of a Texas Hold’em tournament. Three players remain –one short stack and two big stacks. The short stack goes all in and both big stacks call. The two big stacks make no further bets to increase their chances of either big stack eliminating the small stack, thus assuring 2nd place prize money. There is no explicit discussion between the big stacks about this strategy.

3. Pai Gow Poker. A Chinese-American woman whose 1st language is Cantonese sits down at a PGP table in which all other players are Asian/Chinese-American. The woman has never met any of the other players before this moment. When a hand is dealt, she and the other players begin to chat in Cantonese and ask each other about whether the joker and Aces are busy (are in each other hands), with the objective of arranging their Front and Back Hands differently, depending upon which cards are “hidden.”

4. Pai Gow Poker. At a highly social table, players freely show each other their hands and exclaim about their holdings, and saying “Wow!” or “Good Luck” or flamboyantly squeezing their seventh card, hoping that it completes a straight. Everyone is laughing and the dealer clearly is tolerant of the behavior. However, one of the players is an expert PGP player and uses the info in other player’s hands to alter some of his decisions.

5. Three Card Poker (or equivalent table game). When dealt his cards, a player deliberately holds his hand down low and away from his body so that other players can see his cards –and, by example, encouraging other players to do the same. He peeks at the cards in other players’ hands and uses the info to alter his decisions.

6. Blackjack. A Dealer is sexually attracted to an expert player* at his/her table. Dealer starts to alter the period of time in which he/she looks at the hole card with a TEN showing -looking slightly longer when it is a 2-9 and shorter when it is a face or ten. The observant player notices this and without any discussion between player and dealer, she/he begins to alter HIT/STAND decisions to reflect this information.

* I realize that case 6 is a bit of a fantasy – because it involves an AP who is sexually attractive. Nonetheless, please suspend your disbelief and go with it.

7. An AP notices whenever the blackjack dealer peeks at their cards and has a favorable hand, they break open an oreo cookie. Realizing this is a tell for when they are about to win, they bet accordingly.

My takes on these....

1. Unethical / cheating
2. Fair Game, this type of play is common in NLHE and is considered proper play with positive EV.
3. Unethical. I assume that this is an English speaking Casino? Dealer or pit boss should order English only at the table.
4. Unethical, however it is being tolerated by the house. If I were the expert PGP player, I would continue to play and I'd sit there and use the information given. In the example above, we don't know if it's being tolerated by the house, because the dealer wouldn't know what is being discussed.
5. Unethical
6. Fair Game as long as this wasn't an agreed upon strategy.

Quote: darkoz

7. An AP notices whenever the blackjack dealer peeks at their cards and has a favorable hand, they break open an oreo cookie. Realizing this is a tell for when they are about to win, they bet accordingly.

Lol rounders

1- While such info will rarely affect the remaining spouse's decision, it IS colusion.

2- This is very common practice, so much so that it is written into many poker tournament books. It's strategy, not colusion.

3, 4, 5- They're all forms of colusion, but if the dealer/floor doesn't stop it, why not?

6- I'm not sure how/why the sexual acctractiveness applies, but if you remove that part, it is NOT cheating. It's just being observant the same way a poker player looks for tells in other players. The dealer has a tell? Exploit it!

On a somewhat related note, I once read in the Mohegan Sun Poker Rules that if the player next to you is sloppy about the way they are peeking at their cards and you can see them, you are under no obligation to say anything or to look away when he peeks.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

On a somewhat related note, I once read in the Mohegan Sun Poker Rules that if the player next to you is sloppy about the way they are peeking at their cards and you can see them, you are under no obligation to say anything or to look away when he peeks.

That's because the casino has no risk in that hand... they don't care!

Now on the BJ tables.... different story.

Interesting thread.

I can't comment on 1-5. I don't play or even know much about any of those games.

#6. My first though was, collusion no....wrong yes, because their was no mention of monetary gain by dealer and I always tend to lump collusion and bribery together as in tipping in order something like better penetration or even to see hole card.

