Checking it down

[FLUX_13]

Final table down to 3 players

Player B tries to verbally get player C to "check it down" with the hope of eliminating player A who was all-in with about 4,000 in chips. Player B gets the full explanation that is not allowed and is warned that is "collusion." The offended player A says "don't worry about it, just let it go." No penalty is given but a warning is given. Player C  is aware that he should be checking it down. In that hand neither B or C had a hand worth betting. Player A did win the hand. Player  A folds the next two hands and is now the big blind again and all-in.

Approximate chip count
player A  Short stack 10,000  player B  95,000   player C  225,000

A is big blind and is all-in,   B calls and gives a "look" (possibly a wink but not seen by dealer or director) to player C without saying anything. Player C calls.  Flop is 2 hearts and face card. Player A says "oh well I am cooked" or something to that effect letting the others know he is beat already. B and C both insta-check. It has all the ingredients of "checking it down" . Turn is another heart. B checks and C has hit a flush but is willing to continue the check it down, which is what B wants. River pairs the board and B now catches a full house!  B now says "all-in".  C has a fit and says you gave me a wink and wanted me to check it down, WTF is this S#@%. He says I hit a flush on the turn, I could have bet big and you would have folded! You lousy @#$% *&&.   Player A is eliminated and is happy with 3rd place money.   Maybe because Player B now realizes he has been ratted out he says O.K. you get First Place  I resign and I will take second.    After some more heated words that is how it ended.   It looked like collusion with an ugly twist. Seeing that this was the last hand could anything have been done with the payouts?   First 1500 second 900 third 600. In my opinion the biggest offender was B.  A seemed to go along with it until it turned ugly. It seemed obvious but was it really proven there was collusion the second time? If you chopped it 3 ways, 1000 each then B actually gets more than he did by taking second.

[William]

There was proven collusion. Player A should win the pot, and Players B and C get at least a one round penalty, which you could speed up by having both Players B and C pay Player A the required blinds and antes.

Players B and C are warned that if they are ever found cheating again there will be serious repercussions.

If this had happened before, or you want a more serious punishment, disqualify Players B and C. Player A gets 1st place, and 2nd and 3rd are paid to the players who busted out in 4th and 5th.

[Martini]

There was proven collusion. Player A should win the pot, and Players B and C get at least a one round penalty, which you could speed up by having both Players B and C pay Player A the required blinds and antes.

Players B and C are warned that if they are ever found cheating again there will be serious repercussions.

If this had happened before, or you want a more serious punishment, disqualify Players B and C. Player A gets 1st place, and 2nd and 3rd are paid to the players who busted out in 4th and 5th.

I would even go so far as to say that they *were* warned already three hands earlier and their second infraction would be enough to disqualify them. I have nothing wrong with them each *independently* deciding to check it down but their idiocy in calling themselves out alone deserves punishment.

And assuming that the top five paid out, wouldn't 1st place get a portion of 2nd and 3rd's payouts if they got eliminated? I think I'd convert the tourney to a top three payout and give 1st, 4th, and 5th those payouts.

[William]

And assuming that the top five paid out, wouldn't 1st place get a portion of 2nd and 3rd's payouts if they got eliminated? I think I'd convert the tourney to a top three payout and give 1st, 4th, and 5th those payouts.

If there were 5 payouts the payouts should move down the line. You should consider the disqualified players as the first players to have been eliminated. So player A wins 1st place. 4th place now gets 2nd place prizemoney, 5th gets 3rd, 6th gets 4th, and 7th gets 5th.

At least, that's how I would handle it.

I don't think disqualifications should be dished out lightly though. They were warned, and a penalty should suffice in this instance. Even RRoP considers this more a breach of procedures than cheating/collusion.

[Martini]

And assuming that the top five paid out, wouldn't 1st place get a portion of 2nd and 3rd's payouts if they got eliminated? I think I'd convert the tourney to a top three payout and give 1st, 4th, and 5th those payouts.

If there were 5 payouts the payouts should move down the line. You should consider the disqualified players as the first players to have been eliminated. So player A wins 1st place. 4th place now gets 2nd place prizemoney, 5th gets 3rd, 6th gets 4th, and 7th gets 5th.

At least, that's how I would handle it.

I don't think disqualifications should be dished out lightly though. They were warned, and a penalty should suffice in this instance. Even RRoP considers this more a breach of procedures than cheating/collusion.

I misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were talking about distributing 2nd and 3rd money in addition to 4th and 5th, not moving down the line. I see what you're saying now and would agree with that.