I was playing in an very cheap ($8 dollar buy-in, 32 players, first prize: iPod) tournament yesterday. I was at a table with a few guys who played with each other regularly. Players A and B were obviously friends and had discussed hands several times already during play. I’m new to the game, so I let that go. However, during one hand, player A folded his hand immediately. Player B (who was still in the hand) then showed A what he was holding. I immediately objected to this. A and B saw no problem, however, and no one else at the table backed me up.
The question is this: can they do that? It sounds like collusion to me, which was clearly stated to result in disqualification. Should I have protested more strenuously, or is it not really a big deal?
I think the OP is saying that the player that was in the hand showed the player who folded what currently is in Player B’s (the live player’s) hand. So it wasn’t “show one, show all.”
Is that right?
If so, then I would say that’s definitely against poker etiquette.
I’m relatively inexperienced at poker, but I would say that yes, it is a serious breach of etiquette at the least. You are supposed to play your hand on your own, without anyone helping you. In a recent cash game, someone showed their hand to a friend and was immediately told by the dealer that they woudl have to fold as this was not allowed.
I think I would have argued this on principle, even if I felt any advice given would be beneficial to me.
I would also object. I hate that shit, I hate people fishing their cards out of the muck after the flop, I hate all that. If A wants to know what B has, then B can wait until the hand is over to show. And if he shows B, he shows everyone at the table.
Well, “advice” is a broad concept. Player A can nod sagely (i.e. “good hand, go for it”) or raise an eyebrow (i.e. “are you insane? toss 'em!”) and thus express an opinion without saying a word. Better to avoid the argument and let A wait.
This is exactly what happened. My OP should have been clearer. A saw B’s hand, while B’s hand was still “live” and B fully intended to keep it live. This was the source of my objection, since A and B both knew what B had while B was playing a hand. And A advised B on how to bet it. Isn’t this the testbook example of collusion? Especially since it confused the hell out of me and made me fold?
That is absolutely collusion. One player to a hand is an ironclad rule. You should have objected to the dealer (if there was a dealer) and if the dealer didn’t back you up, escalate it to a floor person. If A gave B advice on how to play the hand, B’s hand should have been killed and A and B should have been given a time penalty.
Just to show another reason why it’s dangerous, is that player A (who folded) has additional information (the two cards that he folded) that he can use in evaluating Player B’s hand along with the community cards. It’s clearly an unfair advantage for Player B to take advice from Player A.