But, your post made me look up 'collusion'. "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." Based on that definition, I would have to say YES.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

6- I'm not sure how/why the sexual acctractiveness applies, but if you remove that part, it is NOT cheating. It's just being observant the same way a poker player looks for tells in other players. The dealer has a tell? Exploit it!

On a somewhat related note, I once read in the Mohegan Sun Poker Rules that if the player next to you is sloppy about the way they are peeking at their cards and you can see them, you are under no obligation to say anything or to look away when he peeks.

I disagree on #6. If a casino employee is clearly trying to help you and you take advantage, I think it crosses the line into cheating. If you prearranged with a dealer to do this it would definitely be cheating. I think the intent of the dealer is the key factor. It's similar to a holecarding example. If a sloppy dealer flashes hole cards I would not consider it cheating or unethical to use that info. If you arranged with the dealer beforehand to intentionally flash hole cards then I would consider that unethical and cheating. I am also pretty sure it would be a crime in some jurisdictions. If I were in any situation where it became clear that a dealer was intentionally violating procedures to give me an advantage, I would be uncomfortable exploiting it.

On the poker issue, I agree it's not cheating to use your view of a sloppy player's cards to your advantage. However, many players consider it proper etiquette to give a single warning in that situation.

You are in a casino, not a dictionary and not a court room or a classroom.

the casino has to deal with little old ladies from Peoria who chatter non stop, the casino has to deal with innocent use of a foreign language as well as malicious use of it.

tournaments? read the rules packet.

collusion? speak english. every card exposed must be exposed to all, any word uttered must be heard by all.

You do not run the casino, the suits do. speak to them to complain or comment but otherwise place your bets.

Here is my take on the six examples I gave were:

1. Collusion and unfair to other players. Hubby and wife can see 4% more of the deck than anyone else. Ex: If flop comes with 2 diamonds, it helps hubby to know that wife folded 2 diamonds.

2. Definitely not collusion. Both players are simply acting out of their own perceived self-interest. Some announcers and authors refer to this as passive collusion but i dislike that term.

3. Collusion of a sort, but not legally actionable collusion - the Chinese woman did not conspire to collude with others. This is opportunistic collusion with strangers.

4. Not collusion, instead this is fair game, IMO. The House is allowing people to be social and show their hands to each other (I have done this and it is a great part of the fun of Pai Gow Poker - the social aspect, which entails people not treating their hands as if they are guarding nuclear bomb secrets.) Heck, we're playing against a 2.7% house edge - at least let us talk to each other and enjoy ourselves.

5. Peeking at other peoples hand is not collusion. No one is sharing information - this player is being observant.

6. The player is not colluding but the dealer risks getting fired and the player risks getting banned if the security goons start to notice a strange pattern of betting by player X at dealer Y's table.

A special, select few, dealers will count the aces for you in PGP. Every dealer that has done this has been an excellent dealer, as in the floor trusted them to set their hands so they weren't being babysat.

1, 6: Cheating
2: This is just how poker tournaments are supposed to be played. As long as the behavior happens naturally, without discussion, it is part of the game.
3, 4: It is the dealer's job to police his game. If he is going to allow sharing of information, then have it.
5: This is a little worse than 3 and 4, because there is an effort to disguise the collusion. This I would call a mild form of ethical cheating. If you're going to share information, do it openly or don't do it at all.

Quote: Wizard

1, 6: Cheating
2: This is just how poker tournaments are supposed to be played. As long as the behavior happens naturally, without discussion, it is part of the game.
3, 4: It is the dealer's job to police his game. If he is going to allow sharing of information, then have it.
5: This is a little worse than 3 and 4, because there is an effort to disguise the collusion. This I would call a mild form of ethical cheating. If you're going to share information, do it openly or don't do it at all.

This is exactly how I would have answered, so I'll collude with the Wizard. Lazy, yes. But shorter to read. :)

#5 Works pretty good at MS Stud. Unless a smoker, I will sit next to as many as possible, and peek!