Live tournament - was this soft play or collusion?

I've got a scenerio that i want to know how the best way to play the hand.

3 players left in the tournament.
Player 1 short stack goes all in pre flop.
Player 2 and 3 call.
Flop
Player 2 checks.
Player 3 checks.
Turn.
Player 2 bets the pot.
Player 3 upset and says player 2 should check the hand to the end. Player 3 calls.
River
Player 2 bets again (theory to force player 3 to fold.) Player 2 believes he has a good hand
Player 3 very upset how player 2 plays and folds while yelling and saying the books say to check to through.

QUESTION: IS PLAYER 2 WRONG TO PLAY THIS WAY?
OR, IS PLAYER 3 CORRECT AND PLAYER 2 SHOULD HAVE CHECKED THROUGH.?

Player 2 won the entire pot.

There is no colusion allowed in poker. What you are suggesting is that techically collusion. Its soft play, as you are saying the 2 players with chips 'should' check through and therefore have a better chance to knock the other player out. I play my game, and you play yours, there is no 'SHOULD' in poker ever!!

Its pretty clear that player 3 is you, unless you were playing live.

If I'm player 2 and I have AK, hit my A then I'm value betting you, why would I not do this, that is literally the game of poker. I want you to call, if you have better and do call, then so be it.

I will especially do that if I think it will upset and tilt you, and make you call off chips now or later. We have to play heads up in 1 hand!!

Another scenario, since you haven't given chip stacks etc. If player 2 is the big stack and player 3 medium stack, and is feeling ICM pressure, due to the short stack, I can put pressure on you and hopefully put dents in your stack before heads up, therefore it maybe doesn't even benefit the big stack to KO player 1!

SpanRmonka said:

There is no colusion allowed in poker. What you are suggesting is that techically collusion. Its soft play, as you are saying the 2 players with chips 'should' check through and therefore have a better chance to knock the other player out. I play my game, and you play yours, there is no 'SHOULD' in poker ever!!

Its pretty clear that player 3 is you, unless you were playing live.

If I'm player 2 and I have AK, hit my A then I'm value betting you, why would I not do this, that is literally the game of poker. I want you to call, if you have better and do call, then so be it.

I will especially do that if I think it will upset and tilt you, and make you call off chips now or later. We have to play heads up in 1 hand!!

Another scenario, since you haven't given chip stacks etc. If player 2 is the big stack and player 3 medium stack, and is feeling ICM pressure, due to the short stack, I can put pressure on you and hopefully put dents in your stack before heads up, therefore it maybe doesn't even benefit the big stack to KO player 1!

Click to expand...

NOPE.....my husband was player 2. Player 3 is a former dealer at a casino and gets mad all the time. lol This scenerio is just an example.

JMMJ0604 said:

I've got a scenerio that i want to know how the best way to play the hand.

3 players left in the tournament.
Player 1 short stack goes all in pre flop.
Player 2 and 3 call.
Flop
Player 2 checks.
Player 3 checks.
Turn.
Player 2 bets the pot.
Player 3 upset and says player 2 should check the hand to the end. Player 3 calls.
River
Player 2 bets again (theory to force player 3 to fold.) Player 2 believes he has a good hand
Player 3 very upset how player 2 plays and folds while yelling and saying the books say to check to through.

QUESTION: IS PLAYER 2 WRONG TO PLAY THIS WAY?
OR, IS PLAYER 3 CORRECT AND PLAYER 2 SHOULD HAVE CHECKED THROUGH.?

Player 2 won the entire pot.

Click to expand...

There are several important factors that you have not taken into account in your scenario. Namely, the pocket card, the position of the players at the table, and the playing style of your opponents. Without taking these factors into account, it will be much more difficult to make the right decision. What you are suggesting is called a game of bingo

It hard to action depend on your mind

JMMJ0604 said:

NOPE.....my husband was player 2. Player 3 is a former dealer at a casino and gets mad all the time. lol This scenerio is just an example.

Click to expand...

As I said, unless it was live,.......which you just conformed it was.....the rest of my point still stands, the play by player 2 is fully justified.

I do not see the reason for player 2 to play in a way player 3 had imagined.

It.’s every man for himself. Player two played how he felt was best for him.

.... there is some truth to not doubling up a short stack by betting absolute air,

after all 2 players are better able to hit a hand that takes the short stack out,

that's pretty standard tournament play...... but if you have a hand and are

playing the other player by all means bet your hand,

ignore angry players, play your game😎

Youre hoping the other big stack has a idea of how to play and discipline to fold a few hands instead of building the short stack back up.

the other player if they get involved in the hand has to expect to play for all of their chips and that its not played soft.

That means having more discipline.

I get the checking down but thats not what some players are thinking and the other player has to show some discipline.

So you can see if they can get rid of the shortstack or you can forget about the pay bump because you already have 3rd locked up and go after the other big stack because theyre clueless.

i know giving the shortstack 2nd isnt ideal and you should give them a chance to get knocked out but again if the other big stack is clueless then you have to decide.

youll see that all day long in daily low buyins live and low buy online tourns.

its as common as the watching someone shoving or willing to go all in preflop with q9o when blinds are nil in the opening of a freeroll.

its just what ppl do whethere its a $200 daily at the casino or playchip table lol.

collusion? no just bad play with another mediocre player not being able to recognize theyre playing against a "certain type" of player, is the nice way to put it and mad they more than likely have the hand won and willing to enter a nl pot against another player but not the conviction that it is the winner. hmm.

There is no point in bluffing or betting a draw, when you need to beat the all-in player at showdown, and you also dont want to bet an in between hand like bottom pair or ace high. So if both players with chips behind have weak hands, they should check to increase the chance to knock out the all-in player. But if one of them have a strong hand like top pair and bet it, then the other big stack should just fold and hope, that the short stack bust. And its definitely against the rules to suggest openly, what another player should do, so player 3 is in the wrong here and should receive a penalty or at least a warning.

The smart play is checking it down hoping one of you beat the all-in player for the pay jump. Unless you're the player with the complete stone cold nuts of course. Then the job is to get max value.

Nothing wrong with how player 2 played it other then it just wasn't the smartest play in my opinion.

Cheers!!!

JMMJ0604 said:

I've got a scenerio that i want to know how the best way to play the hand.

3 players left in the tournament.
Player 1 short stack goes all in pre flop.
Player 2 and 3 call.
Flop
Player 2 checks.
Player 3 checks.
Turn.
Player 2 bets the pot.
Player 3 upset and says player 2 should check the hand to the end. Player 3 calls.
River
Player 2 bets again (theory to force player 3 to fold.) Player 2 believes he has a good hand
Player 3 very upset how player 2 plays and folds while yelling and saying the books say to check to through.

QUESTION: IS PLAYER 2 WRONG TO PLAY THIS WAY?
OR, IS PLAYER 3 CORRECT AND PLAYER 2 SHOULD HAVE CHECKED THROUGH.?

Player 2 won the entire pot.

Click to expand...

The only way checking down is correct is if this is a 2 seat satty--in that case it benefits you- if you do not have the nuts--- to check it down to win the seat.

The issue of you and your husband being 2 of the 3 is the other player may believe you are trying to increase your husbands' chances of not busting by getting him to fold.

If you were to show a weak holding and your husband won the hand- I being the third player would call the floor and have you penalized for collusion.

take notes on who bets when taking someone out and who doesnt.

Because player 3 vocalises theory due to being upset at player 2's decisions is not collusion, he's just upset it never went the way he'd like.

Collusion would be if they both agreed to check it down to just see if they knock him out, but collusion can be in many forms, i just don't think this is that.