Stars proactive w all-in cheat..+/- points for Stars support (long)

[dogsballs]

This is just an fyi for everyone who may be interested.

I had a blatant all-in disconnect on my 1/2 PLO game just a short while ago (HH is at bottom). Before I'd even got to the HH and reporting it to support, I get this email from Stars (PS: I aint hiding the name, cos he/she's a cheating mofo):

[ QUOTE ]

Hello [dogsballs],

Although you did not report the actions, I have been observing the play of player 6969696969 recently. After reviewing the play of this individual, I believe that the timing and nature of this player's disconnects can be deemed suspicious. While we can never be 100% certain that 6969696969 was intentionally disconnecting, these disconnects are disruptive to our games and may represent a threat to the integrity of our games. In response, I have notified this player that his or her all-in privileges are being suspended for a period of one month. Hopefully, this player will no longer suffer such numerous disconnects in the future.

The help of players like yourself is integral to maintaining the integrity of our games on PokerStars. If you see any further suspicious activity from this individual or any other player, please contact Support so that we can investigate and take action.

Thank you again for letting me be of assistance, and I hope you continue to enjoy playing at PokerStars.

Best regards,

Jacob
PokerStars Support Team


[/ QUOTE ]


Now, it's great that someone was already on this guy's case; I'm glad of that. But, a suspension of his all-in priveliges is all he gets..!!? The f*cker just cost me $148!! I wrote this in response:


[ QUOTE ]
Jacob et al,

Thank you for getting in touch, even before I contacted you. I requested the HH and was going to report this.

I don't totally understand the response though - you'll only suspend his all-ins for a month..!? Maybe I should take up his habit - since he just made $148 that way off me.

Anyway, I'm glad you're looking at it, but I say you should throw him/her off the site permanently. Bar that ID, IP address, funding accts, etc.

jmho

dogsballs


[/ QUOTE ]


So I'm in dual mode about this - I like the fact they contacted me straight off and I can see they were looking at this guy already. But what a crappy sounding response. If all you get is a one month all-in susupension, then, well, it's gotta be tempting for many who find that fact out. It obviously works when you're not suspended.

However; unless someone else at the table reported it, there must have been support personnel watching, or at least scanning the guys very recent HH's. Hey, if it was Party, I'd just as well be sending a complaint email off into outer space, instead of them contacting me first. So I'll give em some credit.

dogs

Edit: Of course proactive may not be so proactive, depending how many complaints had already been received by support about this guy.



*********** # 83 **************
PokerStars Game #530804917: Omaha Pot Limit ($1/$2) - 2004/07/08 - 00:26:22 (ET)
Table 'Jubilatrix' Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: Reel_Toy ($50 in chips)
Seat 2: plumberpat ($200 in chips)
Seat 3: Colfax ($297.15 in chips)
Seat 4: dogsballs ($180.35 in chips)
Seat 6: rjsphx ($341.20 in chips)
Seat 7: SpartanDrunk ($477.40 in chips)
Seat 8: billionaires ($37 in chips)
Seat 9: 6969696969 ($367.50 in chips)
dogsballs: posts small blind $1
GutshotJimmy: is sitting out
rjsphx: posts big blind $2
Reel_Toy: posts small blind $1
plumberpat: posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to dogsballs [5s 8h 6s 8s]
SpartanDrunk: calls $2
billionaires: folds
6969696969: raises $2 to $4
Reel_Toy: calls $4
plumberpat: folds
Colfax: calls $4
dogsballs: calls $3
rjsphx: calls $2
SpartanDrunk: raises $15 to $20
6969696969: calls $16
Reel_Toy: folds
Colfax: calls $16
dogsballs: calls $16
rjsphx: folds
*** FLOP *** [2d 8c 7d]
dogsballs: checks
SpartanDrunk: bets $20
6969696969: calls $20
Colfax: folds
dogsballs: raises $140.35 to $160.35 and is all-in
SpartanDrunk: calls $140.35
6969696969 is disconnected
6969696969 has timed out while disconnected
6969696969 is being treated as all-in
*** TURN *** [2d 8c 7d] [6c]
*** RIVER *** [2d 8c 7d 6c] [5h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
dogsballs: shows [5s 8h 6s 8s] (three of a kind, Eights)
SpartanDrunk: mucks hand
dogsballs collected $280.70 from side pot
6969696969: shows [9h As Jh Ts] (a straight, Six to Ten)
6969696969 collected $148 from main pot
6969696969 is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $431.70 Main pot $148. Side pot $280.70. | Rake $3
Board [2d 8c 7d 6c 5h]
Seat 1: Reel_Toy folded before Flop
Seat 2: plumberpat folded before Flop
Seat 3: Colfax (button) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: dogsballs (small blind) showed [5s 8h 6s 8s] and won ($280.70) with three of a kind, Eights
Seat 6: rjsphx (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: SpartanDrunk mucked [Ah Kc Jd Kh] - a pair of Kings
Seat 8: billionaires folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: 6969696969 showed [9h As Jh Ts] and won ($148) with a straight, Six to Ten

*************************

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I should take up his habit - since he just made $148 that way off me.


[/ QUOTE ]


i don't think sarcasm will get you anywhere.
i would have politely asked to be reimbursed the amount of money you are deserved in this hand because it was such an 'obvious' abuse.
i would have also tried to politely state that only revoking his all-in privleges for 1 month was not a terribly harsh punishment.

i agree that they were probably watching him because of previous reports....it probably wasn't by accident.

other than the sarcastic comment in your e-mail to stars i agree with your assessment. it's good to see stars keeping an eye on this and getting pro-active on all-in abuse. ....it's a bit bothersome that they only revoked his privileges for one month and made no mention of possibly reimbursing you.

[MicroBob]

my initial reply came without looking at the HH.
looking it over this appears to be an incredibly obvious situation where he would purposefully disconnect.

there is very little chance this is an accident.
the fact that they were watching the hand and keeping an eye on him makes that chance even less.

not sure stars would give you any reimbursement on this or not...but it's worth a try in order for you to see. they may throw you a bone to keep an honest player like you at the tables.

[Gotmilk]

Am I misreading something or did he save you money on this hand (as opposed to costing you $148)? (not that his actions are excused) -- I think he would have called you rather than fold!

[MicroBob]

he was on a straight-draw....is that a call here against two all-in's? probably +EV i suppose....but it's close enough isn't it?
with the two previous all-in's you have to assume at least one of them has trips so if the board pairs-up hitting the straight doesn't matter. and there's 2 diamonds on the flop too.


feel free to correct my ideas here...i don't play enough NL/PL nor omaha to really know what the hell i'm talking about.

[JayLeno]

I totally agree you should have "your" money back - especially if they were in to him because of previous all-in suspicious play!
But what is that for a starting hand you are playing for such a huge preflop raise - or am I missing something?

[Gotmilk]

i don't think its a call here because of the diamond draw--but he probably would call because players are bad and tend to call here! not many players are going to fold a wrap straight draw ever. its tough to turn down the pot odds!

[Oblomov]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I misreading something or did he save you money on this hand (as opposed to costing you $148)? (not that his actions are excused) -- I think he would have called you rather than fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

The very fact that he went all-in proves that he was afraid to risk more money on a call.

I wonder if this sort of abuse is the reason that the cryptologic sites (Intercasino poker, Pokerplex, etc.) have suspended (or abolished) the all-in. Because some weeks ago the number of all-ins I had left was suddenly reduced to zero, when in fact I hadn’t been all-in at all. From what I’ve heard at the tables it’s the same for everybody else: zero all-inns and the “reset all-ins” button no longer working. Personally I don’t mind, as I’ve seen plenty of dodgy all-ins at Intercasino.

At Pokerstars anyone who has a decent and stable internet connection is best of playing the no all-in tables.

[crockpot]

is it me or is anyone else lining up to get into a game with SpartanDrunk rather than comment on stars' support team?

[Gotmilk]

[ QUOTE ]
is it me or is anyone else lining up to get into a game with SpartanDrunk rather than comment on stars' support team?

[/ QUOTE ]

amen brotha

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
But what is that for a starting hand you are playing for such a huge preflop raise - or am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know my hand was no great shakes and poor position, but it can hit a flop, and it wasn't such a huge preflop raise to call - there's plenty money still behind. Plus I know I can make $$ postflop vs these guys...as you saw, I got paid off by the overpair that missed.

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I misreading something or did he save you money on this hand (as opposed to costing you $148)? (not that his actions are excused) -- I think he would have called you rather than fold!

[/ QUOTE ]


He didn't want to call - of course, because that's why he disconnected all-in.

Any decent player would definitely not call here with his straight draw vs the likely set and the diamond draw out as well.

ergo, he cost me money.

[Gotmilk]

I don't know, SpartanDrunk is particularly horrible. If I had that read on him I'd be pretty quick to put him on aces, and if he had the nut flush draw with aces he'd want to raise in case you just had top two or something to get more outs with his aces. The call looks like a weak dry aces type call (turned out to be dry kings). The pot is laying very good odds at this point (big enough it's barely a mistake to have a wrap draw vs flush draw vs trips--its ugly but if there is any chance that a straight would be good its a call/raise). I think I'd pitch the wrap draw, but I think that a very very high percentage of players would call, and I'm not sure how HUGE a mistake it really is. He saved you money im 95% sure by using his all in protection (I think he would call given the alternative).

[NJchick]

I've played with you before and your hand SCREAMS set. Of course there's nothing you can do about the all in abuse. It would be interesting to see if that cheat actually continues to play now that his all in prividges has been taken away (for a month at least).

Tough loss for you in the meantime. Sorry to hear that PS can't at least refund your money or compensate you in some other way.


Also what was going through your head preflop playing 5586 w/ 3 spades???? I know you are in the SB but that's an automatic fold unless you wanted to gamble it up.

NJC

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
I know my hand was no great shakes and poor position, but it can hit a flop, and it wasn't such a huge preflop raise to call - there's plenty money still behind. Plus I know I can make $$ postflop vs these guys...as you saw, I got paid off by the overpair that missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

PLO is not my strong suit, so to speak, but...

This looks like a clear fold preflop.

Especially against players who will abuse the allin feature. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[Baulucky]

[ QUOTE ]
This looks like a clear fold preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Especially if I'm not happening to be wearing my Pokerstars Tan hat, which is better than the Black hat. Much better.

[dogsballs]

5688 is not junk. It can hit a lot of flops. The 3 spades are fairly irrelevant; that's not where the real value is.

It's +EV here, with players who pay me off and have indicated possible big stuff; I only needed to call $16, with $160+ behind, vs pay-off merchants with big stacks. And I don't mind if it screams set with my betting on the flop; it doesn't really matter by then. I've got a bunch of their chips in the middle and myself all-in. Up to them whether they want to take their chances against that set.

[dogsballs]

He only has 9 clean outs to hit and also needs the flush to miss and the board not to pair with the other board card. Pot is 430, and it's 140 to the scumbag...odds of approx 3-1. But he's only about 4-1 to win vs some plausible hands out against him. You could tweak the hands to make his odds better - if you feel like engineering yourself a more rosy situation...


Result
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=388506
pokenum -o 8h 8s tc jd - ac ad 4d 7h - 9h as jh ts -- 2d 8c 7d
Omaha Hi: 666 enumerated boards containing 8c 7d 2d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
8s Tc Jd 8h 314 47.15 308 46.25 44 6.61 0.505
Ac Ad 4d 7h 201 30.18 465 69.82 0 0.00 0.302
As Ts Jh 9h 107 16.07 515 77.33 44 6.61 0.194

[dogsballs]

Just to follow up on teh all-in cheater.

I ws scouting the plo games and came across the guy, so I gave him some flak in the chat. A nother player asked if it was true that he'd cheated. The player said, yes, he had cheated - he said that after having it done to him a few times, he decided to abuse the all-ins himself.

I reported his admission to support and they refunded me my $148 and have banned him until he funds his account sufficient to refund them that amount.

So, I guess he's not totally banned, but I assume he has his all-in status permanently removed.

[MicroBob]

interesting conclusion to your little tale.

he comes clean and admits it and now owes $148. hilarious.

good for you for dragging it out of him.

normally i would advise against 'pointless' table-chat like this....but $148 certainly makes it a +EV play.


even more EV considering there was probably a good chance he would have called anyway as we discussed earlier (whether correct or not).


thanks for the follow-up. i was wondering if anything more happened with this.

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
he comes clean and admits it and now owes $148. hilarious

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah, this is the bit that leaves a funny taste in your mouth. Owning up cost him the 148...hmmmmm.

[Grivan]

There is a reason all lawyers will tell you not to talk to police about anything unless they are present.